Bi-Articulated Buses – A Solution or More Headaches?
Bi or double articulated buses have created a demand for such buses to operate in Vancouver.
I believe this would be a big mistake because from what I know about bi articulated buses, they are a niche transport system, designed to solve niche transit problems.
What I do know is that they are maintenance intensive and maintenance, especially preventative maintenance is something that TransLink is very poor good at doing.
Bi articulated buses are illegal to operate in Canada, unless they operate in a fully dedicated rights-of-way.
This means the cost difference between a bi articulated bus and a tram (LRT) would be almost the same, without the benefits of the tram with cheaper operating costs; much higher passenger capacities; and lack of flexibility in operation.
From my stays in Germany, the German CDU political party is akin to Canada’s Conservative party and the likes of Doug Ford, who is a Conservative and hates trams.
I do not know why, but the more Conservative a politcal party, the more they dislike affordable public transit and spend huge sums of money on largely unaffordable subways and light-metros. In BC the same is true of the NDP, who ignore affordable transit solutions in favour of hugely expensive “SkyTrain light-metro” solutions.
Back to the bus. I think it would be another grand mistake operating these buses in Metro Vancouver, as for what little increase in capacity on transit routes, would mean a large increase in maintenance and operational costs.
In the end what should be done is not done in favour of gimmicks for election time and to hell with the taxpayer and transit user.
Berlin: Mega buses instead of trams? Between pragmatic solution and political deadlock
by Michael Levy
Is this what the future of Berlin’s surface public transport looks like? Double-articulated bus (with doors on the left side) I © ChatGPT
The Berlin Transport Authority (BVG) is planning to deploy extra-long electric articulated buses measuring up to 25 metres in length. Supported by Berlin’s CDU party, these ‘mega buses’ are being presented as a flexible, short-term alternative to trams – especially in areas where tram expansion has stalled. Critics, however, speak of a ‘political distraction debate’ and accuse the current Senate of stopping or delaying key tram projects for ideological reasons. Urban Transport Magazine takes a detailed look at the current situation, technical options – and the strategic significance for the transport transition in the German capital.
The idea: XXL buses with a length of 25 metres
As part of its ‘E-Bus 2025’ electric mobility programme, BVG is preparing to purchase a new generation of buses: double-articulated buses with a length of around 25 metres and a theoretical capacity of up to 200 passengers. In reality, the capacity is around 130–150 people – nevertheless, they represent a significant increase over the 18-metre articulated buses currently in use.
These vehicles are intended for use primarily on heavily used MetroBus lines such as the M32 in Spandau, but also on other lines with high passenger numbers, such as in Marzahn-Hellersdorf or along Heerstraße. The vehicles will be fully electric and charged at terminal stops. Procurement could begin in 2026, subject to political approval and structural adjustments.
Technology meets tactics: the political significance of the bus strategy
While the BVG presents the planned deployment as a logical step towards expanding capacity and electrification, the project has a strategic component, particularly for Berlin’s CDU party, which is aggressively promoting XXL buses as a cost-effective and quickly implementable alternative to trams. In interviews, large buses have even been referred to as ‘tram killers’ – a phrase that has met with opposition not only from transport experts.
In this context, the website Umweltzone Berlin refers to the CDU’s ‘ideology-driven hatred of trams’. Large buses are stylised there in the same way as the magnetic levitation train once was – as a supposedly forward-looking technology, but one that in fact only distracts from the expansion of the tram network. The comparison published there is pointed: ‘Large buses are the new magnetic levitation train – lots of PR, little substance.’
Transport policy reality: tram projects on hold
While the mega buses are being discussed publicly, tram expansion in Berlin is slowing down dramatically. The new black-red Senate has stopped key tram projects or postponed their planning indefinitely:
- Alexanderplatz – Potsdamer Platz: The planned closure of the gap via Leipziger Strasse has been halted, even though 530 metres of track had already been laid and €6 million invested. The search for alternative routes is setting the project back by years.
- Johannisthal – Gropiusstadt (M11): The expansion was also completed, although initial planning costs had already been incurred.
