The reason why the buses are awful in New York City is because they share the same traffic as passenger vehicles and trucks. You can automate the buses, you can make it ride like a cloud, you can have seats that are made with gold, but if it doesn't have it's own right-of-way, it's still a gold-plated piece of junk.
I was just in Pittsburgh that has busways where some buses have dedicated bus lanes and dont share the road with cars and other vehicles, but sometimes share it with light rail. So the its cool the "bones" of ART are already there.
You are so right! We don't need new technology to transform city transit. We just need transit-centric policies like giving buses their own right-of-way.
if not on a seperat track like a tram railway with gras bettwen the rails and waist high fences. it will always be stuck in traffic too. did u ever see a fedx truck parking on a railwayline? very few pedestrians dare to cross one. but a traffic lane. come on. Same goes for bike lanes. they need to be seperat so no car could ever come near the riders. exept for corssings of corse
This may be a cheaper interims solution for cities. But it’s also a way to still not radically rethinking city mobility. We need to get away from too many cars and invest heavily in the expansion of other forms of mobility, like mass transit, bike infrastructure and better cross-modal options. The thing that makes this glorified bus work is, that it has it’s own lanes - and that would instantaneously make every Bus better. In for example German cities with tram lines, you often see busses using these lanes, too. That makes the busses less effected by traffic - and that’s what makes them more attractive. I think it’s clear - the solution is to rethink street space and allocate less lanes for cars as they are inefficient, polluting and noisy.
All this talk about autonomous cars, trams, and the like is so distressingly hilarious because any rail-based would be an infinitely better candidate for autonomy. The irony is killing me.
It looks like a driveless bus to me, and after witnessing how the driveless car technology has advanced so far... I am not sure how safely it will be if the road is congested or there is an obstacle on the road like a badly parked vehicle
The reason many people avoid busses is because they sit in the same traffic as cars. It's not a good alternative to driving if I'm still stuck in the same traffic
It's cheaper because it's mass and if people ditch their cars the traffic will be less. That's how it works out in non-American countries where people are not indoctrinated by auto companies.
If only we invest in Trams/Light rail, this could decrease traffic, and also add bus lines on many roads. Introducing more buses on roads could incentivize people to use them if the deficit is not high
@@jkardez4794 in Europe we also have traffic. The difference is that people in Europe actually take the train, tram and subway. Americans don't do public transport.
@@spookysenpai7642 Yes, I agree the US desperately needs to invest in public transportation. I can get behind tram/light rail. Creating protected bus only lanes (bus rapid transit) is also a really great solution! I'm just not a fan of a simple bus though due to the reason mentioned above.
@@Churros1616 Americans don't use public transit primarily because we don't HAVE public transit. If you live outside of a major city like Boston, NYC, or Philadelphia you have to drive or starve.
What kills me about this is that we (NEW YORKERS) used to have trolleys and trains that ran on the street. Taking them down was the worst decision ever.
A lot of parts of the US used to have it like LA which they were considered the best when comes to public transportation. Too bad is worse now. At least NYC is 10 times better than LA and the rest of the nation when comes to public transportation.
Cities globally are putting systems back in that they had ripped out. When people think of Australia, they often think of Melbourne when it comes to trams, however Sydney also had a very extensive tram network up until the last service in 1961. Since then, Sydney has put in 3 LR lines. One on a disused freight line, the other two involving new tracks being placed.
@@Marylandbrony That makes it suseptible to fires as this is basically an EV trolleybus. The overhead wires are actually better for charging. I think eventually they will put induction plates under the road to achieve the same results.
it will degrade the asphalt faster by being weighted down by batteries or it will not be electric make it lighter but worst for the noise and the lungs of those around it. but hey it uses paint as infrastructure... that's something i guess
@@herlescraft the painted rail thing is so dumb, it'll need to be repainted often, it'll be obscured when it snows or depending on the paint if the ground is wet, if there is dirt covering it. Paint as a guiding mechanism is incredibly unreliable it's a wonder anybody took them up on this
@@BikeHelmetMk2 I considered selling my car and just doing the bus with my motorcycle part of the year, but while there was a route that went near my job, it was going to be an inconvenient 2 hour endeavor instead of the current 15 minutes. I think a lot of people would use public transportation and would love saving money, but convenience is king and without it that isn't going to happen.
@@BikeHelmetMk2 my budget for car payment, insurance, gas, tolls, and parking is like $500 a month. The monthly bus pass here is $30. I wish the routes and timing were better cause an extra $5,600 in my pocket every year would be nice 👍
Right? That has a significant problem for America though: Some tech company doesn't make a bunch of money for selling its waste of money gadgetbahn to the state.
@@christopherdeangelis6383 America was able to operate cable powered trams for half a century with no problems. And wires? What is the problem? Are you afraid that they might damage your view on the concrete hellhole that is most American cities? Why can historical cities in Europe run trams and trolleybusses with overhead wires in the downtown with no issues? Americans just love to find all sorts of lazy excuses so that they do not have to give up on their cars.
@@CZpersi we don't put in tram tracks because if not maintained well they could damage our "precious" CARS. No wires because fossil fuels are often cheaper than the price of electricity here. And cities want buses that can move around other traffic like all the CARS.
At this point, why not just have more buses. A lot of people don't use buses simply because they are too infrequent so it's difficult to plan your commute around bus timings.
For more busses you need more bus drivers. For more bus drivers you need an attractive starting wage. Three guesses as to what is not going to be happening there.
What people care about in transit is not a bumpy ride, but speed and cost. If a bus ride is faster and cheaper than the alternative then you'll see more people taking it. The best way to achieve that is dedicated bus lanes, and considering how wide the streets are in the U.S. that's not difficult to achieve. It's infuriating to see "transit experts" in the U.S. constantly dodging around tried and tested solutions and instead go for the new shiny, often inefficient and wildly expensive gadgets that end up in a museum.
Once you have dedicated right of way, you may as well go rail. Its initial costs are probably not even higher, and it's much cheaper to operate. Density helps rail, but you kinda need rail first and density will follow, because cars can't really handle even moderate density without traffic jams.
@@hydroaegis6658 There’s one at the end of my street. They’re quieter than buses. 🤷♂️ Besides BRT doesn’t run on streets either, they have dedicated right of way.
Yeah. Cities like New york need to do a lot of smaller projects too, like extensive deployment of bus lanes and signal priority so that the buses don't get stuck in traffic. Like c'mon New York, upgrade the Select buses to BRT already.
It's hard to know where to start because there's so much wrong in this video, but this thing does not solve any transit problems. Look at Europe and see how they do it. A combination of buses, trains, trams, and bike paths along with walkable neighborhoods would be doable if we decided we really wanted to solve these problems.
@@XavierZara gas prices did skyrocket over the summer, and honestly i prefer cheaper but my job isn't that far so I'd be alright up until $10 a gallon then I'd be riding my bike like they do in the Netherlands lmao
@@seanthe100 No offense, but no-one asked you. People who can't afford cars or can't or won't drive for whatever reason should still be able to get around.
@@cinpeace353 because they're much more efficient and reliable in the long run. Why come up with a convoluted control systeem that needs perfect snow clearing (which is VERY expensive) when rails can solve rhe problem reliably
In 1990's, New York City tested the famous Curitiba's high-speed buses called "Ligeirinho" (Speedy Buses). These buses stopped only on tube-shaped stations were fare was collected before boarding. it doesn't matter if it's an electric bus, a trolleybus or a trackless tram - if the transit system is not fast and reliable, it will not attract passengers. New York could learn a little more from Curitiba and transform its Select Bus Service into a true BRT with tram-like, biarticulated buses and really comfortable tube-shaped stations. BRT is not just a bus lane.
We studied Curitiba in our Geography lessons when I was at school and it was impressive to see what they achieved without very much funding. If I recall correctly, they also increased the amount of green space around the city and pedestrianised many central areas.
Its just BRT. Tthey were deployed in south American cites, brazil bolivia etc in the same period or right after. They are being pushed in canada without the station in suburban cities because they are so cheap.
@@stekra3159 All big cities need a multi way system. If you can't build trams and subways then you certainly can adapt to a better bus/BRT type of interconection between the various models. Notably we have São Paulo and Recife doing this, the later on facing real hard chellenges due it's geography and lack of political will to make it work. Curitiba was smart and strong enough to see in the future and make it all based on the growth they would have from then. Other cities can only manage to adapt with strong will. That would translate into people seeing that Bus isn't all that bad when you can get to your location fairly quickly, low cost, and with as much comfort as you can get with mass transport systems.
The thing that every North American city needs to focus on is giving their buses dedicated lanes. That is much cheaper and has a greater impact on service quality and willingness to take transit than any of these "new" solutions. Also, I'm willing to bet that ride quality is near last on people's reasons for not riding the bus. The most important factors are that it's not frequent enough and gets stuck in traffic.
Cost is also a factor. Busses cost significantly more to maintain per passenger - partially because their capacity is so limited. If you need a dedicated bus lane you should probably just drop light rail on it from day one. It's cheaper and nicer long term (and possibly even short term).
