Talk:Guided bus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject buses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject buses to do list
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the buses WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] mergewith BRT

Merging with BRT has been suggested, but I do not find any discussion on it here....

Against merging. Guided bus or Guided busway is a technology, Bus rapid transit is a systematic approach for a faster (bus-based) public transport system. -- Klaus with K 14:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but some cross-reference is required. guided buses are always part of a BRT system?
[part of BRT]? Yes and No. As a consequence of the BRT definition, first answer yes, as a guided bus lane cannot be sensibly used by unguided vehicles and thus provides an exclusive right-of-way. Second answer is no, as at least here in Edinburgh the FASTLINK GUIDED BUSWAY is considered to be part of a transport system that does not limit itself to buses only. Then I feel that BRT is US-speak

== as here in the UK I still have to come across the expression Bus Rapid Transit despite my interest in Public Transport.

  • The articles already contain cross-references
  • in Mannheim (Germany) guided bus and tram share ROW de:Image:Spurbus Mannheim1.jpg
  • is there an expression Rail Rapid Transit?
-- Klaus with K 11:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has written in support, I'm removing the move tag; bus rapid transit is not inherently guided, nor are guided buses inherently part of the bus rapid transit philosophy. The two should certainly reference each other, but are distinct topics. (Klaus with K: 'rapid transit' usually implies railways unless otherwise stated; it's more or less a U.S. equivalent of 'metro' and the like.) David Arthur 01:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Problem with reference link

.[1]

For some reason or another, the above reference does not open up at all. Peter Horn 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rubber wheeled trams

Should the rubber wheeled trams resided at tram/streetcar/light rail? Rubber-wheeled metro/subway resides at subway/metro.

[edit] Advantages?

This Article doesn't really address what advantages (if any) that a guided bus system has over a normal "busses only" lane. Is it faster? Safer? Cheaper?

Valid questions, but please sign your writing here with ~~~~ --Klaus with K 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have only traveled on the Edinburgh System. It travels at 30mph (compaired with 40mph the busses travel at on a non-guided section). The main advantage is the ability to restrict users of the guideway (a bus only road could be used by any bus, while the guideway is resticted to approved busses). The other advantage is the track can be narrower than an equivelant road (since the vehicles do not move off the set path).Msmh 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no significant advantage, that's why they are rare. A normal bus road can be quite narrow according to my experience, and bus and tram can be combined by having normal street tram rails. The ability to restrict non-approved buses, small advantage. To restrict private cars, have a device that makes it impossible to pass if the distance between left and right wheels is too small, relatively common. The normal advantage of trams over buses is that trams can be longer since they are guided, but then they have to be guided all the route. Another big advantage is that tram have electric propulsion, but also, they have to be guided all the route. The disadvantage of guided bus routes is that it is expensive to build and requires special buses, which costs more money to buy. This is my assessment, please comment. -- BIL 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Compared to "traditional buses" that operate on roads in traffic congestion, guided buses provide a clearly superior service as they have the advantages of Bus Rapid Transit (as they are a form of BRT). It is my observation that guided busways are rare because they are more expensive than unguided dedicated busways but do not give many special advantages (as you have outlined). Therefore they are only implemented in special circumstances, the main one being a restricted route corridor. I am not familiar with French Guided Busway Systems like Bombardier or Translohr that appear to be more focussed on provided "rubber tire trams", but most English based systems like the Fastway, the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (currently being built) and the O-Bahn use guided buses as some or all of the corridor is too narrow for an unguided busway. Your comments about the trams are correct, but all three of the previous guided busway systems do have significant advantages over trams to provide the equivelant service being: mixing unguided and guided busway such as Fastway (cheaper while still able to use a 1.5Km narrow corridor section); mixed road and railway corridor routes as at Cambridgeshire and a route that is too steep for light rail as in the O-Bahn. Also, all the guided busways have the BRT advantage of seamless service because the buses can enter and leave the busway at both ends and, if required, the middle . . . a benefit used in all three systems. Bigglesjames 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)