China: World’s first model of the Transit Explore Bus unveiled

[Red Wolf]

The bus is not run on a tram system so the rest is pretty nonsense.

A bus doesn't require specialized tracks. This does. Try to keep up.


The bus, powered in part by solar energy, would run on tracks, carrying up to 1,200 passengers in raised compartments that can glide over the traffic below. Critics at the time it was first unveiled questioned whether the hovering bus could interact safely with other vehicles. They also argued that the tracks would require relatively straight roads not found in many older urban areas, and that the overhead boarding stations that the bus needed would take up too much space.

Source: New York Times

 

[xunzi]

A bus doesn't require specialized tracks. This does. Try to keep up.


The bus, powered in part by solar energy, would run on tracks, carrying up to 1,200 passengers in raised compartments that can glide over the traffic below. Critics at the time it was first unveiled questioned whether the hovering bus could interact safely with other vehicles. They also argued that the tracks would require relatively straight roads not found in many older urban areas, and that the overhead boarding stations that the bus needed would take up too much space.

Source: New York Times

I see where you are coming from. You are worrying about the track being unsafe?

 

[Red Wolf]

I see where you are coming from. You are worrying about the track being unsafe?

The problem isn't the track. The problem is combining two very different things, i.e., a road network and a mass transit system.

• A road network is designed to be as broad as possible, not necessarily efficient. Ergo, a complementary transit bus system (public bus service that shares lane with other commuters) or a bus rapid transit system (public bus service on a dedicated lane) is added to the overall public transport system. Because the goal is to be board, bus transport solutions don't scale well which leads us to mass transit.
• Mass transit systems, such as underground subways or surface railways, are designed to be efficient partly due to cost but primarily because their goal is to connect population hubs.

The pitch of the elevated bus system is that it can solve congestion in urban areas by combining mass transit (no need to build subways) and rapid bus transit with a mixed-use philosophy of the road network. So how do you become efficient (mass transit) on something that is designed to be inefficient (road network)?

Where does trams, or streetcars, fit in all this? Well, the argument for trams is they use existing infrastructure, i.e, mixed-use of the road network. However, trams have a terrible safety record. This isn't because they are an unsafe method of tranport but because they share the road with crazy commuters. Hence, city planners prefer bus rapid transit systems with their own bus lanes so they can ensure passenger and commuter safety.

I understand that China has to think big because it has a billion people so in that context elevated bus is a clever idea but I have my doubts because I know trams have a terrible safety record and the underlying philosophy (mass transit vs road network) is totally different.

Here's a compilation of tram accidents, in almost all the cases the accident is the fault of the commuter:

P.S. Cable cars are taking Latin America by storm, if you're interested in low-cost or innovative public transit systems. Skip to 7:15:

 

[Jlaw]

wow, they really build it. i thought it just concept like many other concepts that we've seen that will never materialized

that's usually something from other countries. I'm still waiting for my 1980s kitchen with robots, etc serving me from clips from the 50s

 

[xunzi]

The problem isn't the track. The problem is combining two very different things, i.e., a road network and a mass transit system.

• A road network is designed to be as broad as possible, not necessarily efficient. Ergo, a complementary transit bus system (public bus service that shares lane with other commuters) or a bus rapid transit system (public bus service on a dedicated lane) is added to the overall public transport system. Because the goal is to be board, bus transport solutions don't scale well which leads us to mass transit.
• Mass transit systems, such as underground subways or surface railways, are designed to be efficient partly due to cost but primarily because their goal is to connect population hubs.

The pitch of the elevated bus system is that it can solve congestion in urban areas by combining mass transit (no need to build subways) and rapid bus transit with a mixed-use philosophy of the road network. So how do you become efficient (mass transit) on something that is designed to be inefficient (road network)?

Where does trams, or streetcars, fit in all this? Well, the argument for trams is they use existing infrastructure, i.e, mixed-use of the road network. However, trams have a terrible safety record. This isn't because they are an unsafe method of tranport but because they share the road with crazy commuters. Hence, city planners prefer bus rapid transit systems with their own bus lanes so they can ensure passenger and commuter safety.