Fun fact: My city actually considered this but it was thrown out because of the following problems: 1. Capacity was extremely limited which would cause overcrowding conditions from the very start 2. This solution requires more space than a conventional light rail system, meaning more impact to landowners 3. The solution requires significant reconstruction of the pavement, which essentially negates all cost benefits 4. The vehicle layout is not very suitable for intensive use as the door layout is suboptimal, which increases dwell time and journey time. I think the biggest concern that cities have with such a system is the capacity. The ART system has an extremely constrained capacity which means that it fills up really quickly- if you matched the demand profile of a light rail to the ART system, the ART would fill up twice as fast. So, this really forces a system like this into a very specific niche. It's not good for high-demand, high-frequency use because the capacity is severely constrained, but it's also not very good for lower demand services as it still requires extensive reconstruction of our roads and streets in order to make it work, and the larger vehicles typically incentivise transit agencies to cut down on service (which inevitably reduces ridership). It's not as simple as painting lines on the pavement like the video suggests. So for low demand you're better with a simple bus with a simple bus lane, maybe an articulated or bi-articulated bus (which has a similar capacity), operated more frequently to incentivise riders, since it requires less infrastructure, and for medium to high demands, light rail or an automated light metro makes more sense since it is better suited to higher capacities. Bus-like systems in a rapid-transit environment also suffer from a phenomenon known as BRT Creep. BRT Creep is where a transit agency continuously trims down a BRT Project. As BRT projects are relatively loosely defined and highly flexible, many transit operators reduce service quality whilst trying to still pass it off as BRT. I can forsee something similar to this where operators keep trying to trim down their systems until you're left with what is essentially a glorified bus. Service cuts are also much easier with bus-based systems, as it is a much easier decision to cut service on cheaper systems. The lower costs signal to operators that service cuts are okay. However, service cuts are some of the most harmful things you can do to a transit system as it drives away ridership permanently as they are no longer guaranteed a stable, reliable service. After all, you're far more likely to take a bus which always arrives on time and never gets cancelled than a bus that doesn't even show up half the time. So at the end of the day, maybe such a system could be useful where the roads are of a good enough standard and ridership demand is between that of a bus and a light rail, but this certainly isn't an LRT replacement like the video suggests. Also P.S. Such a system as a crosstown route in NYC is a *terrible* idea. Building new rapid transit routes also induces demand for transit, and NYC likely has a *ton* of latent crosstown travel demand that can't be foreseen until the route is actually built. Seeing as a trackless tram already has trouble keeping up with the *projected* crosstown demand (capacity exceeded by 1.1 to 1.5 times) in a 1.5 million population city that's relatively sparsely populated, an interborough service with a trackless tram would likely be overcrowded by many times more. This is likely made worse by the fact that transit projects typically exceed their projected demand (so maybe we could expect a figure closer to 1.7x or 2x for my city and idk, 4x to 6x for NYC?) and that the corridor in question already receives extremely frequent bus service.
So your argument is that if the build it, it will be over crowded? Exactly where in NYC is there an area that is sparsely populated? And don't use a hypothetical, use the actual proposal made in NYC to provide transportation across a part of the city which currently doesn't have a convenient route. This is also an incomplete video, only taking into consideration a couple of cities in China and the possibility of using it in Perth. In many US cities there are wide stroods that would be ideal for this type of transportation. Cities in the US used to have miles of track for street cars that crisscrossed the whole city. This system could bring that back without the expensive laying of track. Plus, if a system isn't working it could easily be changed by changing the markings on the road. I used to live in Portland which installed a light rail that ran across the city. The parking around the stations in the suburbs was usually completely filled because everyone drove from their home to the station, parked their car and then took that to get downtown. But This would be ideal where major streets through the suburbs could install these and run them to the stations from the neighborhoods. This would also be ideal for where I live now, Tokyo, where there are some major streets serviced by buses, but there are dead areas that need service but the companies aren't willing to put in the buses. Or on some overcrowded bus routes a system like this could easily be used to ease that.
@@rabbit251 The point is that because Tokyo and NYC are *densely* populated, the demand for transit is much much higher. If the ART can't even keep up with demand is a sparsely populated area, it certainly can't keep up with a denser area. Since circumferential routes across NYC are nearly non-existent, demand for such a route would likely be very very high, which would lead to immense overcrowding on a low capacity system. Besides, the most expensive part of transit is securing the alignment, also known as where you'll be putting the transit. The actual cost of the track isn't that high. The main reason why people don't use public transport is not that "the bus isn't comfortable enough" like the video suggests, but that it's too slow. You can replicate the effects that an ART might have simply by painting a bus lane and making the buses faster. In fact, the ART is just a guided BRT system with tram styling. ART also doesn't provide any meaningful capacity benefit over buses- articulated and even bi-articulated buses can easily surpass the capacity provided by the ART. Some cities in North America already have BRT systems installed along roadways, typically with bus lanes. An ART system would be no different, except that it uses proprietary technology which locks you down to 1 provider and still requires a driver. With a conventional BRT system, you can buy buses from any manufacturer, but you can't do this with the ART. Given that the ART provides few benefits over plain old BRT, it's not worth it. Bus-based systems like the ART also lack permanence, as service can easily be cut or whittled down with few repercussions, which obviously decreases people's willingness to use it if service could just disappear overnight. Having physical tracks also makes it easier to make the system separated from traffic, which would do more to improve ridership than simply making the buses fancy. At the end of the day, the ART system provides few benefits over a BRT system (because that's essentially what it is) when operating under lower demands, but for higher demand applications, the ART is insufficient capacity-wise to be used since it is essentially a bus. The system is proprietary and lacks permanence which increases reluctance to use the system.
@@rabbit251 Also I never said that NYC was sparsely populated. My local city (NOT NYC) seriously considered the ART system and found that capacity was insufficient. They published a report on their findings along a proposed light rail corridor which I base my arguments off. Given that my local city is relatively sparesly populated compared to NYC, and that NYC is much denser with much more demand, an ART would fill up even faster, which reduces the quality of the service (and also speed because of boarding times)
@@williamhuang8309 Many people are not willing to take you on, but I'll bite. I'm a retired international law attorney living in Tokyo and these mass transit systems are a key interest of mine especially since I worked on the high speed rail across Texas for Hitachi. First, you are obviously Chinese as is my wife and I'm pretty fluent in daily aspects of the language. One thing you should learn is that you can't post an acronym without first stating what it is. I assume that BRT stands for "Bus Rapid Transit." (This is probably the biggest reason why no one has responded to your comments. You sound like a know-it-all but without actually defining what you're talking about. BRT could also stand for Black Russian Terrier or Bug Reporting Tool). Reviewing what you said, I have little idea what the difference is between a BRT and a regular bus. Again, one of the short comings of this video. When people see a bus they treat it as a regular vehicle. But with a tram people realize they must get out of the way. It's basically optics, which pretty sure psychology will back up. Most buses get stuck in rush hour traffic which this system says it would eliminate and make it easier for travel and would therefore reduce traffic jams. I literally couldn't find an acronym for ART, so, sorry about your limited English skills. What is an ART? I tried to guess based on the video but nothing came up. If you need help with English skills I can help with that. (First, anytime you use an acronym you must spell it out unless it is widely known, like FBI, CIA, or NATO. If you said CPP, no one would know what that means, except perhaps you.) Interesting also is that you won't name your city. Based on your English usage, you're not in America, possibly Britain or some other colony. Definitely not in China. And I will further guess that you are not a first generation immigrant, but your parents were. You do very little to define and distinguish the difference between an ART and BRT. You were probably educated in this material, but unless you explain specifics and give examples, no one knows what you are talking about poor boy. (Last words were added to make you feel at ease in you British culture. Americans abhor at using such language usually. But Brits had no problem in saying to or describing me.)
Overcrowded services at least means more money brought in and a demonstrated need so you can invest in actual light rail later. My former city of Trondheim uses "superbuses" or "meteobusses". They're 24 meters long and have two joints like these things, but uses human drivers and doesn't waste money on all the extra comfort technology of those things, and have way more seats. The city developed transportation hubs around the city using smaller busses to transport passengers to connecting superbuses along major routes (mostly previously serviced by actual busses), the stops and roads where improved to support these things and for a future transition to light rail when funding becomes available. Yes, they're overcrowded sometimes, but that's a *good* thing. On the whole they've been a good experience for us and improved our mainly buss focused public transportation system. (We *do* have a legacy tram line left, but most of our old tram lines are long gone, and it would take time and money to replace that)
Cars and public transit should have separate lanes. Busses would be able to move through the city much. more quickly and you can improve frequency to encourage more people to ride them. I believe you must also modernize the system with newer busses, better apps and covering all bus stops for harsh weather.
made in china ART running in USA! are you kidding!? imagine all the american in the ART have no more privacy and national security is at stake! --- joe biden.
As someone who took the bus for years, the "ride quality" was not my concern. My concern was always ALWAYS scheduling. Does it run on time? Does it come by frequently? Does it arrive at the train station in sync with the trains so I'm not waiting ages between transfering between bus and train and bus again. That's what matters, infinitely more than how "smooth" the ride is.
When Tri-Rail was introduced in South Florida back in the late 1980s, this was a major point. Because it was designed to be a temporary passenger rail system during the course of I-95 major rebuild in the three-county corridor which is a HUGE commuter corridor, it was critical that the bus system in each county be coordinated with the train schedule. Also, if a station did not have a bus stop close by (or even a route), then a route and stop were added. IIRC, the bus stops at the highest-demand stations were increased to every half hour during peak rush hours, and hourly outside of that. I used to work as a ticket agent at one the stations, and the comments I heard from my regular daily customers who used bus/train combo to get to/from work was overwhelmingly positive. The entire project was so successful that when I-95 reconstruction was completed and the railroad company announced plans to phase out Tri-Rail there was an immense public outcry demanding that the service be kept. One of the keys to its success was that it connected with Miami's Metrorail (elevated electric commuter rail). For less than ten dollars, people from Palm Beach can ride 80 miles to the Miami Airport station to transfer to Metrorail, which will take them another 5 miles or so to downtown Miami, where the PeopleMover autonomous rail shuttle will take them into the heart of the shopping district. I often heard from my regulars who boarded my station in the afternoon about the retired women using seats to place their mall shopping bags on and depriving passengers of seats! The interconnecting rail and bus schedules in each county of the three-county transit system is carefully coordinated.
I actively avoid the bus in NY not because “it bulks and is shakey”, I actively avoid it because of the crazy people, it’s impuntual, and stalls in traffic
Yes, this is the 600 pound politically incorrect gorilla in the room. Public transit activists fail to point out this fact. You are not supposed to say that public transit is full of gross, stinky, homeless, violent, crazy people that dissuades normal people from using them. You can have the best transit system in the world - Tokyo grade. But if people don't feel safe or comfortable with others in the same cabin, they ain't going to use it.