- Blankenburg South, Mahlsdorf, Heerstraße North: Projects in the northeast and west have been postponed or delayed, often citing details such as fire brigade access routes or insufficient prioritisation.
- No reliable time frame: The Berlin Senate is currently not giving any completion dates for 12 originally planned tram projects covering a total length of around 60 km.
Transport initiatives such as the Berlin Passenger Association (IGEB) are already warning of a ‘loss of five to ten years for the tram’ in Berlin.
Pro: The Advantages of the Large-Capacity Bus Solution
Despite all criticism, there are valid arguments in favor of XXL buses – at least as a complementary measure:
- Fast deployment: Compared to rail infrastructure, buses can be procured and put into service within just a few years.
- Capacity increase without tracks: The 25-metre-long buses offer significantly more space than conventional buses and could temporarily relieve capacity bottlenecks.
- Easy integration into existing routes: No planning approval process, no construction pits, no years-long permitting.
- Environmentally friendly: The new vehicles are fully electric, locally emission-free, and therefore part of Berlin’s climate strategy.
Con: No Substitute for a High-Capacity Rail Network
At the same time, XXL buses are no full replacement for tram systems – neither technically nor from a transport policy perspective:
- Lower capacity: Even at 25 metres, buses do not match the capacity of modern trams (up to 250 passengers).
- More prone to disruption: Buses still share the road with general traffic – congestion, illegal parking, and accidents impair reliability.
- Shorter infrastructure lifecycle: Rubber tires, shorter vehicle lifespans, and charging infrastructure challenges make buses more expensive in the long run.
- Problematic policy signal: Promoting XXL buses as “tram replacements” could ultimately undermine commitment to expanding rail services – contrary to the recommendations of mobility research and climate policy.
Conclusion: Megabuses as a Bridge – Not as an Excuse
The proposed bi-articulated buses can provide short-term relief – especially on routes with growing passenger demand and no foreseeable tram expansion. But they must not be used as an alibi to indefinitely delay tram development.
Experience from other European cities shows that a high-performance, electrified public transport system needs both: modern buses and an expanding light rail network. Rather than an ideologically charged “either-or debate”, Berlin needs a pragmatic “both-and” approach: large-capacity buses as a flexible interim measure where necessary – but trams as the structural backbone of the mobility transition. Currently, however, political obstruction seems to outweigh the need for a balanced and forward-looking transport strategy.
Hamburg: Van Hool Bi-Articulated Buses – An Ambitious Experiment with Limited Success
In the early 2000s, Hamburg’s public transport operator Hochbahn AG began searching for ways to cope with rapidly growing passenger volumes on its main MetroBus corridors—particularly on Line 5, one of the busiest bus routes in Europe. Rather than reviving the city’s long-abandoned tram system, Hamburg opted for a high-capacity rubber-tired alternative: the introduction of ultra-long bi-articulated buses measuring 24 metres in length. The city chose the Belgian manufacturer Van Hool and its AGG300 model.
The vehicles could carry up to 180 passengers, featured five axles—three of them steerable—and had four wide double doors on the right-hand side. A conventional rear-mounted diesel engine powered the middle axle. The buses entered service in 2005 on MetroBus Line 5, operating between Burgwedel, Niendorf, Eppendorf, and Hamburg Central Station. The route was specially adapted to accommodate the new buses, including dedicated bus lanes, traffic signal priority, and extended platforms.
In theory, the Van Hool bi-articulated buses were intended to bridge the gap between conventional buses and rail-based systems. In practice, however, the vehicles proved impressive but prone to operational issues. Technical breakdowns—particularly involving the articulations or the complex steering system—occurred repeatedly. The buses struggled especially during winter operations: with only one driven axle, they often lost traction on snow or ice, leading to delays and occasional service suspensions. Their sheer length also made navigation through narrow city streets difficult, particularly when turning. Maintenance posed another challenge, as these non-standard vehicles required special parts that sometimes had to be sourced directly from Belgium.
Despite these issues, the buses remained in regular service for several years and briefly stood as a symbol of Hamburg’s innovative approach to public transport. Ultimately, however, the operational and infrastructural disadvantages outweighed the benefits. As electric articulated buses became more widespread and service frequencies increased, the Van Hool fleet was gradually withdrawn from service. A follow-up order, once considered, was never pursued.
