Futuristic Chinese Bus Concept

[SFO-YYZ]

Seems like it requires more infrastructure and has a higher capital cost than I thought. Couldn't they also run a double-decker bus/tram on a designated lane and get a similar result?

I think this technology is designed specifically for China's unique situation - that is urban buses are frequently over-crowded beyond recognition because of high density population in most of China's cities. I have taken buses in several of China's second tier cities - not a pleasant experience to say the least because most buses don't even have standing room space during rush hour regardless of how many buses you put on the road (some bus routes have 5-15 second headways during rush hour and even that isn't enough).

The unique thing about this bus concept is its expansive interior and large doors for entry and exit - from a Chinese bus rider's perspective this is gold because of the roomy interior and plenty of standing space.

Also keep in mind that many 2nd and 3rd tier cities in China don't have fully built-out subway or rapid transit systems. For example, Xi'an, a city of 10 million people, have only started building its subway system 5 years ago and currently only have 2 (maybe 3) lines operating. For these cities, the backbone of their urban transport are the thousands upon thousands of buses that clog their road ways and create daily misery for millions of riders. That's the real state of public transit for many Chinese cities today.

 

[Johnny Au]

Even municipal governments in other countries are interested in having this bus.

This could very well be the next step in the evolution of bus rapid transit (and actually compete with light rail transit).

One major advantage of this futuristic Chinese bus is that rights-of-way don't even need to be constructed (though guide rails would still need to be constructed, but they take up less space than rights-of-ways), though the major disadvantage is that elevators would be required at stations to comply with accessibility regulations, as well as being able to fit under bridges.

 

[Johnny Au]

Here is the Wikipedia article about this bus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Elevated_Bus

 

[drum118]

Even municipal governments in other countries are interested in having this bus.

This could very well be the next step in the evolution of bus rapid transit (and actually compete with light rail transit).

One major advantage of this futuristic Chinese bus is that rights-of-way don't even need to be constructed (though guide rails would still need to be constructed, but they take up less space than rights-of-ways), though the major disadvantage is that elevators would be required at stations to comply with accessibility regulations, as well as being able to fit under bridges.

Every bridge/overpass will have to be 15 feet higher than they are now, if not more to get this bus under them. Anything above this bus would have to be raise as well.

Having elevated stations will cost more than surface one. Yes it will take up less space than a ROW, but what happens for curve sections without having AC wheels and what would the max length be to deal with the curves??

If one break down, how does one move it and how long would it takes?

Sound great for wide open space and straight lines. Then there is the protection of the guide way and how do cars/trucks cross they as well the cycles??

 

[ssiguy2]

I'm sorry but I just think this is stupid. What about transport trucks to say nothing of fire trucks. Also those tracks are pretty big..........fine for a car but I can't imagine how any motorcycle going 100k could cross those safely.

I think this is far more about keeping cars moving than it is about providing transit. Why not just paint one of the lanes as HOV or Bus-only and save yourself a cool billion? The new super-buses now working in Dresden are double articulated with a crush capacity of 300 passengers.

 

[44 North]

I'm sorry but I just think this is stupid. What about transport trucks to say nothing of fire trucks. Also those tracks are pretty big..........fine for a car but I can't imagine how any motorcycle going 100k could cross those safely.

I think this is far more about keeping cars moving than it is about providing transit. Why not just paint one of the lanes as HOV or Bus-only and save yourself a cool billion? The new super-buses now working in Dresden are double articulated with a crush capacity of 300 passengers.

This is what I'm thinking too. Since these vehicles will have clearance for bridges, why not use double-decker buses? And since these vehicles will have a track along each side of the road's shoulder, why not combine the track to one shoulder? There's their answer, a double-decker bus or tram (which does exist and isn't a new concept). If loading, high pass. volumes, and mobility is a key issue (which it seems to be) the stations can be two-level as well, with the bus or tram providing doors at both levels.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

This is what I'm thinking too. Since these vehicles will have clearance for bridges, why not use double-decker buses? And since these vehicles will have a track along each side of the road's shoulder, why not combine the track to one shoulder? There's their answer, a double-decker bus or tram (which does exist and isn't a new concept). If loading, high pass. volumes, and mobility is a key issue (which it seems to be) the stations can be two-level as well, with the bus or tram providing doors at both levels.

Again, may not be applicable in other countries, but in many 10 million+ population cities in China where all infrastructure are being built from the ground up, clean slate, this could potentially work. And just fyi, most Chinese cities already have had large fleets of double deckers since the early 1990s, but they do not solve volume issues. Often times, you would regular bus congestion, whether it's double decker or articulated. I'm not saying this bus is an ideal solution, but we shouldn't discourage their innovation just because we can't muster the courage to build the DRL or other bold transit initiatives.

 

[Tulse]

I keep seeing this referred to as a "bus" (even by its builders), but isn't it really just a weird light rail vehicle? It is electrically powered, travels on fixed tracks, requires elevated stops that are essentially "stations", and carries hundreds of people. How is that not essentially a variation on light rail?

 

[cplchanb]

I keep seeing this referred to as a "bus" (even by its builders), but isn't it really just a weird light rail vehicle? It is electrically powered, travels on fixed tracks, requires elevated stops that are essentially "stations", and carries hundreds of people. How is that not essentially a variation on light rail?

I guess you can say its like a mix of a normal city bus with that guideway system in Australia.

 

[Tulse]

I guess you can say its like a mix of a normal city bus with that guideway system in Australia.

I'm still not seeing how it in any way resembles a bus (or how it is more like a bus than a wide light rail vehicle with very tall trucks.)

 

[WislaHD]

I read a comment by another user elsewhere that pretty much summarizes my thoughts on this concept:

" "Straddling buses" are undesirable because it runs on the premise that somehow every other mode of transportation has to actively avoid inconveniencing the car. When in fact, we should be reducing car usage and moving towards the physical dominance ofpublic transit and cycling on our roads, in order to make our cities more efficient. This "straddling bus" technology is over-engineered for a goal that is not even desirable, and it comes with it many, many disadvantages."

It maybe can serve a particular function in Chinese cities as @SFO-YYZ described, but not here.

 

[Johnny Au]

Once enough of these buses are made, they could end up having some being used for sci-fi film shoots (just that these buses are no longer science fiction).

 

[Johnny Au]

I wonder if this bus can be used in cities with heavy snow.

China itself has a few cities with heavy snow such as Harbin.

 

[robmausser]

I'm still not seeing how it in any way resembles a bus (or how it is more like a bus than a wide light rail vehicle with very tall trucks.)

I agree that its not more like a bus than LRT, but it puts its weight on rubber tires, and uses a diesel engine for propulsion.

The track it uses is only a guide track, it doesn't use it for propulsion, braking, or weight holding. That is done by rubber tires.

Much like these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_trams

However it uses an internal combustion engine for power, which also makes it a bit more bus like.

 

[ADRM]

It's really just a large bus that takes up somewhat less space than a normal bus. It is that, and nothing more, and most certainly not some brilliant solution to all the world's transit and congestion woes.