Archives for National Bus Trader

In Part 1 of this three-installment series, I characterized the development of MCI’s new ramp-equipped accessible motorcoach (the MCI D45 CRT LE) as a “paradigm shift.” While I will expand on why this is so in the third and last installment next month, this installment will overview the most unique features of this remarkable vehicle — a vehicle whose ultimate potential I feel has not yet been realized. Features and Flexibility An examination of the CRT LE’s features must begin with a discussion of the significant amount of space carved out of otherwise above-floor seating and under-floor luggage compartments to

As an urban planner by background, there are certain clichés I have grown to loath. Among my least favorite is the phrase ‘paradigm shift.’ This is because few things in the transportation field ever comprise a paradigm shift. Among the true exceptions were the 45-foot-long coach, the proliferation of double-deckers, Megabus pricing,  and the advances in super-clean diesel engines. Autonomous coaches seem  decades away (even while exploding on the scene in Europe). Otherwise, nothing else close to a paradigm shift in this traditional industry comes to mind. Yet for every rule there is an exception, if only occasionally. I came

The past eight installments of this series covered a lot of ground — some technical, but mostly socio-economic and conceptual. But in the debate over the pros and cons of human versus robotic drivers, is it not possible to have the wisdom to take the best of both worlds?                 In early articles I acknowledged some of the advantages of Highly-Automated Vehicles (HAVs), including: No fatigue. No need for layovers. Costs for OSA testing will vanish. And we can remain largely ignorant about bio-sensitive scheduling and driver assignment. Problems like shift inversion will vanish overnight by definition. No reaction time.

                The previous six National Bus Trader articles on this subject stabbed at some highlights and low-lights within the extraordinary spectrum of socio-economic, institutional and other issues encompassed by our transition from humanoid-driven to robotic vehicles. At this point, I thought it might be helpful to take a quick glance at some of the hardware that serves as the robots’ mechanical fixtures, apart from the electronics and the digitalia: Cameras and sensors. These components were employed in “transitional” or “steppingstone” efforts along the path to truly driverless vehicles. So I feel it is worth

            When an asteroid strikes a planet, things tend to change quickly. Most other changes occur gradually, even while a small handful are occasionally more significant. These latter changes are sometimes referred to as “paradigm shifts,” largely because they affect so many things around them, and cause such dramatic changes in the things they affect directly.             Driverless vehicles (or “highly-automated vehicles,” as USDOT prefers to call them) are unusual in these terms. This is because a completely driverless vehicle is indeed a paradigm shift. (See installment #1 of this series: “Autonomous & Inevitable, Part

                 Industry insiders, including government officials, cite an interesting analogy as a justification for their initial jump into the regulation of driverless vehicles that was first promulgated on September 20, 2016. The point made is that, had current regulations been in effect when the “Model T” hit the streets, we would have experienced far fewer collisions.                 The first wave of USDOT regulations for driverless vehicles has four basic components: Vehicle Performance Guidance for manufacturers, developers and others, outlining a recommended 15-point program for safe design, development, testing, and deployment of self-driving vehicles

As Part 2 of this series hopefully demonstrated there is much to learn about what lies ahead in the motorcoach world from the experiences of modes deploying smaller vehicles. This installment provides a preview of the likely emergence of “highly-automated vehicles,” or HAVs, in the world of large vehicles: School bus, transit and motorcoach service.             Vehicle handling alone is significantly more difficult with large vehicles. Of particular importance, among others, are their much-longer wheelbases, streets often too narrow to accommodate them when they turn properly, pneumatic braking systems and high centers-of-gravity. Yet while these characteristics are challenging for humanoid

            In a monthly magazine, it is almost impossible to keep up changes that are racing along This past September, 2015, small fleets of Volvos and Ford Fusions were released into the general traffic stream in Pittsburgh, and driverless Anheuser-Busch trucks began delivering Budweiser and Bud Light. The Netherlands and Finland have been deploying driverless motorcoaches for months now. And we already have a few similar services operating in the U.S.             Traffic conflicts notwithstanding, the technology for these vehicles is far simpler than that of drones (which have been operating for years now) or

In Part 1 of this series, I identified the enormous range of benefits that would likely accompany even the first wave of autonomous buses, coaches, trucks and delivery vehicles. And I identified a handful of dysfunctional consequences, the most serious of which is a Tsunami of driver unemployment. Lest anyone doubt these inevitabilities, he or she might consider consulting the seven-installment series in National Bus Trader titled “Bad Regulations and Worse Responses” (June 2014 through January 2015).                 My efforts for NBT have consistently included sharing the experiences of other modes with members of the motorcoach community. The explosion of