I understand that China has to think big because it has a billion people so in that context elevated bus is a clever idea but I have my doubts because I know trams have a terrible safety record and the underlying philosophy (mass transit vs road network) is totally different.

Here's a compilation of tram accidents, in almost all the cases the accident is the fault of the commuter:

P.S. Cable cars are taking Latin America by storm, if you're interested in low-cost or innovative public transit systems. Skip to 7:15:

You miss the whole point of elevated bus system.

If your concern is road rage, drunk driver, or traffic violator, that can be applied to any current transportation, including the current bus system. That problem doesn't stop the current bus transportation system so I fail to see your points there. Traffic accident will occur but it won't be a result of the tram system as outline by the video for the simple fact, that old tram system is not the same as this one.

Again, the efficiency of elevated bus system is the ability to continue ongoing movement without subject to traffic congestion. This is why the current bus system is not optimal for big city. Do you understand this point? As for making a separate lane for bus, who is to say that road rage won't comply and change lane into a bus? I see that happening many times. Though it is still rare. Also having a separated bus lane mean you have to reconfigure and redesign all city infrastructure. That means more cost.

Cable car is not feasible for city system. Why you ask? The inconvenient of getting in and out. Not to mention, dealing with weather and the possibility of mishap that can cause insuperable damage.

 

[Solomon2]

It's a super-cool ideal. Hats off to China for having the guts to try it out.

 

[Red Wolf]

You miss the whole point of elevated bus system.

Elevated bus is simply based on a flawed system.

If your concern is road rage, drunk driver, or traffic violator, that can be applied to any current transportation, including the current bus system. That problem doesn't stop the current bus transportation system so I fail to see your points there. Traffic accident will occur but it won't be a result of the tram system as outline by the video for the simple fact, that old tram system is not the same as this one.

Buses are designed for road networks. They have more maneuverability and better braking response time. Anything using tracks lacks maneuverability and such transport system in urban settings are prone to accidents. As mentioned previously, trams are 12 times more prone to be involved in an accident than a car.

Again, the efficiency of elevated bus system is the ability to continue ongoing movement without subject to traffic congestion. This is why the current bus system is not optimal for big city. Do you understand this point? As for making a separate lane for bus, who is to say that road rage won't comply and change lane into a bus? I see that happening many times. Though it is still rare. Also having a separated bus lane mean you have to reconfigure and redesign all city infrastructure. That means more cost.

Again, a bus system, be it rapid transit or otherwise, doesn't scale. It doesn't scale because its based on the road network which is designed to be broad, not efficient. For example, in your own lifetime, you won't visit or use majority of China's road network.

I mentioned various concepts so we are on the same page. They were not suggestions.

If cost is the primary concern, there is bi-articulated bus. Considering track-based systems in urban areas have a poor safety record, elevated buses on tracks will make congestion worse.

Cable car is not feasible for city system. Why you ask? The inconvenient of getting in and out. Not to mention, dealing with weather and the possibility of mishap that can cause insuperable damage.

Nowhere did I suggest that cable cars can be a solution for China. They are not. I mentioned it for your intrigue. Though its amusing you think cable cars are "inconvenient of getting in and out" and "dealing with weather and the possibility of mishap that can cause insuperable damage", when the elevated bus system have exactly the same problems.

 

[xunzi]

Elevated bus is simply based on a flawed system.

It can't be a flawed system when its main purpose is to address traffic. Any other features are secondary.

Buses are designed for road networks. They have more maneuverability and better braking response time. Anything using tracks lacks maneuverability and such transport system in urban settings are prone to accidents. As mentioned previously, trams are 12 times more prone to be involved in an accident than a car.

Not really. All bus systems are run on a schedule path. Bus driver don't take turn, change lane, or take shortcut on the road. The maneuverability aspect on the traditional bus is for tourism where it can utilized that feature in a non-city setting. The public bus transportation is different in that regard. The mentioned 12x more prone accident can be attributed to underdeveloped road regulation and poor design of the city road system.

Again, a bus system, be it rapid transit or otherwise, doesn't scale. It doesn't scale because its based on the road network which is designed to be broad, not efficient. For example, in your own lifetime, you won't visit or use majority of China's road network.