Wouldn't it be great if we switched from cars to trains, buses, cycling and walking in dense US cities? Cars are the wrong tool for the job in dense places and are incredibly inefficient in terms of infrastructure compared to these other methods.
Yeah this is spot on IMO. Cars are inefficient in built up city areas and introduce an outsized amount of danger, noise, and smell; they should be straight up but allowed in built up areas. All the "bUt I LovE mY CaR" people can still live their dream in most anywhere else in the US outside of built up areas.
There is that thing called "metrobus" in Istanbul. It is not an autonomous, tram-like system, but more like elongated buses that go on their own lines. It has been used for over ten years.
Or the louder noise of metal wheels in tight courners. I live in Gothenburg Sweden with plenty tight tram turns keeping us up at night (not really me but some).
@@Chobaca though asphalt on brt systems needs replacing every few years far more frequently than normal roads and it overall a worst performer for passenger comfort and running noises at high speed. I've seen tram tracks that address the thigh turning noise as I've seen concrete guideways for BRT nothing is (un-)*addressable but it gets expensive either way. the solution is more investment rather that gadgetbahns *edit
And as double articulated battery buses these things are heavy, so will rip up normal asphalt quickly.. you probably need a dedicated resurfacing (think cost) And as you say they are a rubber-tyred bus, which brings with it all the bus motion issues
@@mark123655 they are not heavier then semis(lorrys) though. In Gothenburg they don't do special asfalt. By they way light rail also contribute to air pollution. Especially if in undergrad tubes like subways. They rip up metals. I mean it's all better then cars and worse the bikes. But there are a lot of factors to consider. They could have gone a bit deeper into some of it.
@@Chobaca Generally the only actual issue with air pollution from trams/undergrounds is the formation of ozone from the contact between the wires and the pantograph. Comparing the minuscule amount of metal wear (which doesn't end up in the air, because metal particulates don't float) to the pollution caused by road vehicles is like comparing the sand pit in your local playground to the Sahara.
The US will never prioritise public transport. There have been discussions and proposals after proposals after proposals, and still, very little to nothing has been achieved to date. It still hasn't been able to introduce a modern, rapid rail network that would greatly benefit the country. Unfortunately, there's too much interest with money and political sway to ever get enough traction behind effective public transport.
Buses are too infrequent and too slow compared to taking a car. Even in heavily congested areas, it’s faster to take a care over a bus. That is why people don’t ride them. It has nothing to do with ride quality.
Brisbane moment, Kuching moment. Plot twist it’s a bus that looks like a tram. It tries to reinvent the tram but ends up being a total joke in the end.
Yes, all that capital sunk into car dealerships, car factories, and oil pipelines and processing facilities really needs to make a long term-return, so that same capital pays for media to repeat invented reasons to avoid building out actual high-capacity transit.
The issue with almost all public transit and bicycling it turns out is cars. Bus getting stuck in traffic because it’s stuck there with cars. Biking around cars parked in bike lanes, if there are any at all, plus nearly getting hit constantly by drivers. Convincing government to invest billions in transit or expanding a highway that won’t fix the “congestion problem”, easily the funds go to the inefficient highway.
The problem with these is that Americans refuse to allow public transit to take priority at traffic lights. I have never seen an Asian light rail that stops for traffic lights. American light rail does this all the time and it’s incredibly slow.
In reality, it is exactly the same thing. The "difference" is that they make it look like a tram, and they have an optical guiding system, so most of the time the driver (you can't have it without in real traffic) can take his hands from the steering wheel, which will make purchase and maintaining these new buses much more expensive and dependent on the goodwill of the Chinese manufacturer to provide replacement parts at reasonable cost. Separate bus lanes, ideally with priority at traffic lights, with regular buses stopping every 2 blocks and express buses only stopping at important interchanges, are the cheaper and more flexible option. Or: go for real trams on separate tracks (rail), and you have added comfort and speed.
Here is a thought. Ban normal cars from city's. The problem is a ton of cars with one or two passengers taking up all of the road. Have a lane or two for busses trams and trucks. Another lane for cycles and the rest for pedestrians. Your problem will be solved. Push cars further and further out as the city expands.
Honestly, yeah! It's remarkable how large a negative impact cars as a whole have on every other mode of transportation (and the comfort of the streets in general). Simply removing them would allow everything else to blossom. 💯
Most cities have the basic existing infrastructure: roads and streets. Imagine what we could do if we used all the money we spend on individual cars on a vast network of buses. Efficient, safer streets, fewer parked cars, 5 minute headways!
"Transit ridership is down after the start of the pandemic, it *MUST* be because busses are bad so we need a bus/train hybrid to make things worse." -CNBC
There are already autonomous trains, it’s called Vancouver SkyTrain. In Japan it’s called Yurikamome, and in Kuala Lumpur it’s called the Kelana Jaya Line. In France it’s called the Lille Metro.
Its not called that, notable lines that use autonomous trains are named that. People don't say: "The Ontario Line in Toronto will be a very fast Vancouver SkyTrain compared to other Vancouver SkyTrains such as the Vancouver SkyTrain which have many Vancouver SkyTrain Vancouver SkyTrains in the Vancouver SkyTrain yards for Vancouver SkyTrains. I also love the Beijing Capital International Airport Terminal 3 People Mover Vancouver SkyTrain models of course, who doesn't?" Translated to Normal non-Vancouver SkyTrain English: "The Ontario Line in Toronto will be a very fast autonomous train compared to other autonomous trains such as the Vancouver SkyTrain which have many Vancouver SkyTrain autonomous trains in the Vancouver SkyTrain yards for autonomous trains. I also love the Beijing Capital International Airport Terminal 3 People Mover autonomous train models of course, who doesn't?"
Rails are expensive? what are you talking about? just cos US doesnt have the laws, investment, strategy and the initiative to put it rail transport, doesn't mean it's inefficient or cost-ineffective. There are countries with wide rail tram infrastructure that has been in place over 50 years. BS logic. US will unlikely have trackless trams or trams or great metro, or countrywide intercity trains, cos US is a car country. US will unlikely have a great public transport project ever, rather the greatest ever parking lot or the widest ever freeway...
The problem is American cities, their politics and what people think about public transit in the US. That woman at the end said something so dumb it hurt my head, that proves my point to the tee: "putting rail into the roadbed is highly disruptive for businesses, the community and the residents" Whaaaaat? Well, sure, under construction that may be the case. But in every city once light rail is built it is amazing for businesses, the community and the residents. Light rail or heavy rail is so permanent it changes the cities in such a way a buss route or "superbusses" can't. The exact same reason why busses and routes are flexible is why they don't impact neighborhoods and cities the same way rail does. Even buss routes with dedicated road ways don't come close to impacting like rail does. If a small city like Bergen, Norway (pop. 290 000) can build light rail lines and have them be both economically viable and be a success with ridership, there is NO REASON why a massive city like New York can't make it work.
No. trams and trains in general are better because they are ride on rails. That makes them safer, they don't need the asphalt roads, less energy to work...
this new project is a waste of money, space and time! Improve the bus routes and buses. And in 15-20 years there maybe be fully electric buses and driver-less.
Why try and find a more expensive option even when you can’t even make busses go froom every few minutes. That’s the most essential part, not how comfortable it is.
Just another distraction from the automotive and tire industry to prevent people from using actually efficient solutions like trains and trams. Politicians love these
Your analysis is absolutly right ! ☝️🧐 This BUS system was developed for cities, which are politically still addicted to the so named concept "Car-friendly City" of the 60s and 70s, and who have not understood the signs of the times, yet. That's the whole true story, so easy it is ! Double articulated and guided buses are an INFERIOR REPLACEMENT for a transport system, that we already have for long: TRAM / LIGHTRAIL. It has to be said very clearly, that this is not an innovation at all, but a sham package ! And that is by the way, why the french CITY OF CAEN has switched from those buses BACK TO THE TRAM. 👋😜 🇩🇪
The main thing keeping most of Americans out of mass transit is the amount of time it takes to use. Nearly all US cities are not walkable. Mass Transit tends to take 2-5 times as long to get somewhere as taking a car. Something stuck to the existing road network would not overcome this main drawback.
It won’t work on nyc. Main reason why i avoid buses is because of traffic. Subway just avoids that entirely. Not to mention, cutting down on parking spaces AND lanes. A lot of the streets in queens have 1 functional lanes because of parking.
The root cause is: when traffic is congested, public transportation MUST have dedicated lanes (standard bus, BRT, autonomous, even tram). all the rest are details.
One positive of this kind of system is that it would be much easier to alter a route if need be, but my question would be; are these really cheaper than light rail? I actually don't think "cheaper" should be the metric used to decide which is better, but that's beside the point. Wouldn't wheeled trains require constant tire changes? Also if it's going over the same path day in day out, wouldn't grooves in the road eventually wear in? That would require maintenance to fix. Of course, we could do what we always do and ignore the maintenance needs until it crumbles. I don't think a lot of long-term thinking is going into this.
It would be easier to alter than a train, but much harder to divert temporarily than a regular bus if it's truly driverless. I don't see why this is better than bog-standard BRT.
Optical guided busway has a couple of known issues as to why you can't just paint the markers and be done with it: 1. what happens when the markers are covered in dirt, snow, or just wear away. Optical markers need to be clearly visible to be followed 2. the wheels of every vehicle will end up on exactly the same line, this will concentrate the wear in the asphalt requiring additional reinforcement and maintenance. Basically a concrete track to run on. Nothing here is new technology, guided busways already exist, but they are not the magic answer. Past the guided busway aspects, this is BRT with battery electric busses, which has their own downsides from being battery based.
Ad 2: That is exactly, why we put down steel rails and call it a tram. If the vehicle is so heavy and frequent that it starts to dig its own track, it is usually a good sign that proper rails are needed.
