What happened to the ' super ' buses?

[ozbob]

From Brisbanetimes click here!



Image from Brisbanetimes

Catch the bus? It could soon look like this

Catch the bus? It could soon look like this
Georgia Waters | May 15, 2008 - 4:10PM

Giant "superbuses" could be making their way along Brisbane's streets as early as next year as part of the State Government's bid to improve the public transport system.

Premier Anna Bligh first announced in March that the government would launch an international search for high-capacity superbuses as part of a plan to improve the carrying capacity of Brisbane's bus network.

Four companies, including one from Australia, have already expressed interest in providing vehicles for a trial, Ms Bligh told State Parliament today.

The superbuses will be able to carry up to 200 passengers, almost three times the capacity of our current buses, which is around 70.

"Translink will now assess the submissions and if viable, Queensland will be the first in the country to trial these high capacity vehicles as early as next year," Ms Bligh said.

:conf

[SurfRail]

It got as far as the double-decks at Surfside and the articulated buses at Clark's, but apparently no further.  Perhaps they had registration issues.

[#Metro]

Probably a 'flash bang' announcement - were many during the Bligh era. Was probably someone sitting at a desk doing a bit of background research.


I would not be surprised if there were issues with the QSBS snake and Melbourne St portal that got in the way. Plus, is the bus length/width etc is illegal in Australia due to regulatory nonsense?

HOWEVER, many buses still run on the surface, those can be upgraded (i.e. 412)

[verbatim9]

Love the interior of the Mans above plus all door boarding, and real time info/positioning onboard. I bet they announce the route via an electronic voice while pulled up at a bus stop for the visually impaired. 

[ozbob]

The ' Queensland factor ' must always be taken into account.  What other places find straightforward is very very difficult in Queensland.

It is a ' special ' place full of  brainless fukwits!

You're most welcome!

[ozbob]

Twitter

Trapeze Group ‏@trapezegroup  3h

The true definition of BRT #LearnAboutTransit http://trpz.gp/whatisBRT  | RT @sustaincities

[verbatim9]

While briefly in Los Angeles Took a pic of one their Super Hybrid Articulated Busses. They claim they have one of the cleanest fleets in the world (emmission wise)
http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/

[verbatim9]

[verbatim9]

[verbatim9]

[verbatim9]

http://www.volvobuses.com/bus/global/en-gb/products_services/buses/City%20buses/volvo_7900_articulated_hybrid/Pages/Features.aspx

[#Metro]

Imagine boarding that - four doors, four times as fast!





Paris: Converging Vehicles
http://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html

[#Metro]

Barcelona

[#Metro]

Like a tram, minus wires and track.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

4th March 2016

Super-buses

Greetings,

What are super-buses?  Super-buses are like trams, minus the wires and track.  They can use existing busway and road infrastructure.
( A series of videos on super-buses can be viewed here > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11326.0 )

Brisbane is unique in Australia, in that it has a network of bus-ways.  It makes a lot of sense to further optimise that existing by the introduction of super-buses.  This together with network reform will get rid of the CBD bus congestion, at a great deal less cost than either of the half baked proposals by Lord Mayor Quirk (Metro) and ALP Lord Mayor Candidate Rod Harding (Light Rail).

It may surprise some that the concept of super-buses for Brisbane is not new.  In 2008, Brisbanetimes published an article:

Catch the bus? It could soon look like this

> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/catch-the-bus-it-could-soon-look-like-this/2008/05/15/1210765033830.html



Not much happened hey?

The collective expert opinion* is that we need to move forward with bus reform, and drive bulk mass transit capacity on rail.  Cross River Rail is the essential project for Brisbane and SEQ.

Bus reform means super-buses on the busways and reducing the number of near empty buses clogging up the CBD.  It means more buses for cross suburban and feeder bus routes to key rail and bus transit exchanges. Bus services can be more frequent where they are needed.

It is a great tragedy for Brisbane that both the LNP and ALP have got their key transport policies incorrect.

It is still not too late to change tack to a positive, achievable, and really beneficial policy position is it?