I mentioned various concepts so we are on the same page. They were not suggestions.

If cost is the primary concern, there is bi-articulated bus. Considering track-based systems in urban areas have a poor safety record, elevated buses on tracks will make congestion worse.

Once again, the elevated bus system is not intend for lowering or preventing road accident. The designer main focus is to find a medium between keeping safety at acceptable level and helping traffic jam. The easy of transporting people, getting in and out, and be able to move nonstop are the main features of efficiency.

Once again, all of your suggestions don't fit the bill for dealing with traffic nor the convenience of using such systems. Congestion is only bad if the elevated bus involves in a major accident that force the bus to stop functioning. For that to happening, it takes a collision between elevated bus and a 18-wheels truck. The possibility of that happening is around the same as a train collision.

Nowhere did I suggest that cable cars can be a solution for China. They are not. I mentioned it for your intrigue. Though its amusing you think cable cars are "inconvenient of getting in and out" and "dealing with weather and the possibility of mishap that can cause insuperable damage", when the elevated bus system have exactly the same problems.

Please take time to research and watch how elevated bus operates. The ease of getting in and out while traffic is running is one of its main feature. The idea of that is very simple. An elevated bus will hover over the top of a car, stop and collect passenger. The cars below will continue to move as normal. The bus then start and move on without subject to yielding the car below. That is what we are excited about the traffic solution.

 

[rott]

Why argue over it. Just put it to test and see what happens.

 

[Red Wolf]

It can't be a flawed system when its main purpose is to address traffic. Any other features are secondary.

Building a solution on a known accident-prone transport system, trams, to address traffic, when it will make it worse, is the text-book example of a flawed system.

Not really. All bus systems are run on a schedule path. Bus driver don't take turn, change lane, or take shortcut on the road. The maneuverability aspect on the traditional bus is for tourism where it can utilized that feature in a non-city setting. The public bus transportation is different in that regard. The mentioned 12x more prone accident can be attributed to underdeveloped road regulation and poor design of the city road system.

The research comes out of Netherlands based on tram usage in urban areas. Netherlands doesn't suffer from "underdeveloped road regulation and poor design of the city road system."

Bus drivers don't take turn? Observe Seattle Metro.

China:

Once again, the elevated bus system is not intend for lowering or preventing road accident. The designer main focus is to find a medium between keeping safety at acceptable level and helping traffic jam. The easy of transporting people, getting in and out, and be able to move nonstop are the main features of efficiency.

Exactly, elevated bus system based on tracks will increase accidents, as indicated by research, and make congestion worse. Its neither efficient nor safe like a subway.

Once again, all of your suggestions don't fit the bill for dealing with traffic nor the convenience of using such systems. Congestion is only bad if the elevated bus involves in a major accident that force the bus to stop functioning. For that to happening, it takes a collision between elevated bus and a 18-wheels truck. The possibility of that happening is around the same as a train collision.

Trains tracks are isolated from roads. Hence, trains are a safer means of mass transit. The same principal of isolation applies to subways. Lay the tracks on the road and you have a tram like system which has poor safety record.

Please take time to research and watch how elevated bus operates. The ease of getting in and out while traffic is running is one of its main feature. The idea of that is very simple. An elevated bus will hover over the top of a car, stop and collect passenger. The cars below will continue to move as normal. The bus then start and move on without subject to yielding the car below. That is what we are excited about the traffic solution.

Elevated bus system is anything but simple.

A simpler solution would be bi-articulated buses which can carry up to 270 passengers, 30 less than elevated bus, and there would be no need to build additional tracks. It would eliminate the need to introduce traffic regulation that would be otherwise confusing, or dangerous, to commuters.

 

[Solomon2]

Please take time to research and watch how elevated bus operates. The ease of getting in and out while traffic is running is one of its main feature. The idea of that is very simple. An elevated bus will hover over the top of a car, stop and collect passenger...

In addition to the stations and tracks, some specialized infrastructure is required for the elevated buses: turnarounds and maintenance depots come to mind. Any news on construction of these?