If you wanted to build a track for these “high speed buses” it would require special safety features, signalling, barriers etc. that make it look much more like a train track than like a motorway. So you’d gain exactly nothing over building a train track.
Not true. Not even close. According to the article, the bus lanes would be built on existing infrastructure. The bridges exist, the right-of-way exists, there would be comparatively little political resistance, the cost would be MUCH lower. Also, maintenance costs would be much lower.
Well, yes, exactly. A nation cannot remain an economic superpower by frittering away its wealth on expensive, but suboptimal shit like a “highway” for high-speed buses. If it’s no longer able able to build effective, cheap infrastructure because it doesn’t benefit an entrenched industry, then collapse isn’t far off.
If you wanted to build a track for these “high speed buses” it would require special safety features, signalling, barriers etc. that make it look much more like a train track than like a motorway. So you’d gain exactly nothing over building a train track.
Not true. Not even close. According to the article, the bus lanes would be built on existing infrastructure. The bridges exist, the right-of-way exists, there would be comparatively little political resistance, the cost would be MUCH lower. Also, maintenance costs would be much lower.
But those aren’t going to do 180 km/h. No existing bus will achieve this kind of speed on a regular motorway. This is all just a bunch of hot air.
I agree this this is never going to happen, but 110mph isn’t that fast.
But there is no passenger bus that can go that fast and you’d have to build a completely separate track.
Well, yes, exactly. A nation cannot remain an economic superpower by frittering away its wealth on expensive, but suboptimal shit like a “highway” for high-speed buses. If it’s no longer able able to build effective, cheap infrastructure because it doesn’t benefit an entrenched industry, then collapse isn’t far off.