Time will tell.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

* Solving Brisbane's public transport woes: experts tell
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/solving-brisbanes-public-transport-woes-experts-tell-20160301-gn7tol.html

[Harry Zyx]

This is one topic that I disagree with you on, Bob. Yes, we have busways that, outside the inner city, have the ideal geometry for these vehicles, but what about when they approach and enter the city? There's only one entry point that can accommodate them from the south - the Captain Cook Bridge - but then what? And how would they get onto it anyway?

With light rail, it's accepted that you have to build special infrastructure, often separate from road infrastructure, and where it's on-road, the tracks give everyone certainty about where the train will be at any time. But these huge vehicles, away from the purpose-built busway itself, are not so predictable; there are serious safety issues. And off-busway streets, and Queen Street bus station, are geometrically inadequate.

Most of the busway stations aren't long enough to accommodate this size of bus standing at the same time as other buses. And bigger buses usually means lower frequency, which means increased passenger waiting time, poorer connections, and longer dwell times offsetting any advantages of multiple doors.

I for one am sick of ever bigger vehicles on our streets. BCC has bent over backwards to allow big trucks access on just about every road. Even the rubbish trucks are monstrously too big for suburban streets. Now you want to add huge buses too. I say: No way!

[verbatim9]

Makes sense to have them on the Brisbane busways as well as the 700 and 777 ✈  Gold coast Hwy routes

[verbatim9]

Like a tram, minus wires and track.

We need these Barcelona ones for the interim before an underground Driverless LRT/Metro is built. Plus as an interim measure before LRT is extended South on the Gold Coast. Be good for the Comm Games. Can order now, train drivers, then have them up and running for Summer 2017/18.


How many would we need to fulfill demand? 10 ? 4 for the Gold Coast 6 for Brisbane?

[bcasey]

Most of the busway stations aren't long enough to accommodate this size of bus standing at the same time as other buses. And bigger buses usually means lower frequency, which means increased passenger waiting time, poorer connections, and longer dwell times offsetting any advantages of multiple doors.

How does a larger bus cause lower frequencies? With trains, a larger train may cause issues at a certain point if it is large compared to the signal blocks, although it really depends on the complexity of the rail network. Buses don't really have this problem.

The main thing that constrains frequency for buses is the cost of the driver, and thus with larger buses, you can maintain the same frequency but provide a higher capacity due to more seats per driver.

Maybe there might be issues when it comes to the bus stops, since for a fixed sized bus stop, you may only be able to fit one or two superbuses where you could fit 4 normal buses. And yes, there might be some issues with some of the current infrastructure in the city to deal with these larger buses. However, I don't think it is as huge a problem as you think, and the cost of fixing infrastructure to accomodate these buses should be considerably lower than building a light rail or metro system from scratch. These superbuses would only be used for the trunk services that mostly run along the busways anyway, where the demand requires higher-capacity vehicles.

[red dragin]

Bigger buses would accelerate slower, corner slower, with incorrect door design load and unload slower, would they not?

I too share concerns about long buses navigating some of the tight turns in the network. I remember being on the 135/155 artics back from Griffith Nathan, and clipping the tunnel walls at the right turn in Queen St Bus Station in the narrow section.

[aldonius]

Acceleration is a power-to-weight issue, speccing them with gruntier engines is an easy easy fix.
Cornering - yeah, probably, at least for the tight stuff (KGS-QSBS junction, for instance).
Door design and unloading - if we get the doors right loading/unloading will be right too. But this is Queensland I suppose.

To my knowledge, the current artics can go everywhere the 14.5m rigids can - if someone knows otherwise, do tell?

[ozbob]

This is one topic that I disagree with you on, Bob. Yes, we have busways that, outside the inner city, have the ideal geometry for these vehicles, but what about when they approach and enter the city? There's only one entry point that can accommodate them from the south - the Captain Cook Bridge - but then what? And how would they get onto it anyway?

With light rail, it's accepted that you have to build special infrastructure, often separate from road infrastructure, and where it's on-road, the tracks give everyone certainty about where the train will be at any time. But these huge vehicles, away from the purpose-built busway itself, are not so predictable; there are serious safety issues. And off-busway streets, and Queen Street bus station, are geometrically inadequate.

