The STRADDLING BUS that could fix China’s traffic woes

HONG KONG

Try designing a vehicle that takes up no road space. And make it partly solar- powered.

A company in the southern Chinese town of Shenzhen has done just that. To address the country’s problems with traffic and air quality, Shenzhen Huashi Future Parking Equipment has developed a decidedly odd-looking, extra-wide and extra-tall vehicle that can carry up to 1,200 passengers.

Though it is dubbed the “straddling bus” (picture), Huashi’s invention resembles a train in many respects, but it requires neither elevated tracks nor extensive tunnelling. Its passenger compartment spans the width of two traffic lanes and sits high above the road surface, thanks to a pair of fence-like stilts that leave the road clear for ordinary cars to pass underneath.

It runs along a fixed route.

Huashi’s outsize invention, 6m wide, is to be powered by a combination of municipal electricity and solar power derived from panels mounted on the roofs of the vehicles and at bus stops.

A pilot project for the vehicle is in the works in Beijing and several other Chinese cities have shown interest.

The company says the vehicle, which will travel at an average speed of 40km an hour, could reduce traffic jams by 25 per cent to 30 per cent on main routes.

The Straddling Bus could replace up to 40 conventional buses, potentially saving the 860 tonnes of fuel that 40 buses would consume annually and preventing 2,640 tonnes of carbon emissions, said Mr Youzhou Song, the vehicle’s designer.

The cost of construction — 50 million yuan ($10 million) for one bus and about 40.2km of route facilities — is roughly one-tenth what it costs to build a subway of the same length, he said.— What do you do if your roads are congested and polluted?

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Distance-based fare saves time, money

Letter from Tan Hong Boon

I REFER to Ms Angie Lim’s letter “New distancebased fare cheaper but ...” (Aug 23).

For the past few years, I have been travelling from my home in Serangoon North to my church in Henderson Road by Service 132. Under the old fare system, this option was the cheapest. However, it was also the most time-consuming. The bus journey alone took me about an hour, excluding waiting time.

Of course, I have other options. I could travel by Service 25 to the Ang Mo Kio MRT Station, then take a train to the Redhill MRT Station before switching to Service 145 to get to my destination. Alternatively, I could take Service 74 to MacRitchie Reservoir before transferring to Service 855.

Although these alternative routes would take me less time, I rarely used them because it would cost me much more money.

Since the new distance-based fares kicked in, however, I have changed my travelling habits. I have been taking Service 74 and transferring to Service 855 to get to church.

Not only is the travelling time shorter, it is also cheaper. Were I to take Service 132 now, it would cost me an extra 17 cents and an extra 15 minutes.

In retrospect, the distance-based fare system has had one distinct advantage for me — it has forced me to think of alternative ways to save time and money.

New distance-based fare system cheaper but ...

Reader now spends more time travelling

Letter from Angie Lim

I REFER to

Transport Minister Raymond Lim was quoted as saying:

“Distance fares don’t force us to make transfers in order to benefit. ... Instead, distance fares allow us to choose the best way to get to our destination without worrying about paying extra if we take a transfer.”

I am not sure this applies to every commuter. I used to take the MRT to work between Toa Payoh and Bedok every day, with a transfer at City Hall MRT Station. Under the new fare structure, this would cost 10 per cent more. So, to save money, I now take the bus from Toa Payoh to Kallang, where I hop aboard the MRT to Bedok.

Yes, this is cheaper than before the fare structure changed.

But the journey is much less pleasant. Instead of taking just the MRT, I now have to wait for the bus, which seems to come at unpredictable frequencies and which has to deal with traffic jams during peak hours.

I also have to walk further, from the bus-stop to the MRT station.

 My usual 40-minute journey now takes an hour — a 50-per-cent leap.

So, yes, I do save some money under distance fares — but at the cost of my time, a trade-off I would rather not have to make.Today’s report on the discussion in Parliament about distance-based publice transport fares (“Despite the fare bumps ...”, Aug 17).

The journey is much less pleasant: Instead of taking just the  MRT, I now have to wait for the unpredictable bus.