The 300 km/h Superbus 180
pigrabbitbear writes "Have you heard of the Superbus? You could have already, as it has been in prototype production for years, and has recently been gaining more attention at auto shows and through public demonstrations. Like a stretch Batmobile that seems yet another triumph for Saudi and Emirate auto enthusiasts, passengers and their entourages enter the car under a row of gull-wings. The bus runs on batteries, and it can fly along at nearly 300 km/h (or 192 mph), and quite 'silently.'"
It's SENSATIONAL! But also kind of BORING! (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, the "thing" at the web site referenced is not a bus, itâ(TM)s a stretch limo. For example, the article goes on to say "The bus, which is better described as a sex-oozing cigarette-car..." Itâ(TM)s not a bus.
Secondly, yes, I like the idea of a 200 MPH bus. As long as it is mechanically fixed in some way to a dedicated road â" maybe with something like a continuous piece of metal to guide it and prevent it from careening into space...
Lastly, what's with the link to some advert-laden page-view magnet, instead of a direct link to the website of the project in question? Does Slashdot employ editors anymore? Did they ever?
Here it is: http://www.superbusproject.com/ [superbusproject.com]
Speed is irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
The speed of mass transit solutions is often irrelevant unless you're talking about ~300 mile trips where High Speed Rail becomes competitive with air travel. A much bigger factor is frequency. If you have to wait 15 minutes at a stop rather than 30 minutes then that shaves a considerable amount of time off your journey without resorting to unsafe velocities. When you see a tram with an aerodynamic front puttering along the street at 20MPH then you know that the aero front was all for show and had more to do with securing funding than actually improving performance. I suspect that the advertised top speed of this 'bus' has more to do with getting publicity and investor attention than anything that's likely to see service. Even on a German autobahn I wouldn't want to be sitting on a bus that goes faster than 70MPH.
That said, journey time alone is not the only factor in mass transit. Comfort and convenience are a big deal. I know I'd rather have a nap or read a book or get some work done than have to focus on driving.
Some of the routing ideas mentioned in the project's website are worth a closer look. Some interesting concepts in there.
Re:Ok... (Score:4, Interesting)
Metal wheels on rail also makes for generally lousy acceleration and braking, which in turn leads to complicated safety systems and long gaps between trains. Building a road for this ought to be a lot cheaper than electric high speed rail.
Of course that is no use if the bus is extremely expensive. Current trains can easily cost USD 50,000 per seat, so if it can get anywhere near that figure it is a win. Operating costs may be higher, at least until it is made driverless.
The big question is whether people will use it. Right now there is a "rail effect" where putting in a rail service with exactly the same characteristics as a bus service will attract perhaps a third more passengers. Even if it isn't faster or more reliable. Missing out on 1/4th of the passengers could easily kill off this idea.
Re:It's SENSATIONAL! But also kind of BORING! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're doing it wrong. Instead of trying to graft a mass transport system on to a city you need to make new destinations that mass transport can take you to. In Japan the rail companies build big stations in new places, complete with attached shopping centre, and it becomes a destination in itself. That then helps relieve congestion in other areas too.
Ideally you want to design around transport, but since we have big cities that need to be dealt with this is a good option for re-engineering them.