This seems to be somewhat (although not universally) true of buses in the US, which often struggle to be on a par with buses in the UK 25 years ago. Here we tend to have more comfortable seating, cleaner interiors (and exteriors), less engine noise, rapidly decreasing particulate pollution and dammit they've just been designed to look nicer.
And then they'll find that they always end up sending those vehicles down the same streets, and start using bigger vehicles, and they'll reinvent the bus.
Seems like there'd be significant savings in having multiple municipalities or even entire states coordinate their bus orders.
It seems especially silly to order a custom looking bus because this would obviously raise the price of replacement parts. Is this part of why old buses always look like crap? Cities don't want to pay the crazy cost of replacing a custom part that is clearly damaged or worn out.
Buses esp 38 Geary and Mission don't look as jacked as I remember them from ~15 years ago. Regularly use to see 3 mission buses bumper to bumper every 30min rather than 1 every 9min.
Out of curiosity, what was the problem with the old ones and what improvements brings this special design ? I might have to visit London later this month and these "new design" buses really scare me lately because I nearly had a panic attack in one last year due to same reason: very high temperatures (I suspect it was more than 50 C in the back), no windows and the driver intended to drive for ~3 hours to destination without AC !! After 40 minutes in a closed box under sun the people with kids were going crazy and the driver had to stop and troubleshoot the AC.
You perhaps need to convince your public transport agency to pay more for the vehicle itself.
Last time I was in the US, in every city I noticed the buses were rattly, smelly and ugly. Some were old, but not all. Hopefully they're also cheap, they at least appear to be assembled from all the left-over parts of other vehicles.
Compare a Mercedes or Volvo bus -- much bigger windows, a cleaner, smoother engine, low floor (the bus "kneels" at stops if needed). If it's less than a year or two old or in a wealthy city it's probably hybrid, which means a smaller and even quieter engine. Probably the same people that design the cars have designed the bus.
(And US school buses are a joke. This [1] is a modern vehicle?! I'd put it in a museum. Why are there steps? This normal bus [2] is a year older, but far safer on the most basic safety measure: the driver being able to see children around the front of the vehicle.)
I have been to many (majority?) of the states in the US, and took the school bus in 6 very different and far apart states, and I feel like they are all the same. Maybe there are 2 designs, flat front or truck style front.
> kids-only "school routes" for a lot of public busses when public transit doesn't align
The same vehicles and probably the same drivers (or a subset) are used, which should cost less.
I think it's only the USA and Canada that have a separate design of vehicle for school buses.
(Why are American school buses such an old design? E.g. this [1], which is the first modern one listed on the Wikipedia School Bus article, has a high enough cab that it needs loads of mirrors for the driver to see around, and has a high floor (so several steps to get in).
A typical bus used in European cities is this Mercedes [2]. The driver has a better view, there is only the one step to get in, and it can be lowered [3].)
We had buses like that in my part of the UK in the early 90s. They disappeared many years ago, we just have normal buses now and have for many years. I don't know why they got rid of them. Maybe cutting costs by having fewer drivers?
Number one is an image problem - they aren't sexy. Here in the States, we are obsessed with the 'European' way of life. Most major European cities have some form of streetcar system or underground metro, if not both. To us, those are sexy. Nevermind that those cities have buses, too.
The bus _could_ be more sexy. BRT with dedicated lanes, priority signaling, clean & modern interiors, at-grade egress, and most importantly, consistent and reliable service. Those changes would go a long ways towards making the bus 'cool' enough to ride.
The other is that because buses are inherently at least a little inconvenient, there has to be an incentive to use them. For most people, the main driver is financial. Ten years ago when the economy was shaky, I, a consistent multi-modal commuter, saw a huge uptick in the number of people riding the bus. When the economy got stronger and more surefooted, buses started to empty out again. Now I see fewer and fewer people of 'means' on the buses - the ones that remain likely don't have other options. When people can afford _not_ to be inconvenienced, they won't be - whether that means buying a parking pass, ponying up for gas & insurance, or taking rideshare everywhere.
reply