The next step would be trolleybuses (which provide better accelleration, and can create higher capacities). This also means a more or less specified guideway. And if more capacity is needed, double articulated trolleybuses come into the play (as it happened in Zürich or Genève, where 25 m long trolley buses run nowadays, and there are some really tight curves in the network).

And when the capacity of double artucilated buses is no longer sufficient, light rail would be the next step.

It has been suggested as a big advantage of BRT using its own right of way, that it can be implemented within very short time, and it would allow to secure the right of way for light rail operation … eventually.

So, BRT, can have its advantages, if you have a long-term plan.

At least with Richmond’s bus project they are only going to restripe the existing six lane highway to four car lanes a two bus lanes and only add brick pavers for the cross walks and some landscaping.

The BRT line they are planning along Broad Street in Richmond Virginia they are planning to run bendy buses and they made a comment on their website that over 700 bus trips happen each day on Broad street. The ceterlanes on Broad street that they are going to use for it run right over a former streetcar line right down the center of Broad. But oddly the city is doing this BRT project with the idea that the streetcar line might come back one day.

I’m surprised they haven’t considered double-deckers for NYC. Are there height restrictions? Or are they just considered old-fashioned, even though
some of them patently are not.

In terms of passenger flow, if I recall correctly, at least some of the double-deckers in Berlin had two staircases, so there was a continuous flow from the front of the bus to the rear exit on both levels. Very efficient.

They were put on the Crosstown routes connecting the East and West sides on Manhattan. These routes are heavily used by New Yorkers, and as everyone knows, we’re always in a HURRY!

When the new buses were put in service, each one carried as many or more passengers as two regular buses. To save money, they ran half as often. What had been a wait of, say, 4 minutes between each bus now became a scheduled 8 minute interval. But they run slower, because the crowds that accumulate at each stop enter the bus painfully slowly through the front door. Indeed, a small crowd exits through the front door as well, in part because of the distance from seats in front to the rear exit doors is so much longer. Now bunching is a regular problem. More often than not the behemoth buses come in pairs, a full one with an almost empty one right behind it.

The MTA could have honestly said, “We can raise fares, or get higher taxes, or use double buses to cut costs, and we chose to cut costs. Sorry about the inconvenience.”

Now in ordinary cases, I’m against the death penalty. But when the MTA instead responded to complaints of decreased service by denying there was any such thing “because capacity remained the same,” that was when I would have hauled out the guillotine.

I hate these buses and I arrange my bus-riding life to avoid them. Note to all riders: the 96th St Crosstown buses are NOT articulated.

Fact is, articulated buses mean degraded service, except perhaps on a full-blown BRT, but for everyone else, they are decidedly inferior. We should be honest with ourselves about that.