The Bi-articulated Bus
Those hulking ‘bendy buses’ you see slamming through traffic - formally, they go by the moniker ‘articulated buses.’ I think they were probably designed by evil people for the purpose of scaring the few remaining cyclists off the roads. Apparently, the creators were not satisfied with the terror-inducing 40-foot versions of buses that regularly dominate city streets.
Here’s a picture of a not-so-pleasant-to-look-at articulated bus from Tokyo - notice the single articulation, pointed out by the yellow arrow:
Here in San Francisco, it’s pretty common to sight these bendy buses on several lines, but the ‘14 Mission’ springs to mind. I wish I had a nickel for every time some ahole behind the wheel of one of these monstrosities raced up my left side, then jerked over to the right, directly in front of me, slamming on brakes almost taking out people on the sidewalk, just so s/he wouldn’t be temporarily inconvenienced by my bike-riding presence.
Incidentally, I’m pretty sure the 14 Mission, like many (most?) Muni routes in San Francisco, used to be an electric railcar line. People liked it. This is why you may hear these articulated buses referred by the moniker ’sham trams’ — they try to be a bit more like rail by carrying a few more people, but of course they fail miserably even in this regard.
But not to be outdone, or maybe just to see what the limits of human frivolity are, someone decided that 60 feet was not long enough (instead of the regular 40), that 180-person capacity was still not enough — ‘we want more’, they thought.
Rail? Never heard of it.
There’s no good reason why we can’t fit a bigger bus on the already-cramped city streets. Why not?
So, they did. Our intrepid engineers came up with bi-articulated buses. These 80-foot monstrosities, capable of carrying up to 270 tightly-packed people, would scare even Godzilla - how will a poor little cyclist fare?
They won’t - that’s how. BRT will scare cyclists off the streets of San Francisco, and prevent would-be cyclists from even considering the most energy-efficient form of transport ever devised.
Here’s one of the monstrosities doing duty in Curitiba - one of the third world transportation systems we’re trying to mimic here in San Francisco:
They do not, so far as I know, run these bi-articulated monsters in Bogota, so maybe we’ll be saved from them yet.
You’ll also notice that these bi-articulated sham trams require a third axle - just in case the roadways were not taking enough punishment already.
But let’s not stop with ‘bi-’ — we have to go for ‘tri-’. I’m crossing my fingers.
I’ve heard folks have talked about bringing double-deckers to town. I’ve actually seen one or two tourist-type buses doing this. I think this is great. I want more and bigger buses. And lonnnnnnger. In fact, I say we just skip the small stuff - let’s be bold like Jan Gehl suggested, but instead of treating walkers and bikers sweetly, I say we terrorize them to the greatest extent possible. Let’s dehumanize them as much as possible as quickly as possible. Let’s give them a real wake-up call. Let’s go straight to the articulated double-decker - nice!
…OK - the above photo might just be an articulated tour bus, but you get the point. The bigger and scarier, the better. Here’s a real one. And it looks like someone’s proposed that type of bus for London. I wonder what it would be like to be on the top floor of one of those things when it falls over on its side. Maybe you’d get to see what squashed pedestrians and cyclists look like up close. That’s it - my mind is made up - these are a great idea. Let’s have at it then.
Leave comment (9)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
December 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Those buses are illegal in the United States. Metro in LA had to get a special waiver for 65 foot buses on the Orange Line.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
COMPLETELY mis represent BRT in this rant. COMPLETELY. BRTs get a dedicated lane that NO ONE not even bicyclists can use. That way they’re clear of any crazy drivers or cyclists. Duh.
It’s lovely to think every single person in the country could ride their toy bike to work but it ain’t gonna happen. That’s right, you ride a TOY. Because you ride on the sidewalks and are over 13, you are essentially saying “I’m riding a toy.”
More importantly, so many bicyclists ride around this city disobeying every single traffic law, running stop lights and riding their toys on the sidewalk, to the detriment of everyone else ,and demand lots of government money for their habit. That’s why when I see one of you cyclists getting hit for running a stop sign or crashing after giving the finger to a pedestrian, I think “good maybe they’ll learn.”
December 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Peter, I thought this was a *BIKE* blog. Seems like 80% of the posts are about buses instead. What’s up with that?
(Though you do seem to have attracted a loony already. Who is pleased when someone, anyone gets hit by a car? Who goes down the street giving the finger to pedestrians?)
December 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Peter,
There are plenty of detriments to bus-based transit, even the best-designed forms of it. And might I direct you to the Overhead Wire for some harder data on the matter? Because your rants here are simply embarrassing to your fellow bike riders. Or embarrassing to this one, at least. Sure, let’s build something better than buses, but let’s realize that that’s going to take decades of willpower and oodles of money. In the meanwhile, there’s only so much city and we’ve all got to share it, yes? Remember, it’s not so much the bus driver you’re inconveniencing with your “bike-riding presence.” It’s those “270 tightly-packed people” in that driver’s charge.