Most of the busway stations aren't long enough to accommodate this size of bus standing at the same time as other buses. And bigger buses usually means lower frequency, which means increased passenger waiting time, poorer connections, and longer dwell times offsetting any advantages of multiple doors.

I for one am sick of ever bigger vehicles on our streets. BCC has bent over backwards to allow big trucks access on just about every road. Even the rubbish trucks are monstrously too big for suburban streets. Now you want to add huge buses too. I say: No way!

No worries Harry. 

If Quirky can change the inner core of the busway network for a rubber tyre metro, I am sure we can fit it for super-buses at a fraction of the cost.  Just sayin'

Electric super-buses will be a PT vehicle for the future.  I have no doubt about that.

[bcasey]

Bigger buses would accelerate slower, corner slower, with incorrect door design load and unload slower, would they not?

I too share concerns about long buses navigating some of the tight turns in the network. I remember being on the 135/155 artics back from Griffith Nathan, and clipping the tunnel walls at the right turn in Queen St Bus Station in the narrow section.

I'm not an expert on the technical specifications of these superbuses, so what I'm about to say might be wrong. I'm assuming the increase in weight that would come from a larger passenger capacity would be matched by an increase in power from the engines driving the bus, so I'm not sure they would necessarily accelerate slower than a normal bus. Would each of the sections be powered, or would it mostly be in the front and/or back section, with the middle being unpowered?

I'm not a bus driver, so I can't really speak to how much more difficult an articulated bus is to corner than a normal one, but my guess is that it would mainly depend on the maximum length of the segments (from what I can tell from the videos above, the front section is typically the largest out of all of them). I'm also guessing that modern superbuses would have technology to help maintain vehicle stability as they corner. So I'm not sure if they would be slower to corner or not.

Yeah, if they have incorrect door design, loading and unloading would be slower, but the same can be said of normal buses as well. Obviously the larger capacity of a superbus would exacerbate this issue, so it is definitely important to get the design right.

[Harry Zyx]

The only way to get high frequency AND full superbuses is to restrict them to busways, and force passengers to interchange from buses that would otherwise continue into the city. This is the downside of a transit network that relies on a pure hub-and-feeder system: everyone has to transfer. A much better network (a la Jarrett Walker) is one that is or emulates a grid of high-frequency routes, with many connecting points (nodes rather than hubs) and very many trip OD possibilities with a maximum of one transfer. In this system the connections are spread across the network, so the need for points where very many transfers occur is much reduced, and the demand on particular arterial services is also reduced.

One of the great advantages of the busway system is its accommodation of routes from anywhere. It's not like a railway. Buses can join it from outlying suburbs and continue - no need to transfer. If the highly-connected "grid" were introduced, these bus coming from the outer suburbs would continue along the busway. Passengers only on buses on crosstown (or orbital) routes would need to transfer.

I'm still opposed to huge road vehicles of any sort on streets where there are a lot of pedestrians and bikes. Light rail works in busy streets because its path is totally predictable, and therefore safer.

[#Metro]

With light rail, it's accepted that you have to build special infrastructure, often separate from road infrastructure, and where it's on-road, the tracks give everyone certainty about where the train will be at any time. But these huge vehicles, away from the purpose-built busway itself, are not so predictable; there are serious safety issues. And off-busway streets, and Queen Street bus station, are geometrically inadequate.

Most of the busway stations aren't long enough to accommodate this size of bus standing at the same time as other buses. And bigger buses usually means lower frequency, which means increased passenger waiting time, poorer connections, and longer dwell times offsetting any advantages of multiple doors.

I for one am sick of ever bigger vehicles on our streets. BCC has bent over backwards to allow big trucks access on just about every road. Even the rubbish trucks are monstrously too big for suburban streets. Now you want to add huge buses too. I say: No way!

Take a look at the first part of this video. The blue buses are superbuses capable of carrying 150 pax.
They run on normal roads with no special infrastructure in and out of traffic. There is no need to simply restrict them to the busway, they can be run on surface streets with no issue. All over Europe they are run like this.