Today, the Van Hool project is viewed as a cautionary case study in the challenges of boosting bus capacity to levels comparable with rail systems—especially without fully segregated infrastructure. While the effort was pioneering, the trade-offs between flexibility, capacity, and reliability proved too great. Since then, Hamburg has not only invested in modern electric buses but has also shown renewed interest in tram systems, particularly in long-term planning for a sustainable mobility transition.
Sources: Berliner Morgenpost, Neues Deutschland, Umweltzone Berlin, Berliner Zeitung, Berliner Senatsverwaltung. 25.07.2025
New bus routes start bus 27 -> 40 -> 60 ft bus. 60 ft bus capacity on a corridors connecting 2 hubs together. Like BRT Surrey to white rock via king George boulevard or langley to maple Ridge via 200 street.
Up 20 BRT corridors in Metro Vancouver by the end of 2035. 11 of them are light BRT or rapid bus and 9 full BRT. Be attended on which one will reach its ultimate capacity to be upgraded to skytrain. Or for every 10 years there’s going to be a new skytrain line about 20 km in length. Translink looking order XE 60 or Urbino 18 electric with electric mid axle. No option in North America for bus 24 M or 80 ft. The maximum headway for bus services is every 3 minutes. 20 buses an hour x 125 passengers = 2500 pphpd. Need use an 80 ft bus capacity 200 = 3,500 – 4,000 ppdph up to Skytrain 5,120 pphpd.
Translink over the next 10 years, we’ll be having an acquired 2,058 bus and 6 new bus depots to maintain the growing fleet. Estimation $8.9 B. To day Total 1,535 bus grow up to 3,250. So far translink has ordered 462 buses and options 405 buses.
40’ 907 conventional buses up 1584*
60’ 292 conventional buses up 592*
57 double decker up 62
40/60’ 262 electric trolley buses up to 512
217 gasoline community shuttle buses up 500*
Access for Everyone TOTAL $28.4 B in 2024.
Zwei replies: Tell your freinds at TransLink that the maximum capacity of the articulated bus in 100 persons, on a 3 minute heady capacity is 2,000 pphpd. The problem with buses is that with people getting on and getting off and backpacks, bus capacity is greatly reduced.
Also, TransLink’s wish list isn’t funded and I doubt it will be as TransLink is still held in high odor from the public. Mode share as the percentage of population (22% since 2019) is dropping, which isn’t surprising because the transit being offered is not the product customers want.
Show me the funding!
Well I checked, bi-articulated buses are still not road legal anywhere in Canada. Yes, several provinces were interested until they realized they would have a 24 to 30 metre long vehicle, snaking its way through city streets, crowded with traffic. Imagine multiple extremely long semi-truck and trailer like combos making frequent stops on those crowded city streets, during rush hour, especially if they try to make a left hand turn. That thought chills politicians to the bone and usually ends the interest right there. Until a new crop of politicians comes a long and sees pretty pictures of them operating.
1. They are expensive, everything about them is non standard and you would need hundreds, possibly 1000 or more a year being produced for multiple cities to change that. New bus garages and expensive specialty maitenance equipment, specfic to each bus design.
2. They don’t last any longer than smaller buses,12-20 years tops, in our climate.
3. Like any battery bus, if you don’t want a diesel version, double the cost and you have to buy 30% more than diesels because so much of the fleet is charging at anyone time. Until the charging time goes below 5 minutes, which is the slowest time time to fill a really large and empty bus diesel tank, fast charging buses simply don’t save much and you have to buy more replacement batteries for them.
4. No one in North America makes them, thus there spare parts, either originating in South America or Europe become astronomically expensive. The dominance of GM buses starting in the 1950’s through to the early 1990’s, when they stopped making buses, means that to this day most bus parts, regardless of the manufacturer, uses GM or GM like parts. Even Novabus, technically a Quebec-Volvo co-owned manufacturer uses GM parts on its North American models, rather than Volvo parts because it’s cheaper.
