[url=https://arstechnica.co.uk/civis/viewtopic.php?p=33597025#p33597025:25e6w83s said:
mrseb[/url]":25e6w83s]
[url=https://arstechnica.co.uk/civis/viewtopic.php?p=33596953#p33596953:25e6w83s said:
Faustus Scaevola[/url]":25e6w83s]People who invested in this basically deserved to get scammed. A promised 12% yearly return?
Journalists everywhere should feel ashamed though. Way too many hailed this as something revolutionary. Even the original Ars article after noticing all flaws inherent to the concept ended the new story with:
Still, it's an exciting concept. In countries with very specific infrastructure setups—or the wherewithal to make dramatic infrastructure changes to accommodate elevated buses—the TEB could revolutionise public transport.
Of course it couldn't.
I stand by those comments! I still think elevated transport is a pretty good idea. It's cheaper than building tunnels.
You could totally imagine these things on long stretches of straight roads - the kind of roads that lead into major cities that are often congested. Kind of like autonomous lorry convoys. They're very effective - just only useful in quite specific scenarios.
Your original concluding words (excerpt from above):
the TEB could revolutionise public transport
— Apparently, the
TEB could revolutionise public transport. To some of us, it was obvious from the start (on cursory inspection), that it couldn't.
Elevated transport? Probably so. The TEB — never, it's an impractical use/configuration of space. It slices & dices the space around it into inconvenient three-dimensional units, as you allude to in part, when you mention that vehicles above a certain size must go around the TEB! There's no way to polish this poo: the TEB is dead: prior technologies (e.g. elevated tramways & railways) are superior in every way (don't forget that trains can have two decks — and for all the metal you might expend building barriers to protect a TEB, you might as well build rails!)