Saw the below ad-article tonight which raises questions that have always fascinated me, and I feel are outside the scope of the current bus threads.
Do we want to continue with a one-size fits all default of 12.5m city buses, or should we be advocating for the wider reintroduction of midi buses on coverage/feeder services?
Without any explicit research I would expect:
For midi buses:
- somewhat reduced acquisition costs
- better suited for navigating the suburban environment, especially newer developments (Manoeuvring, less obstructive, safety, noise?)
- Potentially better suited for electric transition (reduced vehicle weight = reduces battery/charging requirements)
- Capacity typically not an issue for most coverage routes
Against midi buses:
- negligible difference in operating costs
- subfleets increases scheduling and day of operation complexity/disruption management
- reduced passenger experience (passengers more likely to have a neighbour)
My current view is there should be more midi buses in Queensland fleets, but they only make sense once a network matures. The traditional approach of coverage routes providing combined service down main corridors before branching out into different backstreets plays nicely into a single fleet model. The alternative, as BNBN started to move towards, of frequent trunk routes down the main roads supplemented by local coverage feeders (e.g. previous mixed 172/184/185 vs trunk 185 + local 172/182) provides significant legibility and efficiency benefits that enable specialised fleet.
https://www.busnews.com.au/bus-stop-challenges-local-market-with-new-low-floor-electric-city-bus/
“Australia’s shift to zero-emission public transport is accelerating, but not all routes are suited to the same vehicles,” Bus Stop Sales director Pete White told ABC.
“That is where the real fleet challenge sits.”
At the same time, the operating environment for bus services is changing, with urban infill, expanding suburbs and new residential developments producing tighter street layouts, constrained intersections and more variable demand patterns. Yet fleet allocation has often defaulted to familiar choices – either a full-size 12-metre bus or a much smaller vehicle – neither of which consistently addresses these conditions.
For suppliers, this reflects a deeper structural issue as 12-metre buses becoming the industry default have been effective on high-capacity trunk routes but are less suited to services where manoeuvrability, flexibility and whole-of-life efficiency matter more.
“The starting point wasn’t size, it was what actually works in service,” Long told ABC.
“Once you accept that driver cost and fleet overheads are largely the same regardless of bus size, the solution has to deliver accessibility, passenger comfort and operational confidence without compromise.”