[Harry Zyx]

To my knowledge, the current artics can go everywhere the 14.5m rigids can - if someone knows otherwise, do tell?

The 14.5m buses can't go anywhere. BT has to get permission to use the roads on their routes in the same way that overmass or oversize trucks do. Another problem is the backswing, which is big and tends to take out poles and people standing close to the kerb at bus stops. I hear that BT aren't so happy with the 14.5s anyway, and probably won't get any more. Not sure what the thinking is on 18m artic buses now. The originals were expensive to maintain, and there was a slightly different problem at bus stops with the rear wheels steering into the kerb if the bus pulled away at a sharp angle.

Do we really want these damn great things in our streets? There are much better ways to run an efficient network without resorting to "bigger is better".

[Harry Zyx]

The blue buses are superbuses capable of carrying 150 pax.
They run on normal roads with no special infrastructure in and out of traffic. There is no need to simply restrict them to the busway, they can be run on surface streets with no issue. All over Europe they are run like this.

All the very long buses in both videos are running in bus lanes and/or 4-lane roads with median and/or light rail corridors!

[aldonius]

The blue buses are superbuses capable of carrying 150 pax.
They run on normal roads with no special infrastructure in and out of traffic. There is no need to simply restrict them to the busway, they can be run on surface streets with no issue. All over Europe they are run like this.

All the very long buses in both videos are running in bus lanes and/or 4-lane roads with median and/or light rail corridors!

Sure, but think about the routes we're considering superbuses for.

111, 222, 333 are entirely busway and/or 4-lane-plus main roads.

RBoT400 less so, granted. The 412 has a short nasty section along Carmody Rd but that's easy to work around

CityGlider could be a bit problematic, but the BCC 2007 report says that light rail along that route was always going to be shared right-of-way regardless.

Personally, I don't think much of the 'predictability' argument - turn signals exist for a reason.

[#Metro]

All the very long buses in both videos are running in bus lanes and/or 4-lane roads with median and/or light rail corridors!

Can be run on normal roads including 2 lane roads. If the size makes you uncomfortable, you're not going to get support for that view from me. As you can see, the blue super buses go everywhere the red ones go.

[#Metro]

Superbuses at a bus stop on a normal road that is 2-lane and not a busway or bus lane. (I can't embed this, hopefully Ozbob can see if it is possible)

https://goo.gl/maps/Qd16hHvQJfs

<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1457077651879!6m8!1m7!1s6D2QSmkncRgw8V8NWTXD7A!2m2!1d59.3452188169166!2d18.03431157808157!3f162.15281691677495!4f-5.36606734279664!5f0.7820865974627469" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[aldonius]

Here's a screenshot just in case anyone has particular problems:

[bcasey]

The only way to get high frequency AND full superbuses is to restrict them to busways, and force passengers to interchange from buses that would otherwise continue into the city. This is the downside of a transit network that relies on a pure hub-and-feeder system: everyone has to transfer. A much better network (a la Jarrett Walker) is one that is or emulates a grid of high-frequency routes, with many connecting points (nodes rather than hubs) and very many trip OD possibilities with a maximum of one transfer. In this system the connections are spread across the network, so the need for points where very many transfers occur is much reduced, and the demand on particular arterial services is also reduced.

One of the great advantages of the busway system is its accommodation of routes from anywhere. It's not like a railway. Buses can join it from outlying suburbs and continue - no need to transfer. If the highly-connected "grid" were introduced, these bus coming from the outer suburbs would continue along the busway. Passengers only on buses on crosstown (or orbital) routes would need to transfer.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. In your first paragraph, you are advocating the connected grid model, which is good, it is the ideal way to operate an efficient transport network. However, what you are describing about how to use the busway is the direct service model, which is the complete anti-thesis of the connected network model. Yes, maybe a bus can continue at the outer edge to act as a feeder service for the outer suburbs, but then this will have an effect on it's on-time performance (particularly in the case of inbound services, where it needs to deal with suburban traffic before getting onto the busway). Once you start adding more buses that feed from the outer suburbs and go directly on the busway, it might seem like there is higher-frequency on the busway. In actual fact, you are just competing with other services for patronage and you end up with the massive congestion of buses on the Victoria bridge which are mostly carrying air, and you are also not increasing frequency for people going outbound from the city, since if they don't want to transfer, their waiting time is much longer. It is much better to treat the busway as another rail-line, you run high-frequency, high-capacity superbuses along it, and get other normal buses to feed it. Also, since you are reducing the length of all the feeder buses trips (and thus the cost of the trip), because they aren't all going into the city, you can use this to improve their frequency, which will attract more passengers.

