The “Bus train” espoused by the BRT crowd is typically an articulated bus. Functionally, this is bus with a trailer. I’m sure it comes with some sort of speed restriction due to stability. Ride quality at highway speeds can’t be great, either.
Modified city buses would make horrible BRT vehicles. Our local transit operator has tried (and is still using some) Orion CNG powered buses in express service gussied up with reclining seats. They are noisy, rough riding, slow (55 mph max), have lousy HVAC systems (heat or cool only - set up at garage each day, blown from overhead vents only), and narrow (8’ wide, not 8.5’ wide). Several of the originals have gone up in spectacular fires when the turbocharger blew.
There have been local proposals for BRT down the freeway median with “stations” in the median at overpasses. This would be bad at several levels. First, the noise and air quality on the platforms would just be awful. Second, half the problem with the freeway is the local access. Adding transit stops to the freeway just increased the congestion on the local roads leading to the freeway. Third, low floor articulated buses would be an awful ride.
As has been pointed out, “true” BRT, with separate ROW and stations is nearly as expensive to construct as LRT, but can’t compete on comfort or “cache”. Most of what gets called “BRT” is merely gussied up local bus service with traffic light activation and/or separate lanes at intersections.
The articulated buses you described are a bus with what is essentially a 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. They have been around for a long time, and are as stable at speed as any 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. The concept has been used by the truck industry for a very long time. Semitrailers are much more stable than trailers. If anyone reading this doesn’t understand the difference, a trailer carries it’s own weight and the front of a semitrailer rests on the towing vehicle.
Separate right of way with station mounted fare collection is what makes LRT better than anything that runs in the road. IF BRT will run in a similar environment, it could be a valid alternative. Anything, whether it’s wheels are rubber or steel, that runs on the road mixed with automobile traffic is no better than a traditional city bus.
In Chicago, route J14, the Jeffrey Jump, is being touted as BRT. Part of its route is an express routing on the Outer Drive, south of 67th Street, it runs on Jeffrey Blvd, which is not that wide, and shares the street with local routes. I’m not sure how much faster it is on the stretch on Jeffrey Blvd than the local routes.
Ashland Ave, which is relatively wide, is currently being studied for possible BRT service.
Except that ridership increases when electric vehicles replace diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles either trolleybuses or ligh-rail (streetcars!)
Seattle Transit’s conversion of the diesel Ballard line to TT proved the point. Same route, same stops, same mix wiith auto traffic. Why did they do it? Possibly as an experiment, but more intellligent scheduling and greater efficiency gave them a surplus of TT’s, and most of the route already had wire for other routes. And TT’s, like streetcars, require far less maintenance than diesels. But Ballard is a heavy line, with more than 25,000/day I would guess.
The difference is that the articulated bus has the 5th wheel behind the rear axle of the bus. That makes it inherently unstable and open to sway like a car pulling a trailer from a rear mounted hitch. It’s just a matter of what speed unstable sway will occur (similar to hunting on a rail car, in this regard)
If you get the pivot point at or ahead of the rear axle, then the rig is stable - like a semi or a pickup or 5th wheel RV - no sway possible.
In terms of BRT operations, in the South side of the american continent, Curitiba is taking the lead, operating bi articulated buses on some 35 miles of BRT lanes(that looks like a DMU on rubber tyres)
There are numerous cities in Canada that have exclusive bus lanes. Some painted onto wide roads, others purpose built for buses only. Ottawa is converting at high cost and long construction a long EW stretch to LRT. The core will be a deep tunnel with 3 stations, the outskirts fully grade separated and a dozen mostly surface stations
They simple could not get any more bus through the core especially if snow, heavy rain, accident or breakdown. Complete operation expected Spring 2018
Having rode Cleveland which now has 2 BRT lines, The Health Line(Euclid Ave) and the Cleveland State Line on the West Side. My Op is that there are too many stations on the Health Line and too much money(200 Mil) was spent to save so little time. There are 20 Stations for 4 1/2 miles of route. see-
Being on a diesal powered bus with 100 people back to back who have no access to running water and no flush toleits and who live in shanty towns is no fun.
Phoebe, please show us the sources to back up your statement. Also do you know if the people whom you say want rail are the ones who will pay the presumably higher costs?
Haverford and Lower Merion Pennsylvania have for decades had a bus only route, a remnant of the Philadelphia and West Chester Traction-Philadelphia Suburban Transportation companies’ Ardmore trolley.
A) This discussion was dead 2 1/2 years ago until suddenly revived.
B) The lanes are still unused, but as Matthewsaggie said back then, the process is now under way to convert them to High Occupancy Toll lanes for automobiles. Local citizens are not happy about that, either.
Chesse: My understanding with regard to the Euclid route is that there is considerable time saving rush housrs because of bypassing traffic congestion.
10 years ago Before on the old RTA # 6 the ride was hell in the summertime a hour to go 5 miles. But the economy was better then and there was more buisness on Euclid. The Health Line contruction in the 2 years it took to build a lot of buisness and jobs went away post 2009