@@CZpersi Oh, I agree, but that wouldn't be an issue until they made it guided so the wheels are in the same place every time, but yeah, steel wheels on steel rails are the hardest wearing option once that is the case.
the problem is, even if its 1-5th of tram builds, you still pay for maintenance you eventually are better off building trams metro or lightrail instead of rubber wheel drived tram wannebees
The lady in the video said that it is costly to put rails into streets. Of course it is. Because if you want them to last for decades, you have to tear up a lot of ground to build a solid track. It you were to run those "ART buses", you would need to do the same if you want your ride comfort to remain adequate even after 5 years of operation. Also, the wheel tires of streetcars must be changed after 500 thousand miles. How many tires do you have to change on that bus to get the same distance? Rolling resistance and thus energy consumption is also a big factor that is in favor for the streetcar in the long term. And most important - you do not have to haul big, heavy and expensive traction accumulators that store the electricity you need and have no downtime for charging them. Streetcars last over decades and in many places around the world, it is not surprising to see 50+ years old cars still in regular operation. I highly doubt that any "ART bus" will last that long.
There's another name for this: Bus Rapid Transit. A long, bendy bus is still a bus, whatever you call it. If it runs on rubber tires on a road, whether it's steered by a driver or an autonomous system then it's a bus. That said, it absolutely should be part of the consideration matrix for mass transit.
I take issue with these long buses. Once you are in need of such big buses, you should build a tram line. They are much cheaper to maintain and operate than pavement, can carry more people and is easier to handle than a super long bus.
A bus with dedicated lanes and right of way at junctions gets most of the benefits. It's a matter of getting car drivers to agree to having 2nd priority which is where you hit problems (or they hit you). Narrower buses with proximity sensors like these just mean that dedicated are a little easier to allocate space for. Then there is just the matter of the vehicle length and tight turns meaning junctions need to be redesigned to fit with suitable routes.
Stop investing in busses, no one wants to use them. You'd be better in investing in street cars or light rail. The issue with busses is that they take up room on streets and highways, they get stuck in gridlock traffic and contribute to it. There's no way to control who ends up in the bus lane as people will drive as recklessly and as stupidly as possible. There should always be an uninterrupted separation from cars/traffic and the public transit system you're trying to create.
I live near... Brisbane, and there used to trams, but the rails have been removed because the council did not think it would pay. But, as Brisbane grew, increase in road traffic has effectively softlocked the council. Because digging up a lane or two where the tram was would cause uproar. The Gold Coast, (which I am lucky to live within 100km of) has a tram line running through the city parallel to the coast, and every time I've been there, no driving to the shops! Or ice-cream.
Make sure this is real and it works. The last time I heard of a new transit idea from China, it was a scam. (It was a giant bus that straddled the road). It attracted investors , and it turned out it wouldn't work.
@@LS-Moto. The long term cost is definitely less with rail. Rail is cheaper in the long run. Rail vehicles can last many decades and rail infrastructure is extremely resilient. Roads must be constantly maintained/replaced along with the vehicles tires and engine components if they are ICE
First off: (IMO) CRRC should be banned in the US for at least National Security reasons. (Infrastructure tie-in through PTC) Second off: (Fact) This thing needs some rails under it.
I mean sure an automated higher capacity BRT is an alright idea but without a fixed guideway all it'll take is a small guidance glitch for it to leave its lane. Making it a guided busway shouldn't cost too much more as it just involves laying concrete. The speed of implementation would be reduced though
In conclusion, the only advantage to a bus is the new(?) suspension against vibrations. In any other point it is just a (maybe longer, wich can bring it's own problems) bendy bus. The automatisation might be an other difference, that could be implemented in busses, if self driving cars are ready. The system combines the disadvantages of both: It loses the flexibility of a bus (through it's fixation on a predetermined track) and the efficiency of a train/subway/tram (low friction of steel wheels on steel tracks and the power supply by over head wire or a power rail).
Self driving cars won’t be ready for a long long long time. If they even going to reach the point of truly autonomous cars at all. But it’s so complex all the small observations, calculations and decisions that a driver makes. So they basically would need a AI humanoid (like in Westworld) to have truly safe autonomous cars. And we don’t even speculate on when and if they will get there
@@marekdg yes, maybe it is easier to program a bus for just 1 route, but it might still take some time, until vehicles are safe to go faster than pedestrian speed
This is just an articulated bus with extra steps. Either do an articulated bus, a steel-wheeled tram, high-floor light rail (like LA or Pittsburgh), or BUILD A FREAKING SUBWAY
I hope they make sure to prevent the degradation of the road surface if such a vehicle with tire and automatic control always drives over the same exact place. It will likely degrade quicker. I think I have heard about that happening before with similar concepts.
It won't have it drive over exactly the same place because AI isn't that accurate yet, but yes you've hit on a big problem with busses - road damage and maintenance - which is why this should be a tram or light rail.
The reason why the buses are awful in New York City is because they share the same traffic as passenger vehicles and trucks. You can automate the buses, you can make it ride like a cloud, you can have seats that are made with gold, but if it doesn't have it's own right-of-way, it's still a gold-plated piece of junk.
Then split of the lanes more often
Exactly....the buses shake theory was so dumb, it's as if they never took the bus before in their entire life.
I was just in Pittsburgh that has busways where some buses have dedicated bus lanes and dont share the road with cars and other vehicles, but sometimes share it with light rail. So the its cool the "bones" of ART are already there.
You are so right! We don't need new technology to transform city transit. We just need transit-centric policies like giving buses their own right-of-way.
if not on a seperat track like a tram railway with gras bettwen the rails and waist high fences. it will always be stuck in traffic too. did u ever see a fedx truck parking on a railwayline? very few pedestrians dare to cross one. but a traffic lane. come on. Same goes for bike lanes. they need to be seperat so no car could ever come near the riders. exept for corssings of corse
The ride isn't the problem. It's the time.
The time problem is eliminated when the bus uses a dedicated lane.
@@htimsid I don't think so
@@Pernection works literally everywhere in the world
@@LS-Moto yep pretty much every major country in the world has managed it 😂
@@htimsid Exactly
Achievement gained: REINVENTED! You have sucessfully reinvented: Dedicated Bus Lane
sounds like combining the cons of a bus with the cons of a light rail/tram.
This may be a cheaper interims solution for cities. But it’s also a way to still not radically rethinking city mobility. We need to get away from too many cars and invest heavily in the expansion of other forms of mobility, like mass transit, bike infrastructure and better cross-modal options.
The thing that makes this glorified bus work is, that it has it’s own lanes - and that would instantaneously make every Bus better. In for example German cities with tram lines, you often see busses using these lanes, too. That makes the busses less effected by traffic - and that’s what makes them more attractive.
I think it’s clear - the solution is to rethink street space and allocate less lanes for cars as they are inefficient, polluting and noisy.
God damn. The US will do anything but build trains.
Yes because trains are socialist / communist. And since Americans are afraid of the color red….
Australia and Malaysia are building ART, not the US.
CRRC psyop
All this talk about autonomous cars, trams, and the like is so distressingly hilarious because any rail-based would be an infinitely better candidate for autonomy. The irony is killing me.
jfkusa123 - ikr??! Electric trains don’t use fuel or rubber tires and those industries THROTTLE all progress for their selfish preservation 😡
So the innovation here is a bus in a bus lane…
It looks like a driveless bus to me, and after witnessing how the driveless car technology has advanced so far... I am not sure how safely it will be if the road is congested or there is an obstacle on the road like a badly parked vehicle
The innovation is one less worker.
Is a tram with tires instead of metal wheels on rails, adaptaive suspension for comfortable driving.
@@alfaeco15 why not just build a tram then instead of trying to reinvent it but worse
@@IvanSantanaEu Replaced by a more costly IT professional plus an expanded maintenance crew.
The reason many people avoid busses is because they sit in the same traffic as cars. It's not a good alternative to driving if I'm still stuck in the same traffic
It's cheaper because it's mass and if people ditch their cars the traffic will be less. That's how it works out in non-American countries where people are not indoctrinated by auto companies.
If only we invest in Trams/Light rail, this could decrease traffic, and also add bus lines on many roads. Introducing more buses on roads could incentivize people to use them if the deficit is not high
@@jkardez4794 in Europe we also have traffic. The difference is that people in Europe actually take the train, tram and subway. Americans don't do public transport.
@@spookysenpai7642 Yes, I agree the US desperately needs to invest in public transportation. I can get behind tram/light rail. Creating protected bus only lanes (bus rapid transit) is also a really great solution! I'm just not a fan of a simple bus though due to the reason mentioned above.
@@Churros1616 Americans don't use public transit primarily because we don't HAVE public transit. If you live outside of a major city like Boston, NYC, or Philadelphia you have to drive or starve.
"They have re-invented the tram" - NJB
what video?
That quote was from Adam Something
NJB = "not just bikes," the name of a UA-cam (and other social media) account by a biking/transit/safe-streets advocate.
@@GenericUrbanism yeah that’s what i was thinking. he usually covers stupid ideas like this one
Dedicated lanes ≠ fixed tracks.
What kills me about this is that we (NEW YORKERS) used to have trolleys and trains that ran on the street. Taking them down was the worst decision ever.
The Blizzard of 1888 is what ultimately killed the trolleys and surface trains. The subway was their replacement.
A lot of parts of the US used to have it like LA which they were considered the best when comes to public transportation.
Too bad is worse now. At least NYC is 10 times better than LA and the rest of the nation when comes to public transportation.
Americans drive cars. Simple as that.
@@TheFarix2723 so basically when trolly's were just coming out? they need to try again with weather proof trollies.
Cities globally are putting systems back in that they had ripped out. When people think of Australia, they often think of Melbourne when it comes to trams, however Sydney also had a very extensive tram network up until the last service in 1961. Since then, Sydney has put in 3 LR lines. One on a disused freight line, the other two involving new tracks being placed.
This is called a trollybus and it was invented over a 100 years ago 😂😂 they are super underrated though for sure
Yep that's exactly what this is a trolleybus with modern articulation and supression.
@@KRYMauL And no overhead wires. That’s probably the biggest thing as it can easily be created and expanded.