The connected grid network is the ideal situation, but you also need to the road network to support it. This is the case in many US cities, but the road network in Brisbane has naturally grown in a more radial style of network. There are areas of the city, like the northside, which supports a grid network better, but for the most part in Brisbane, the grid network morphs into more of a spider-web, where you have high-frequency, high-capacity vehicles (both trains and buses in the case of Brisbane) which forms the spines, and then a grid of feeder vehicles that form the web and connect the spines together, along with major POIs along the way.

[#Metro]

It is worth looking at the New Bus Network Proposal http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

That is designed to put practical utility as the highest value above all else, including theoretical purity.

As the city isn't perfectly radial, or a perfect grid either, so the approach was adaptive. Along almost all main roads there is a direct bus (sometimes a superbus) into the CBD. This is pretty much what Light Rail would do, or has done in the past.

But in the northern parts crosstown passengers are fed into interchanges. They have a choice - walk to the main road to go directly to the city, or catch a cross-town to Mitchelton, Chermside or Toombul to go shopping.

In the Western Suburbs, a full feeder and transfer model has been deployed. Most routes are fed into Indooroopilly Shopping Centre or Indooroopilly Rail station. This is due to geography and to prevent a zillion routes continuing down Coronation Drive, one of the most unreliable and congested roads in Brisbane. This is perfect, because Indooroopilly is effectively a metro station in the morning and afternoon peak periods, and is served by both all stops and express pattern trains. It is Priority A ROW, in contrast to Coronation Drive which is Priority C.

[Harry Zyx]

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. In your first paragraph, you are advocating the connected grid model, which is good, it is the ideal way to operate an efficient transport network. However, what you are describing about how to use the busway is the direct service model, which is the complete anti-thesis of the connected network model.

Well, bc, I thought someone would read it that way, but let me make it clear. What I actually wrote was "If the highly-connected "grid" were introduced, these bus coming from the outer suburbs would continue along the busway. Passengers only on buses on crosstown (or orbital) routes would need to transfer." I differentiated between buses on radial routes prior to the busway, and buses on orbital routes. There's no contradiction. Passengers on the orbital routes DO need to transfer, but thos on the radial routes do not. There's absolutely no reason to make people transfer from buses that are already full, and as I'm sure you know, buses from, say, Algester bound for the City frequently are full within a few stops of the start point. Surely you wouldn't make everyone get off onto a bigger bus or a train. "Yes, I would" I hear you say (in my imagination) because there isn't enough space at city stops or on city streets for all those buses. Quite right - there isn't. But the trick is to bring those buses, not into the City, but within walking distance of their destination in the City or to a transfer node on a route that will take them into the part of the City they want to get to. This way, the load is spread across many nodes, not concentrated at a crowded hub and requiring superbuses. Of course, if there is a railway station en route, it is likely that passengers will choose to transfer there - but note it is a choice; they're not forced to transfer there; they could go on to another node if, from experience, they know there will be less crowding or the journey will be quicker.

To make a non-grid network as much like a grid system as possible, some notionally radial bus routes will have to become tangential to the City. Furthermore, these routes and the radial routes won't terminate in the City, they will continue to the suburbs on the other side to maintain the high connectivity and high frequency needed across the network. In a high-frequency system, on-time running becomes much less important. Who needs a timetable when there's a bus every 10 or 15 minutes? Furthermore, when buses are very frequent and quality is good, people are prepared to walk twice as far to get to a bus stop. This means you don't need so many routes, and that's how the cost of the more frequent routes is offset.