In a way I admire your hard-line stance, but I wish you’d tone down the sarcasm.
Best,
December 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Grego - i hate buses. if we switch out buses for streetcars, we’d see a 10% jump in bike ridership overnight. buses are that scary.
the transportation future of every city is taking place right now. the battle for hearts and minds is happening right now. it was already an incredible battle that we were already losing even before we heard about this $1 Trillion transportation stimulus bill. Now it’s a full-on emergency. Every city in the country is going to be affected by BRT - there’s no escaping it at this point. Huge buses will be running wild all over every city and town in America - starting right here in San Francisco. And I *hate* that. I have to do whatever I can to prevent it.
so, just like talking about congestion pricing or car sharing or land use have nothing to do with bikes, they actually have everything to do with bikes.
right now, in SF, there are two major things going on. One is BRT vs. LRT, and the other is the injunction, which is a mess of messes, in a waiting period at the moment, etc. There’s a lot of work to be done on both, but so far as I know, I am the only pro-walk, pro-bike spokesperson/blogger/etc. in the Bay Area actively engaged in criticizing BRT.
and this is our future. this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity - BRT vs. LRT is all about whether we want to be more like Houston or more like Copenhagen. i’m confident that the tide will turn on BRT, but I need to do my part to talk to the few biker readers we have to say a) this is important, b) here why it is important, c) here’s the information you have not been given, d) if you happen to agree with me then please join me in trying to make SF a city for humans instead of buses.
BRT vs. LRT is the most important policy decision SF (and other bay area towns) will make in my lifetime, and very possibly several lifetimes. In some sense, we might be able to ignore the fact that buses scare the snot out of bikers and would-be bikers, but we also have to keep in mind that BRT routes in San Francisco are supposed to leave only a small space on the road for striping a bike lane - at best. And BRT proponents tell us that lots more people will start taking the bus if it were only a couple of minutes faster, but there is no evidence to support this. In fact, most evidence suggests that people like LRT, and LRT will attract more people out of their cars. So, as bikers, one would think we would want to see LRT instead of BRT, except every green and transportation organization in San Francisco disagrees with me on this. I can’t explain that - I think it’s fascinating and cruel - but I can’t explain it. It makes it all a bit more interesting to me, for sure.
In any case, BRT has everything to do with bikes and bike policy. We can’t separate the two. I asked on the bikeportland.org forums why they weren’t talking about BRT and they said that a few of the lists had batted around the idea, but there were no plans for BRT yet in Portland - only in one of the satellite towns - Eugene, so it’s not that big a deal. The story is different in SF - they will have these massive bendy buses running on two of our most important transit corridors, instead of streetcars or light rail - that leaves more people in their cars, more people to intimidate and injure and kill cyclists, etc. It’s a total disaster.
Not that I expect the anti-BRT crusade to go on forever. I had to get my say in while we still had time. I had to do my learning and put it out there and run up and down the street screaming and hollering like a madman to get someone, anyone to pay attention. I can’t say it’s worked, but I’ll feel a lot less guilty every time one of those sham trams comes rumbling down the street.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Curitiba actually has a very nice public transportation system. Those busses run in bus-only lanes and do not interfere with bikes or cars.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:14 am
i don’t know about that michael - i’ve posted this picture before. at some point, those buses have to come downtown. if they don’t people won’t ride them, so they _must_ come downtown, where they will mix and mingle with tiny objects called humans - walkers and cyclists. this is not wise, in my opinion.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:36 am
“most energy-efficient form of transport ever devised”?
Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s the sailboat. Whether or not the train comes in as superior to the bicycle depends on whether or not you factor in the fact that the bicycle can’t be scaled up to weights and dimensions greater than a rickshaw. That’s a pretty significant limitation in the grand scheme of things, you know, and doesn’t even touch on speed.
And I nearly forgot the horse! Definitely more efficient than the bike, since horses eat cheaper food than people, and further down the food chain too. And horses carry more weight, faster, over greater distances, more difficult terrain, and can be harnessed together to multiply their strength. (Just try plowing a field with a team of bicyclists!) Meanwhile, with horses, you need neither advanced metallurgy, nor ore mining, nor asphalt roads, nor the tropical avocado and mango plantations that our calories are coming from. Just grass and oats! You can even use the manure and dead horseflesh to make more grass and oats! Ecologically perfect!
The sailboat and the horse are surely the most energy efficient modes of transport on sea and land of all time. Furthermore, they have next to no ecological side-effects.
What are we waiting for?!
December 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I like the sailboat idea, herman. i guess i should have said ‘land transportation’ to be precise.
the horse? i heard that’s how Mackinac Island rolls. can’t say i’m generally supportive of animal labor, though.