@@Marylandbrony That makes it suseptible to fires as this is basically an EV trolleybus. The overhead wires are actually better for charging. I think eventually they will put induction plates under the road to achieve the same results.
At least it isn't "pod" tech
@@KRYMauL Maybe. But much more expensive and maintenance than overhead wires.
Now presenting the tram with extra steps and worse
How is this different from a trollybus on a dedicated bus lane ???
It same thing including street cars.
it will degrade the asphalt faster by being weighted down by batteries or it will not be electric make it lighter but worst for the noise and the lungs of those around it. but hey it uses paint as infrastructure... that's something i guess
@@herlescraft the painted rail thing is so dumb, it'll need to be repainted often, it'll be obscured when it snows or depending on the paint if the ground is wet, if there is dirt covering it. Paint as a guiding mechanism is incredibly unreliable it's a wonder anybody took them up on this
@@WolfgreenFang Yeah. Again cities in Europe have used the tech for over 20 years now yet it obviously never became widespread.
They don't have to pay drivers, basically.
Ride quality isn't the problem. The problem is outside of huge cities, often buses only run once every hour and there are not enough routes.
don't forget they are slower due to having to share the road with cars!
Ride quality is a problem - if the bus driver keeps jerking the clutch and drives fast around uneven corners imma keep my breakfast in and walk.
Once per hour? Locally you can find routes that run *twice per day* - who would plan a trip around that?
@@BikeHelmetMk2 I considered selling my car and just doing the bus with my motorcycle part of the year, but while there was a route that went near my job, it was going to be an inconvenient 2 hour endeavor instead of the current 15 minutes. I think a lot of people would use public transportation and would love saving money, but convenience is king and without it that isn't going to happen.
@@BikeHelmetMk2 my budget for car payment, insurance, gas, tolls, and parking is like $500 a month. The monthly bus pass here is $30. I wish the routes and timing were better cause an extra $5,600 in my pocket every year would be nice 👍
just build tracks and have it be a tram
Wires up!!
cant have that cus trains r communism :p
Right? That has a significant problem for America though: Some tech company doesn't make a bunch of money for selling its waste of money gadgetbahn to the state.
@@christopherdeangelis6383 America was able to operate cable powered trams for half a century with no problems. And wires? What is the problem? Are you afraid that they might damage your view on the concrete hellhole that is most American cities? Why can historical cities in Europe run trams and trolleybusses with overhead wires in the downtown with no issues? Americans just love to find all sorts of lazy excuses so that they do not have to give up on their cars.
@@CZpersi we don't put in tram tracks because if not maintained well they could damage our "precious" CARS. No wires because fossil fuels are often cheaper than the price of electricity here. And cities want buses that can move around other traffic like all the CARS.
At this point, why not just have more buses. A lot of people don't use buses simply because they are too infrequent so it's difficult to plan your commute around bus timings.
Because road is to big
Buses are never on time, or come together at the same time! Then in the traffics or snow slow moving..
For more busses you need more bus drivers. For more bus drivers you need an attractive starting wage. Three guesses as to what is not going to be happening there.
Yeah I’ve been to other cities and I’ve heard how abysmal the wait is some buses run 30-60 minutes intervals like what
More buses the more congestion!
More people take trains, because it is faster then the bus.
It's like these people never seen NYC traffic before.
this trackless train goes at speed of train, it does not stop in traffic light,
@@xinyiquan666 And so. They still cannot build it in NYC. Cause then they will be more traffic then there already is.
@@saulgoodman2018 i agree, NY has no way to upgrade its system, its big mess, only way is demolish most of its old building
@@xinyiquan666 demolish them for what?
What people care about in transit is not a bumpy ride, but speed and cost. If a bus ride is faster and cheaper than the alternative then you'll see more people taking it. The best way to achieve that is dedicated bus lanes, and considering how wide the streets are in the U.S. that's not difficult to achieve. It's infuriating to see "transit experts" in the U.S. constantly dodging around tried and tested solutions and instead go for the new shiny, often inefficient and wildly expensive gadgets that end up in a museum.
Once you have dedicated right of way, you may as well go rail. Its initial costs are probably not even higher, and it's much cheaper to operate. Density helps rail, but you kinda need rail first and density will follow, because cars can't really handle even moderate density without traffic jams.
@@shrakaWon't happen in a city street. No one wants the sound of steel on steel next to their homes or businesses.
@@hydroaegis6658 There’s one at the end of my street. They’re quieter than buses. 🤷♂️ Besides BRT doesn’t run on streets either, they have dedicated right of way.
Lies again? Ezlink Card
@@hydroaegis6658 But loud ass diesel engines are fine? Lmao
1:22 I take the subway as much as possible over the bus because the bus gets held back by other cars on the road.
Bus is less stressful sometimes. Trains are far away at times plus all of the stairs.
@@42luke93 there is something called an escalator
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa They don't have those everywhere, you think I'm stupid.
The Braess' Paradox in action I guess
Yeah. Cities like New york need to do a lot of smaller projects too, like extensive deployment of bus lanes and signal priority so that the buses don't get stuck in traffic. Like c'mon New York, upgrade the Select buses to BRT already.
only $17b for mass transit. Thats not bad at all. I-10 in Texas was $100b in the 90's (not including maintenance).
Was it really that much? JFC
Ain't no way it was a $100 Billon
@@seanthe100 It's has 26 lanes at points. It still has daily traffic jams.
@@TheDatura the Katy freeway expansion was $2.2 Billon a steal in todays money
@elfrjz Indonesia is a 3rd world country though
Adam Something Army... Assamble!!! :D (Also other Urbanists)
LOL...thinking the same thing!!! 😄
rmtransit did
Let's go!
It's hard to know where to start because there's so much wrong in this video, but this thing does not solve any transit problems. Look at Europe and see how they do it. A combination of buses, trains, trams, and bike paths along with walkable neighborhoods would be doable if we decided we really wanted to solve these problems.
I'm 100% fine where I live in my car dependent suburb
@@seanthe100 Will you still be fine when gas prices skyrocket?
@@XavierZara gas prices did skyrocket over the summer, and honestly i prefer cheaper but my job isn't that far so I'd be alright up until $10 a gallon then I'd be riding my bike like they do in the Netherlands lmao
@@seanthe100 No offense, but no-one asked you. People who can't afford cars or can't or won't drive for whatever reason should still be able to get around.
Not just Europe. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Mexico City, Minneapolis, and Denver have good transit systems.
Soooo a longer articulated bus....in a BRT style layout.... But but just look better....got it.
Nothing new, South America and East Asia has had them since the early 90s or something
It is EV and driverless.
@@cinpeace353 So an automated tram with more margin for error, got it
@@cinpeace353 So it is a self driving brt.
Electric buses and driverless road vehicles are commonplace today @@cinpeace353
Just put it on rails. This isn't very complicated.
On today's episode of "just build a damn train"...
They don't want to pay for the tracks the tracks will cause more 💰😅
Building rails require larger land, which requires land acquisitions, which requires safety certification, environmental inspection, etc. etc.
While you can travel without tracks, why you want to spend money to install tracks?
@@cinpeace353 because they're much more efficient and reliable in the long run. Why come up with a convoluted control systeem that needs perfect snow clearing (which is VERY expensive) when rails can solve rhe problem reliably
In 1990's, New York City tested the famous Curitiba's high-speed buses called "Ligeirinho" (Speedy Buses). These buses stopped only on tube-shaped stations were fare was collected before boarding.
it doesn't matter if it's an electric bus, a trolleybus or a trackless tram - if the transit system is not fast and reliable, it will not attract passengers. New York could learn a little more from Curitiba and transform its Select Bus Service into a true BRT with tram-like, biarticulated buses and really comfortable tube-shaped stations. BRT is not just a bus lane.
We studied Curitiba in our Geography lessons when I was at school and it was impressive to see what they achieved without very much funding. If I recall correctly, they also increased the amount of green space around the city and pedestrianised many central areas.
Honestly new yourk does not need brt it needs trams.
Its just BRT. Tthey were deployed in south American cites, brazil bolivia etc in the same period or right after. They are being pushed in canada without the station in suburban cities because they are so cheap.
@@stekra3159 All big cities need a multi way system. If you can't build trams and subways then you certainly can adapt to a better bus/BRT type of interconection between the various models. Notably we have São Paulo and Recife doing this, the later on facing real hard chellenges due it's geography and lack of political will to make it work. Curitiba was smart and strong enough to see in the future and make it all based on the growth they would have from then. Other cities can only manage to adapt with strong will. That would translate into people seeing that Bus isn't all that bad when you can get to your location fairly quickly, low cost, and with as much comfort as you can get with mass transport systems.
After 24 years, Bogota BRT System is collapsing... traffic is slow, unhealthy, unsafe for a city of more than 10 million people
The thing that every North American city needs to focus on is giving their buses dedicated lanes. That is much cheaper and has a greater impact on service quality and willingness to take transit than any of these "new" solutions.
Also, I'm willing to bet that ride quality is near last on people's reasons for not riding the bus. The most important factors are that it's not frequent enough and gets stuck in traffic.
Cost is also a factor. Busses cost significantly more to maintain per passenger - partially because their capacity is so limited.
If you need a dedicated bus lane you should probably just drop light rail on it from day one. It's cheaper and nicer long term (and possibly even short term).
Yup, if you are making seperate lane, just make a new light rail.
Fun fact: My city actually considered this but it was thrown out because of the following problems:
1. Capacity was extremely limited which would cause overcrowding conditions from the very start
2. This solution requires more space than a conventional light rail system, meaning more impact to landowners
3. The solution requires significant reconstruction of the pavement, which essentially negates all cost benefits
4. The vehicle layout is not very suitable for intensive use as the door layout is suboptimal, which increases dwell time and journey time.