As to Cultural Centre and Victoria Bridge, I agree. There are too many buses for such constrained infrastructure. The Greens have shown how the capacity of the CC bus station can almost be doubled (see their web site ItsYourBrisbane) and cars removed from Vic Bridge. But the network would be further improved if some of the SEB bus routes that use CCBS continued instead across William Jolly Bridge, or diverted to Story Bridge at Woolloongabba. After all, many passengers already get off at CCBS and cross Vic Bridge because it's quicker than staying on the bus to get to, say, George Street.

We're stuck with a spider-web road network in many parts of the city, but it's still possible to emulate a grid.

[#Metro]

The members who contributed to the New Bus Network Proposal did wrestle with these ideas and issues back in 2014. I consider it to be solved, and the rest for TransLink to build on from there.

It is difficult to see how people could be dropped 'near' to the CBD without actually being dropped in the CBD because of the Brisbane River on the South and West, and the INB to the North. The Brisbane CBD is also unusually compact.

There is limited application in the NBNP of near side termination, and this is limited to a handful of routes at Wooloongabba that are infrequent and would carry few passengers anyway. I recommend against running buses from one side of Brisbane to the other simply because route lengths start to exceed 15-20 km, and delays are cumulative. In any case, the train network already does this.

Superbuses should be deployed to Brisbane streets. They run on local main roads in places overseas, and their larger capacity (2.3x standard bus) represents a very large increase in efficiency for the same labour cost expense. Coronation Drive, Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Old Cleveland Road are places the New Bus Network would run superbuses on surface streets.

[ozbob]

 

[aldonius]

There's absolutely no reason to make people transfer from buses that are already full, and as I'm sure you know, buses from, say, Algester bound for the City frequently are full within a few stops of the start point.

To my mind, that's an argument for superbussing the 140, and possibly the 130 and/or 150 too. (And to get cracking on CRR to enable the Flagstone line).

But the trick is to bring those buses, not into the City, but within walking distance of their destination in the City or to a transfer node on a route that will take them into the part of the City they want to get to.

Only some specific edges of the city are accessible from bridges though, and CRR's CBD-south station will work better for at least half those people.

There's no reason for buses to use the WJ bridge now. Getting from Kurilpa to Roma St it's easier to walk, getting from South Brisbane to Roma St you have the train line and many bus routes.

There might be a case for running eastside routes such that their CBD passengers get off at Kangaroo Point near Thornton St, but that would be a pretty extreme situation.

[ozbob]

Forgive me ... but .. 

[ozbob]

^ listen to the words of the song.

It is a fundamental lesson about networks and why they matter ..

Carry on ...

[ozbob]

Economic Times --> Here comes a Volvo bus that can accommodate 300 passengers

AUSTIN, TEXAS: Swedish commercial vehicle manufacturer Volvo has launched the world's largest bus chassis at the FetransRio exhibition in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The new biarticulated chassis, Volvo Gran Artic 300, is 30 meter long and can carry up to 300 passengers. The new Gran Artic 300 has been developed in Brazil especially for BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems.

"We are leaders in vehicles for high-capacity transportation systems, Bus Rapid Transit, and now we introduce the world's largest bus chassis. This vehicle will provide more efficient transportation systems, offering a higher quality for the passengers and improved cost efficiency for the transport operators", said Fabiano Todeschini, head of Volvo Bus Latin America.

At the FetransRio exhibition, Volvo also unveiled a new 22 m articulated chassis, Super Artic 210. It is equipped with five doors and can accommodate 210 passengers. The extra door facilitates boarding and alighting. The vehicle is built on only three axles.

The company has delivered more than 4,000 buses to the BRT-systems of Curitiba, Bogotá, Guatemala City, Mexico City, Santiago de Chile and San Salvador.

"We are proud to say that the world's largest bus is a Volvo and that it was developed in Brazil", said Idam Stival, Sales engineering coordinator, Volvo Bus Latin America.

Volvo has also showcased 18.6 meter long Artic 150 and 21 meter Artic 180, which has the capability to fit 150 and 180 passengers, respectively.