Ian: I don’t like the elevator type entry, but everything else seems feasible, and would not seem to require more than a streetcar track adjacent to the curb. This would also be a good incentive to finally bury power wires – seriously, why are above ground wires still a thing?
Seems to have impressive capacity (approaching a Seabus) … and speaking as a tall person, who is often almost clipped by high level bus mirrors, it certainly doesn’t seem any more dangerous than those.
It’s known as the Transit Elevated Bus (TEB) and it could very well be the future of public transport. It’s only a concept for the moment but a working mini model was recently presented at the 19th China Beijing International High-Tech Expo.
The bus will be able to carry up to 1200 passengers and will take them to work and back by literally driving over the traffic. It’s a brilliant idea that could potentially alleviate congestion and reduce pollution in the world’s most populous country. If approved it could also be ready in as little as one year’s time.
This is asinine & ridiculous. Instead of dealing with congestion and all its problems, let’s just build a hovering bus system. Talk about loosening your belt to deal with your gut.
Exactly, why are we wasting our time with this silliness? Seems designed to divert attention from climate and livability solutions that work.
How about a little attention on the electric trolley Bus Rapid Transit lines that have been built recently in China. Are they working well?
Seems to take the equivalent of two lanes of traffic in the model. Even if it is just one lane I would assume a dedicated bus lane would be more cost efficient. As currently proposed it would not be useful in Vancouver if it is designed for1200 people per vehicle…time for people to get in and out will make it pretty slow.
Agreed – this is ridiculous. Just build an elevated LRT or Metro line.
This creates the same at-grade crash concerns as an at-grade LRT – but worse, because it isn’t really ever an “exclusive” RoW since you are straddling vehicles. At least a semi-exclusive LRT RoW only has to deal with cars at crossings.
Any deviation from ideal conditions could cause a crash – be it a left or right turning car stopped across the “track”, a car veering or changing lanes over the “track” or an overheight vehicle.
Elevated line needs major investment in tracks, 100’s of millions. This device could use existing roads. Would work well on Broadway, 41st Ave or Marine Drive until a subway is built.
I hope I’ll get to see all of the pieces that get written when (if?) this utopian concept meets gritty reality.
Given the stalemate over Broadway and its associated $3B bill, that might actually work there ! Likely far cheaper, too. Or between W-Van and N-Van on Marine Drive and into downtown from W/N-Van !!
That was kinda my thinking … that it might be better than a subway/bus hybrid, and not require digging everything up. Basically the benefits of a ‘down the middle of the street’ tram without the street-blocking-ness. Though access becomes an issue as a lot of elevators would be required to get to stations (or ramps where there might be more room).
Not necessarily the best solution, but an interesting one all the same (even as a way of pushing through some of the ‘you could never do X because of Y’ comments which plague all sides of the argument at the moment.
Honestly, I didn’t think they’d go this far. I’ve seen variants of this concept over the years but I didn’t think that it was becoming so serious that a full-size test is being conducted this year. So I gotta say I’m hit with a little admiration. For anyone that’s in the critic zone here it would help to realize that this is a solution that’s being developed in China to solve with a very Chinese problem that’s prevalent throughout the country – overcrowding. Some of the traditional solutions in places that have been utilized around the world such as (lower-capacity) BRT and on-street LRT systems would be more vulnerable to their serious drawbacks, amplified on the busy, congested Chinese city streets. I don’t see this viable outside of China (and certainly not in Vancouver), but it certainly seems like a suitable idea there. It’s kind of like putting on-street Light Rail Transit on stilts which means you can leverage its (capital cost) advantage over turning to trains and viaducts and tunnels, without inherent issues of capacity, conflict with vehicles/pedestrians, station access, and (to an extent) operating cost.
I don’t see this replacing metros and subways, but in situations where BRT systems are stretched and there’s no room to be innovative in the style that was pursued in Guangzhou, it’s clear to see why the developer thinks that this is the answer. It provides the capacity to make large transit investments cost-effective (which is why metros and large-scale BRT systems are popular in China), without the usual compromises of a solution normally intended to cut costs.
The questions I have for this has to do with the technical feasibility. Can normal in-street tracks (as used on LRT systems) actually support the megalodon support structures that keep the “bus” up with full loads of people – or will they need to be done in a way that actually splits up the road lanes/can’t be crossed over? As well, how will accidents/service stoppages be prevented in situations where the road is more than 2 lanes wide and thus one of the running tracks has road lanes on both sides. There are some limitations, but I think a first-phase line should be able to overcome them and we will see this become a reality in Chinese cities.
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why a vehicle that runs on rails is being called a ‘bus’?
These remind me of vehicles I witnessed on Marine Drive in the late 1940s used by the lumber mills to move stock (slung below).
To sell this to Motordom, you might need to emphasize that it will eliminate drivers being stuck behind buses or having yield to buses existing bus bays.
Stay in your lane…. or else!
I really don’t see many advantages over traditional LRT.
You need steel/concrete barriers to prevent vehicles from accidentally straying onto the tracks so you’re going to have to widen the road or lose a lane. You also have to do all the same planning for how to deal with turning movements and cross traffic. Collisions at intersections are an issue with both as is the matter of mid-block pedestrian movement. Those ramps extending from the side of the “bus” are totally ill-prepared for crowds: too steep, no rails to prevent people falling off the sides into traffic, etc. For this thing to work for large groups of people it will need elaborate elevated stations with escalators and elevators.
I’m pretty sure that’s the emergency slide system, like an aeroplane has.
The amusing thing about this concept is the turning radius. The segments will either have to have a very large “accordion” section in the middle or a really wide turning circle. Otherwise the edges of the cars will hit one another.
If you look in the video, the entire train bends like it’s made of jello when it goes around the corner. Hilarious.
Well, here’s Jarret Walker, who doesn’t like the idea much.
http://humantransit.org/2016/05/the-chinese-straddle-bus-is-back.html
“And yes, if your starting point for urban design is that single-occupant cars, despite their extreme inefficiency in using scarce urban space, should be allowed to go anywhere at all, and that the surface plane should be designed solely for their convenience to the exclusion of all other citizens and needs, then this technology makes sense.
Remember, the primary cost of transit infrastructure is the cost of keeping transit out of the way of motorist, on the assumption that motorists have the prior claim to absolutely every bit of public space in our cities.”