I think the biggest concern that cities have with such a system is the capacity. The ART system has an extremely constrained capacity which means that it fills up really quickly- if you matched the demand profile of a light rail to the ART system, the ART would fill up twice as fast. So, this really forces a system like this into a very specific niche. It's not good for high-demand, high-frequency use because the capacity is severely constrained, but it's also not very good for lower demand services as it still requires extensive reconstruction of our roads and streets in order to make it work, and the larger vehicles typically incentivise transit agencies to cut down on service (which inevitably reduces ridership). It's not as simple as painting lines on the pavement like the video suggests. So for low demand you're better with a simple bus with a simple bus lane, maybe an articulated or bi-articulated bus (which has a similar capacity), operated more frequently to incentivise riders, since it requires less infrastructure, and for medium to high demands, light rail or an automated light metro makes more sense since it is better suited to higher capacities.
Bus-like systems in a rapid-transit environment also suffer from a phenomenon known as BRT Creep. BRT Creep is where a transit agency continuously trims down a BRT Project. As BRT projects are relatively loosely defined and highly flexible, many transit operators reduce service quality whilst trying to still pass it off as BRT. I can forsee something similar to this where operators keep trying to trim down their systems until you're left with what is essentially a glorified bus. Service cuts are also much easier with bus-based systems, as it is a much easier decision to cut service on cheaper systems. The lower costs signal to operators that service cuts are okay. However, service cuts are some of the most harmful things you can do to a transit system as it drives away ridership permanently as they are no longer guaranteed a stable, reliable service. After all, you're far more likely to take a bus which always arrives on time and never gets cancelled than a bus that doesn't even show up half the time. So at the end of the day, maybe such a system could be useful where the roads are of a good enough standard and ridership demand is between that of a bus and a light rail, but this certainly isn't an LRT replacement like the video suggests.
Also P.S. Such a system as a crosstown route in NYC is a *terrible* idea. Building new rapid transit routes also induces demand for transit, and NYC likely has a *ton* of latent crosstown travel demand that can't be foreseen until the route is actually built. Seeing as a trackless tram already has trouble keeping up with the *projected* crosstown demand (capacity exceeded by 1.1 to 1.5 times) in a 1.5 million population city that's relatively sparsely populated, an interborough service with a trackless tram would likely be overcrowded by many times more. This is likely made worse by the fact that transit projects typically exceed their projected demand (so maybe we could expect a figure closer to 1.7x or 2x for my city and idk, 4x to 6x for NYC?) and that the corridor in question already receives extremely frequent bus service.
So your argument is that if the build it, it will be over crowded?
Exactly where in NYC is there an area that is sparsely populated? And don't use a hypothetical, use the actual proposal made in NYC to provide transportation across a part of the city which currently doesn't have a convenient route.
This is also an incomplete video, only taking into consideration a couple of cities in China and the possibility of using it in Perth. In many US cities there are wide stroods that would be ideal for this type of transportation. Cities in the US used to have miles of track for street cars that crisscrossed the whole city. This system could bring that back without the expensive laying of track. Plus, if a system isn't working it could easily be changed by changing the markings on the road.
I used to live in Portland which installed a light rail that ran across the city. The parking around the stations in the suburbs was usually completely filled because everyone drove from their home to the station, parked their car and then took that to get downtown. But This would be ideal where major streets through the suburbs could install these and run them to the stations from the neighborhoods.
This would also be ideal for where I live now, Tokyo, where there are some major streets serviced by buses, but there are dead areas that need service but the companies aren't willing to put in the buses. Or on some overcrowded bus routes a system like this could easily be used to ease that.
@@rabbit251 The point is that because Tokyo and NYC are *densely* populated, the demand for transit is much much higher. If the ART can't even keep up with demand is a sparsely populated area, it certainly can't keep up with a denser area. Since circumferential routes across NYC are nearly non-existent, demand for such a route would likely be very very high, which would lead to immense overcrowding on a low capacity system. Besides, the most expensive part of transit is securing the alignment, also known as where you'll be putting the transit. The actual cost of the track isn't that high.
The main reason why people don't use public transport is not that "the bus isn't comfortable enough" like the video suggests, but that it's too slow. You can replicate the effects that an ART might have simply by painting a bus lane and making the buses faster. In fact, the ART is just a guided BRT system with tram styling. ART also doesn't provide any meaningful capacity benefit over buses- articulated and even bi-articulated buses can easily surpass the capacity provided by the ART.
Some cities in North America already have BRT systems installed along roadways, typically with bus lanes. An ART system would be no different, except that it uses proprietary technology which locks you down to 1 provider and still requires a driver. With a conventional BRT system, you can buy buses from any manufacturer, but you can't do this with the ART. Given that the ART provides few benefits over plain old BRT, it's not worth it.
Bus-based systems like the ART also lack permanence, as service can easily be cut or whittled down with few repercussions, which obviously decreases people's willingness to use it if service could just disappear overnight. Having physical tracks also makes it easier to make the system separated from traffic, which would do more to improve ridership than simply making the buses fancy.
At the end of the day, the ART system provides few benefits over a BRT system (because that's essentially what it is) when operating under lower demands, but for higher demand applications, the ART is insufficient capacity-wise to be used since it is essentially a bus. The system is proprietary and lacks permanence which increases reluctance to use the system.
@@rabbit251 Also I never said that NYC was sparsely populated. My local city (NOT NYC) seriously considered the ART system and found that capacity was insufficient. They published a report on their findings along a proposed light rail corridor which I base my arguments off. Given that my local city is relatively sparesly populated compared to NYC, and that NYC is much denser with much more demand, an ART would fill up even faster, which reduces the quality of the service (and also speed because of boarding times)
@@williamhuang8309 Many people are not willing to take you on, but I'll bite. I'm a retired international law attorney living in Tokyo and these mass transit systems are a key interest of mine especially since I worked on the high speed rail across Texas for Hitachi.
First, you are obviously Chinese as is my wife and I'm pretty fluent in daily aspects of the language. One thing you should learn is that you can't post an acronym without first stating what it is. I assume that BRT stands for "Bus Rapid Transit." (This is probably the biggest reason why no one has responded to your comments. You sound like a know-it-all but without actually defining what you're talking about. BRT could also stand for Black Russian Terrier or Bug Reporting Tool).
Reviewing what you said, I have little idea what the difference is between a BRT and a regular bus. Again, one of the short comings of this video. When people see a bus they treat it as a regular vehicle. But with a tram people realize they must get out of the way. It's basically optics, which pretty sure psychology will back up. Most buses get stuck in rush hour traffic which this system says it would eliminate and make it easier for travel and would therefore reduce traffic jams.
I literally couldn't find an acronym for ART, so, sorry about your limited English skills. What is an ART? I tried to guess based on the video but nothing came up. If you need help with English skills I can help with that. (First, anytime you use an acronym you must spell it out unless it is widely known, like FBI, CIA, or NATO. If you said CPP, no one would know what that means, except perhaps you.)
Interesting also is that you won't name your city. Based on your English usage, you're not in America, possibly Britain or some other colony. Definitely not in China. And I will further guess that you are not a first generation immigrant, but your parents were.
You do very little to define and distinguish the difference between an ART and BRT. You were probably educated in this material, but unless you explain specifics and give examples, no one knows what you are talking about poor boy. (Last words were added to make you feel at ease in you British culture. Americans abhor at using such language usually. But Brits had no problem in saying to or describing me.)
Overcrowded services at least means more money brought in and a demonstrated need so you can invest in actual light rail later.
My former city of Trondheim uses "superbuses" or "meteobusses".
They're 24 meters long and have two joints like these things, but uses human drivers and doesn't waste money on all the extra comfort technology of those things, and have way more seats.
The city developed transportation hubs around the city using smaller busses to transport passengers to connecting superbuses along major routes (mostly previously serviced by actual busses), the stops and roads where improved to support these things and for a future transition to light rail when funding becomes available.
Yes, they're overcrowded sometimes, but that's a *good* thing.
On the whole they've been a good experience for us and improved our mainly buss focused public transportation system.
(We *do* have a legacy tram line left, but most of our old tram lines are long gone, and it would take time and money to replace that)
Cars and public transit should have separate lanes. Busses would be able to move through the city much. more quickly and you can improve frequency to encourage more people to ride them. I believe you must also modernize the system with newer busses, better apps and covering all bus stops for harsh weather.
Once you have dedicated lanes you're much better off with rail - either a tram / light rail system or a full metro.
Looking a lrt
@@shrakathose cost much more and they need wider turning radius
made in china ART running in USA! are you kidding!? imagine all the american in the ART have no more privacy and national security is at stake! --- joe biden.
@@freemanol They can cost less over the long term if designed properly.
so, a tram?
As someone who took the bus for years, the "ride quality" was not my concern. My concern was always ALWAYS scheduling. Does it run on time? Does it come by frequently? Does it arrive at the train station in sync with the trains so I'm not waiting ages between transfering between bus and train and bus again. That's what matters, infinitely more than how "smooth" the ride is.
All the more reason to replace all cars with trains that run every 5 minutes.
When Tri-Rail was introduced in South Florida back in the late 1980s, this was a major point. Because it was designed to be a temporary passenger rail system during the course of I-95 major rebuild in the three-county corridor which is a HUGE commuter corridor, it was critical that the bus system in each county be coordinated with the train schedule. Also, if a station did not have a bus stop close by (or even a route), then a route and stop were added. IIRC, the bus stops at the highest-demand stations were increased to every half hour during peak rush hours, and hourly outside of that.
I used to work as a ticket agent at one the stations, and the comments I heard from my regular daily customers who used bus/train combo to get to/from work was overwhelmingly positive.
The entire project was so successful that when I-95 reconstruction was completed and the railroad company announced plans to phase out Tri-Rail there was an immense public outcry demanding that the service be kept. One of the keys to its success was that it connected with Miami's Metrorail (elevated electric commuter rail). For less than ten dollars, people from Palm Beach can ride 80 miles to the Miami Airport station to transfer to Metrorail, which will take them another 5 miles or so to downtown Miami, where the PeopleMover autonomous rail shuttle will take them into the heart of the shopping district. I often heard from my regulars who boarded my station in the afternoon about the retired women using seats to place their mall shopping bags on and depriving passengers of seats!
