
Claims that China's Transit Elevated Bus Is a Scam - phowat
http://en.yibada.com/articles/149103/20160807/china-s-transit-elevated-bus-money-making-scam-designed-fleece.htm
======
tomhoward
Previously discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12231132](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12231132)

------
shimon_e
Chinese media is a scam. This is probably also a scam but the Chinese media is
only reporting it as such because someone refused to pay them off.

Much better link:
[http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/08/straddling_bus_locked_up.p...](http://shanghaiist.com/2016/08/08/straddling_bus_locked_up.php)
/
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12251379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12251379)

------
hosh
(1) New ideas are often met with skepticism. I had found a promotional video
that showed a better explanation of the tech involved. The rails was clearly
there, as were the normal tires. What's seems like it will add the most
complexity to is how there's going to be an elevator that rises up into the
station and docks with it. There were other parts that look ingenious, such as
traffic signals underneath the bus to communicate with the cars driving under
there. [This is not the video I originally saw, but it is an English voice-
over to a presentation about it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8_W2PA0rQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8_W2PA0rQ)]

(2) I find it ironic that the state-sponsored Chinese media is warning people
against it. Given their past history, I actually don't know if that is
sincerely a warning to people not to invest in a scam, or yet another example
of propoganda.

(3) And then, it isn't as if the Chinese business community have a high
standard of ethics. I get that there are probably a lot of great companies in
China, but generally, the culture tends to skew towards cutting corners and
corruption.

I guess the question is, if we pretend the technology, on it's own merit, was
attempted within say, the US, would it work out? There would be a lot of
political push-back against adopting it, but I don't know if that necessarily
means the technology itself is a bad idea.

~~~
bluGill
> I guess the question is, if we pretend the technology, on it's own merit,
> was attempted within say, the US, would it work out?

Where in the US? Most cities have power/phone/cable wires crossing the street
somewhat randomly. There are also bridges that this won't get under. There are
also stoplight and signs that hang over the roadway.

You can probably find a newish quiet residential neighborhood in the suburbs
without all that in the way. However traffic is generally not a concern in
those places. Thus I'm going to say even if technically it works perfectly,
and turns out to be a great idea with no other concerns it will be many years
before cities redesign themselves enough to make it work.

I can see a city like Las Vagas putting something like this on the strip as a
publicity stunt. It would only go a couple miles, but it is feasible to
rebuild a few miles of street to make it work. Assuming the above, it is
feasible. You time the cross streets signals so that there is no cross
traffic. Cars can drive under it no problem. There needs to be something to
ensure cars don't turn into a tire, but seems solvable. If we just assuming
running one back and forth down the street it is easy. If you want to run more
than one you need to handle turn around with no traffic - this thing will need
more room to turn, but since it is a dedicated line you can close a low
traffic intersection for that (or since it is on rails just go up and over -
maybe around a block... lots of options)

Of course once you look at the above you say "it can be done, but I think
there are more conventional alternatives that make more sense." I think the
for anything where this makes sense a monorail is better: known technology,
and since it isn't at ground level there is no safety issues.

------
meric
It was vapourware. It became real. It turns into a scam.

------
deepsun
The website hijacks you clicking on text and opening and advertizement window.

By the way, the bus won't work because it is higher than cars only, no trucks,
no regular buses etc. I think modifying current infrastructure to pass only
cars under specified height (and raising height for this over-bus) will be
more expensive than the bus itself. Easier to just build a second level road.

~~~
NeutronBoy
> Easier to just build a second level road.

Lol wut? Easier to build a second level road than put a few gantries in to
prevent vehicles over a particular height enter a road? I think not.

This bus isn't going to be used as a general bus that drives around the city.
It's more likely going to be used down a single stretch of road, acting as a
shuttle from one end to the other so people don't get stuck in traffic on it.

------
cylinder
I can think of many scams designed to fleece investors that are often
discussed on this very site, and are in the US.

------
sleepymaster
maybe if the website this is hosted on wasn't so broken, I would be able to
make an informed comment!

~~~
GFischer
There was another submission with a link to Jalopnik

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12250494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12250494)

[http://jalopnik.com/is-the-chinese-traffic-straddling-
bus-a-...](http://jalopnik.com/is-the-chinese-traffic-straddling-bus-a-scam-
it-looks-1784979121)