The interconnecting rail and bus schedules in each county of the three-county transit system is carefully coordinated.
sorry, I'll take the one with "guard" real steel rail over whatever this "reinvented" is
Street parking is not very valuable. City Beautiful did a study on his channel
If only we knew how to remove cars from roads..
Another pandemic
@@eddenoy321 epidemic. The world doesn't have that problem.
Whenever I read comments, I think to myself "no it's not just me and and I am not getting dementia"
I actively avoid the bus in NY not because “it bulks and is shakey”, I actively avoid it because of the crazy people, it’s impuntual, and stalls in traffic
my wife prefers the bus because the bus driver can kick out the crazies versus the subway being a free for all if you're not in the conductors car
It stalls in traffic because of all the cars on the road
@@cboyardee trains are for vigilante justice
Yes, this is the 600 pound politically incorrect gorilla in the room. Public transit activists fail to point out this fact. You are not supposed to say that public transit is full of gross, stinky, homeless, violent, crazy people that dissuades normal people from using them. You can have the best transit system in the world - Tokyo grade. But if people don't feel safe or comfortable with others in the same cabin, they ain't going to use it.
and you go on the subway because its filled with the same, actually you living in new york means you deserve it
tram but with extra steps and worse
Wouldn't it be great if we switched from cars to trains, buses, cycling and walking in dense US cities? Cars are the wrong tool for the job in dense places and are incredibly inefficient in terms of infrastructure compared to these other methods.
You take public transportation, don't force the rest of us.
Yeah this is spot on IMO. Cars are inefficient in built up city areas and introduce an outsized amount of danger, noise, and smell; they should be straight up but allowed in built up areas. All the "bUt I LovE mY CaR" people can still live their dream in most anywhere else in the US outside of built up areas.
Ah yes, humanity just reinvented to he street car and trams
And then removed everything great about both, all in one cgi package for investors
There is that thing called "metrobus" in Istanbul. It is not an autonomous, tram-like system, but more like elongated buses that go on their own lines. It has been used for over ten years.
Links?
Yes I’ve ridden it quite good
BRT is a cheapskate's excuse to not build a proper rapid transit line. Luckily it seems that they will convert it to a metro in the future.
No, watch the video. It's autonomus... ua-cam.com/video/cRF8sz5HC6U/v-deo.html
@@alfaeco15 ua-cam.com/video/6nczZZbCT-Q/v-deo.html
So it's basically.... a bus.
Nothing about the higher friction of rubber tires?
Or the louder noise of metal wheels in tight courners. I live in Gothenburg Sweden with plenty tight tram turns keeping us up at night (not really me but some).
@@Chobaca though asphalt on brt systems needs replacing every few years far more frequently than normal roads and it overall a worst performer for passenger comfort and running noises at high speed.
I've seen tram tracks that address the thigh turning noise as I've seen concrete guideways for BRT nothing is (un-)*addressable but it gets expensive either way. the solution is more investment rather that gadgetbahns
*edit
And as double articulated battery buses these things are heavy, so will rip up normal asphalt quickly.. you probably need a dedicated resurfacing (think cost)
And as you say they are a rubber-tyred bus, which brings with it all the bus motion issues
@@mark123655 they are not heavier then semis(lorrys) though. In Gothenburg they don't do special asfalt. By they way light rail also contribute to air pollution. Especially if in undergrad tubes like subways. They rip up metals.
I mean it's all better then cars and worse the bikes. But there are a lot of factors to consider. They could have gone a bit deeper into some of it.
@@Chobaca
Generally the only actual issue with air pollution from trams/undergrounds is the formation of ozone from the contact between the wires and the pantograph. Comparing the minuscule amount of metal wear (which doesn't end up in the air, because metal particulates don't float) to the pollution caused by road vehicles is like comparing the sand pit in your local playground to the Sahara.
The US will never prioritise public transport. There have been discussions and proposals after proposals after proposals, and still, very little to nothing has been achieved to date. It still hasn't been able to introduce a modern, rapid rail network that would greatly benefit the country. Unfortunately, there's too much interest with money and political sway to ever get enough traction behind effective public transport.
Buses are too infrequent and too slow compared to taking a car. Even in heavily congested areas, it’s faster to take a care over a bus. That is why people don’t ride them. It has nothing to do with ride quality.
Brisbane moment, Kuching moment.
Plot twist it’s a bus that looks like a tram. It tries to reinvent the tram but ends up being a total joke in the end.
it's might be a sunk cost fallacy trap that prevent you from proper rapid transit
and city as big as new york might be already past the capacity of these kind of intermediate transit
Yes, all that capital sunk into car dealerships, car factories, and oil pipelines and processing facilities really needs to make a long term-return, so that same capital pays for media to repeat invented reasons to avoid building out actual high-capacity transit.
The issue with almost all public transit and bicycling it turns out is cars. Bus getting stuck in traffic because it’s stuck there with cars. Biking around cars parked in bike lanes, if there are any at all, plus nearly getting hit constantly by drivers. Convincing government to invest billions in transit or expanding a highway that won’t fix the “congestion problem”, easily the funds go to the inefficient highway.
So it's just a bus.
The problem with these is that Americans refuse to allow public transit to take priority at traffic lights. I have never seen an Asian light rail that stops for traffic lights. American light rail does this all the time and it’s incredibly slow.
@Zaydan Alfariz Asia is full of light rail
Light rail in Europe also is governed by its own traffic signals at intersections.
Would love a video covering the importance of bus frequency and lanes that aren't stuck in traffic.
Basically we are building trams again
That's a metrobus, we've had it in my city for about a decade. In fact we have it all over Latam.
In reality, it is exactly the same thing. The "difference" is that they make it look like a tram, and they have an optical guiding system, so most of the time the driver (you can't have it without in real traffic) can take his hands from the steering wheel, which will make purchase and maintaining these new buses much more expensive and dependent on the goodwill of the Chinese manufacturer to provide replacement parts at reasonable cost.
Separate bus lanes, ideally with priority at traffic lights, with regular buses stopping every 2 blocks and express buses only stopping at important interchanges, are the cheaper and more flexible option. Or: go for real trams on separate tracks (rail), and you have added comfort and speed.
Here is a thought. Ban normal cars from city's. The problem is a ton of cars with one or two passengers taking up all of the road. Have a lane or two for busses trams and trucks. Another lane for cycles and the rest for pedestrians. Your problem will be solved. Push cars further and further out as the city expands.
Honestly, yeah! It's remarkable how large a negative impact cars as a whole have on every other mode of transportation (and the comfort of the streets in general). Simply removing them would allow everything else to blossom. 💯
sounds like Bus rapid transit and dedicated bus lanes with extra steps
Most cities have the basic existing infrastructure: roads and streets. Imagine what we could do if we used all the money we spend on individual cars on a vast network of buses. Efficient, safer streets, fewer parked cars, 5 minute headways!
Spend your own money!
?
?
?
?
They’re implementing this transit system in the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico and it should be operational at the end of 2024.
"Transit ridership is down after the start of the pandemic, it *MUST* be because busses are bad so we need a bus/train hybrid to make things worse." -CNBC
I don't think I have ever heard someone say what they don't like about riding the bus is the ride quality.
There are already autonomous trains, it’s called Vancouver SkyTrain. In Japan it’s called Yurikamome, and in Kuala Lumpur it’s called the Kelana Jaya Line. In France it’s called the Lille Metro.
The Putra line is also autonomous in Kuala Lumpur, has been for over 20 years.
Its not called that, notable lines that use autonomous trains are named that.
People don't say:
"The Ontario Line in Toronto will be a very fast Vancouver SkyTrain compared to other Vancouver SkyTrains such as the Vancouver SkyTrain which have many Vancouver SkyTrain Vancouver SkyTrains in the Vancouver SkyTrain yards for Vancouver SkyTrains. I also love the Beijing Capital International Airport Terminal 3 People Mover Vancouver SkyTrain models of course, who doesn't?"
Translated to Normal non-Vancouver SkyTrain English:
"The Ontario Line in Toronto will be a very fast autonomous train compared to other autonomous trains such as the Vancouver SkyTrain which have many Vancouver SkyTrain autonomous trains in the Vancouver SkyTrain yards for autonomous trains. I also love the Beijing Capital International Airport Terminal 3 People Mover autonomous train models of course, who doesn't?"
Rails are expensive? what are you talking about? just cos US doesnt have the laws, investment, strategy and the initiative to put it rail transport, doesn't mean it's inefficient or cost-ineffective. There are countries with wide rail tram infrastructure that has been in place over 50 years. BS logic. US will unlikely have trackless trams or trams or great metro, or countrywide intercity trains, cos US is a car country. US will unlikely have a great public transport project ever, rather the greatest ever parking lot or the widest ever freeway...
USA: Look at this amazing concept for a segregated busway/transit thing.
Rest of world: We already have guided busways & trolleybuses.
Not just the USA. Malaysia and Australia too.
The problem is American cities, their politics and what people think about public transit in the US. That woman at the end said something so dumb it hurt my head, that proves my point to the tee:
"putting rail into the roadbed is highly disruptive for businesses, the community and the residents"
Whaaaaat? Well, sure, under construction that may be the case. But in every city once light rail is built it is amazing for businesses, the community and the residents. Light rail or heavy rail is so permanent it changes the cities in such a way a buss route or "superbusses" can't. The exact same reason why busses and routes are flexible is why they don't impact neighborhoods and cities the same way rail does. Even buss routes with dedicated road ways don't come close to impacting like rail does.
If a small city like Bergen, Norway (pop. 290 000) can build light rail lines and have them be both economically viable and be a success with ridership, there is NO REASON why a massive city like New York can't make it work.
No. trams and trains in general are better because they are ride on rails. That makes them safer, they don't need the asphalt roads, less energy to work...
this new project is a waste of money, space and time! Improve the bus routes and buses. And in 15-20 years there maybe be fully electric buses and driver-less.
Lol like I would trust a Chinese automated bus on the streets.
yeah, they’re more trustable, chinese products have been improving since the US sanctioned them, ironically haha
Why try and find a more expensive option even when you can’t even make busses go froom every few minutes. That’s the most essential part, not how comfortable it is.
Just another distraction from the automotive and tire industry to prevent people from using actually efficient solutions like trains and trams.
Politicians love these
Your analysis is absolutly right !
☝️🧐
This BUS system was developed for cities, which are politically still addicted to the so named concept "Car-friendly City" of the 60s and 70s, and who have not understood the signs of the times, yet.
That's the whole true story, so easy it is !
Double articulated and guided buses are an INFERIOR REPLACEMENT for a transport system, that we already have for long:
TRAM / LIGHTRAIL.
It has to be said very clearly, that this is not an innovation at all, but a sham package ! And that is by the way, why the french CITY OF CAEN has switched from those buses BACK TO THE TRAM.
👋😜 🇩🇪
well, i agree with you but i think buses are great too, buses and metros have to work together
@@nicelol5241
Right !
It needs cooperation, not replacements. Each means of transport there, where it's working best. In deed !
@@nicelol5241 buses are great. No arguments there. But there are places where buses work and places where rail vehicles work.
@@RR-us2kp
Yes, otherwhise London Underground could be replaced by taxis, with the same logic and effect ...
👋😜
Don't you love tech bros reinventing the train as the perfect solution yet making it demonstrably worse.
The main thing keeping most of Americans out of mass transit is the amount of time it takes to use. Nearly all US cities are not walkable. Mass Transit tends to take 2-5 times as long to get somewhere as taking a car. Something stuck to the existing road network would not overcome this main drawback.
Walkable cities can even happen in detached home areas with lots less than 8,000 sq ft
New York has the money and resources for an actual subway BQX. The problem is a lack of political will.
It won’t work on nyc. Main reason why i avoid buses is because of traffic. Subway just avoids that entirely. Not to mention, cutting down on parking spaces AND lanes. A lot of the streets in queens have 1 functional lanes because of parking.
This isn't a train whatsoever. It's a bus. Fancy but expensive bus.
Gadgetbahn
Lets be real, its just a fancier and more expensive version of Bus Rapid Transit.
“There are no cheat codes to good transit” - RM Transit
except for citytrains high floor light rail - rm transit
Priority on the road?
I thought that already happens with tram.
The root cause is: when traffic is congested, public transportation MUST have dedicated lanes (standard bus, BRT, autonomous, even tram). all the rest are details.
This is tripping all my gadgetbahn alarms. Just build a subway
One positive of this kind of system is that it would be much easier to alter a route if need be, but my question would be; are these really cheaper than light rail? I actually don't think "cheaper" should be the metric used to decide which is better, but that's beside the point. Wouldn't wheeled trains require constant tire changes? Also if it's going over the same path day in day out, wouldn't grooves in the road eventually wear in? That would require maintenance to fix. Of course, we could do what we always do and ignore the maintenance needs until it crumbles. I don't think a lot of long-term thinking is going into this.
It would be easier to alter than a train, but much harder to divert temporarily than a regular bus if it's truly driverless. I don't see why this is better than bog-standard BRT.
Trackless trams seem like a gadgetbahn
Optical guided busway has a couple of known issues as to why you can't just paint the markers and be done with it:
1. what happens when the markers are covered in dirt, snow, or just wear away. Optical markers need to be clearly visible to be followed
2. the wheels of every vehicle will end up on exactly the same line, this will concentrate the wear in the asphalt requiring additional reinforcement and maintenance. Basically a concrete track to run on.
Nothing here is new technology, guided busways already exist, but they are not the magic answer.
Past the guided busway aspects, this is BRT with battery electric busses, which has their own downsides from being battery based.
Ad 2: That is exactly, why we put down steel rails and call it a tram. If the vehicle is so heavy and frequent that it starts to dig its own track, it is usually a good sign that proper rails are needed.
@@CZpersi Oh, I agree, but that wouldn't be an issue until they made it guided so the wheels are in the same place every time, but yeah, steel wheels on steel rails are the hardest wearing option once that is the case.
Thats just a bendy bus with bus lanes💀
the problem is, even if its 1-5th of tram builds, you still pay for maintenance
you eventually are better off building trams metro or lightrail instead of rubber wheel drived tram wannebees
The lady in the video said that it is costly to put rails into streets. Of course it is. Because if you want them to last for decades, you have to tear up a lot of ground to build a solid track. It you were to run those "ART buses", you would need to do the same if you want your ride comfort to remain adequate even after 5 years of operation. Also, the wheel tires of streetcars must be changed after 500 thousand miles. How many tires do you have to change on that bus to get the same distance? Rolling resistance and thus energy consumption is also a big factor that is in favor for the streetcar in the long term. And most important - you do not have to haul big, heavy and expensive traction accumulators that store the electricity you need and have no downtime for charging them. Streetcars last over decades and in many places around the world, it is not surprising to see 50+ years old cars still in regular operation. I highly doubt that any "ART bus" will last that long.
This is not a new concept, it's common in China and parts of Europe
New York should bring back the elevated tracks for this Trackless project.
So New York should do what Kuching in Malaysia is doing.
why elevated? Just build a goddamn dedicated tram track on two car lanes and have buses go on it too
So uh basically a long bus with fancy paint? AT LEAST BUILD PROPER DAMN TRAM jeez. Dont even get me started on metro.
There's another name for this: Bus Rapid Transit. A long, bendy bus is still a bus, whatever you call it. If it runs on rubber tires on a road, whether it's steered by a driver or an autonomous system then it's a bus. That said, it absolutely should be part of the consideration matrix for mass transit.
I take issue with these long buses. Once you are in need of such big buses, you should build a tram line. They are much cheaper to maintain and operate than pavement, can carry more people and is easier to handle than a super long bus.
Just build a regular f*cking train
-Adam Something
A bus with dedicated lanes and right of way at junctions gets most of the benefits. It's a matter of getting car drivers to agree to having 2nd priority which is where you hit problems (or they hit you). Narrower buses with proximity sensors like these just mean that dedicated are a little easier to allocate space for. Then there is just the matter of the vehicle length and tight turns meaning junctions need to be redesigned to fit with suitable routes.
this is nothing new..... its a trolly bus
Stop investing in busses, no one wants to use them. You'd be better in investing in street cars or light rail. The issue with busses is that they take up room on streets and highways, they get stuck in gridlock traffic and contribute to it. There's no way to control who ends up in the bus lane as people will drive as recklessly and as stupidly as possible. There should always be an uninterrupted separation from cars/traffic and the public transit system you're trying to create.
I live near... Brisbane, and there used to trams, but the rails have been removed because the council did not think it would pay. But, as Brisbane grew, increase in road traffic has effectively softlocked the council. Because digging up a lane or two where the tram was would cause uproar. The Gold Coast, (which I am lucky to live within 100km of) has a tram line running through the city parallel to the coast, and every time I've been there, no driving to the shops! Or ice-cream.
Make sure this is real and it works. The last time I heard of a new transit idea from China, it was a scam. (It was a giant bus that straddled the road). It attracted investors , and it turned out it wouldn't work.
This is a scam too.
That was the Straddling Bus. And at least the Chinese ran their gadgetbahn on rails.
This almost feels like an ad…
What’s the long-term cost in terms of road/tire wear versus rail wear?
This is the question. You know the answer
Cheaper than cars, but nowhere near rail.
@@LS-Moto. The long term cost is definitely less with rail. Rail is cheaper in the long run. Rail vehicles can last many decades and rail infrastructure is extremely resilient. Roads must be constantly maintained/replaced along with the vehicles tires and engine components if they are ICE
@@junkman226 My words
First off: (IMO) CRRC should be banned in the US for at least National Security reasons. (Infrastructure tie-in through PTC)
Second off: (Fact) This thing needs some rails under it.
As far as I was aware, All things Chinese (including Nationals) are explicitly banned in the transportation industry within the US.
I mean sure an automated higher capacity BRT is an alright idea but without a fixed guideway all it'll take is a small guidance glitch for it to leave its lane. Making it a guided busway shouldn't cost too much more as it just involves laying concrete. The speed of implementation would be reduced though
Wouldn't they need to install overhead lines on top of laying the concrete?
@@FancyUnicorn If it's a trolleybus yes. But a regular Bi-articulated bus would only need horizontal guidewheels to keep then within the guideway
Just build trains damit
In conclusion, the only advantage to a bus is the new(?) suspension against vibrations. In any other point it is just a (maybe longer, wich can bring it's own problems) bendy bus.
The automatisation might be an other difference, that could be implemented in busses, if self driving cars are ready.
The system combines the disadvantages of both:
It loses the flexibility of a bus (through it's fixation on a predetermined track) and the efficiency of a train/subway/tram (low friction of steel wheels on steel tracks and the power supply by over head wire or a power rail).
Self driving cars won’t be ready for a long long long time. If they even going to reach the point of truly autonomous cars at all. But it’s so complex all the small observations, calculations and decisions that a driver makes. So they basically would need a AI humanoid (like in Westworld) to have truly safe autonomous cars. And we don’t even speculate on when and if they will get there
@@marekdg yes, maybe it is easier to program a bus for just 1 route, but it might still take some time, until vehicles are safe to go faster than pedestrian speed
This is just an articulated bus with extra steps. Either do an articulated bus, a steel-wheeled tram, high-floor light rail (like LA or Pittsburgh), or BUILD A FREAKING SUBWAY
I hope they make sure to prevent the degradation of the road surface if such a vehicle with tire and automatic control always drives over the same exact place. It will likely degrade quicker. I think I have heard about that happening before with similar concepts.
It won't have it drive over exactly the same place because AI isn't that accurate yet, but yes you've hit on a big problem with busses - road damage and maintenance - which is why this should be a tram or light rail.
Usually more of a problem with physicaly guided vehicles like cableways and such.
@@RamonInNZ Which is a good reason to just use a rail in most instances.