5. The first few adopters are going to pay unbelievably high training costs for operators as well as mechanics.
Zwei replies: I keep repeating that to those who are promoting these buses but it lands on a def ear.
Most people involved with transit issues are completely unaware of how involved Transport Canada is in transportation projects, such as the E&N folks.
The same is true for the bus lobby, but they look neat so they must be operated.
There are far bigger issues with our transit system than bi articulated buses, but in the dog days of summer there is not much real news to deal with.
The HWY.1 route is being promoted by many, but putting Skytrain down the median is a non starter financially and by the time any future SkyTrain is built, i doubt that anyone will be producing the cars, which means they must be custom built, which will add to the cost.
I have been told that the revised cost for the Millennium Line to UBC will cost $8 billion by the time construction starts for a full subway and TransLink is looking at building it elevated to UBC past McDonald to save $2 billion. But there is a big problem, the City of Surrey will soon pass Vancouver in population and there will be a big demand for transit spending there, with Vancouver taking second prize.
Translink is also looking at using the Arbutus corridor for a BRT route as a cheaper alternative to increasing capacity on the Canada Line.
The new express bus routes (definitely not BRT which Translink is trying to sell as BRT) South of the Fraser are designed to service the light metro system and not going where customers want to go.
Added to this, mode share is dropping on our regional transit system as the percentage of population using transit is lowly eroding, but high ridership numbers come from population increase, but that could all change with the current politcal situation in Canada, tariffs, etc.
Mr haveacow
Translink started a “special bus” for the BRT. Separate branding from the rapid bus. Maybe a different interior layout on the 60ft articulated buses?* CMCB bus lifecycle 60’ 15-17 years. 40’ 20-23 years 27’ 4-6 years.
LFSE+ downtime 20-19% with current technology. 10-8 min charge time at 22nd street and 6-8 min charge time at marpo bus loop and service for a full day or 20 hours operated. Most of the electronic components are from siemens mobility.
We’re still 10 to 15 years out before we actually need longer buses.
Mr zwei
Cowichan Valley big supporter for bringing back the rail on the island. Missing the same support for the Victoria region and the Nanaimo region. To my knowledge, they’re still working at full cost analysis E&N railway and not a business case.
Bus riders only recuperate 46% operation cost in Metro Vancouver.
Big news of the summer was the new skytrain and service. And fall service changes with new services area my screen first nations and gloucester industrial park.
Express Bus scott road station to Ladner bus exchange via highway 17 with fraser river industry area.
The last estimate that I know of is UBCX $3.2 B. Provinces working on the business case.
No plans for BRT corridors supplement the Canada line.
Definitely not gonna be to a BRT gold standard, but it should be a BRT silver. BRT business case should be available this winter.
Car usage. and transit usage has gone down in the last mobility survey. Walking and rolling going up. Wait and see politics right now. There’s a lot to say, not a lot of doing.
Zwei replies: Pure word salad.
The cost of the current 5.7 km extension to Arbutus (Broadway subway) is now past $3.2 billion and rumor has it it will top $4 billion when completed. The cost of the the subway to UBC will be around $8 billion in dollars of the day. Construction will not start till at least 2035. As said before, business ceases in BC are politcal documents masquerading as technical documents. It has now come to light that the business case for the Evergreen line was based on invented numbers and the document was not worth the paper it was printed on.
From what I understand is that TransLink is switching from articulated buses to double deck buses as they are cheaper to maintain and operate better in bad weathers. Our local 601 service is now operates DD buses on weekends.
Ottawa has been switching from articulated (artics) to double deck buses (ddb’s) for about 7 years now. They are replacing them on a 2 ddb’s for 3 artics basis. The double deck buses don’t get stranded in as little as 20 cm of snow like the articulated buses do. They can climb significant hills with slick wet roads, unlike the artics. They don’t fishtail on snow or ice, like artics. They hold more people and have more seats than artics. The ddb’s are slightly cheaper to maintain then artics but you have to pay to adjust upwards, your bus garage roofs and doors.
@Legoman, this is nothing new, multiple other Canadian cities, going back to the 1990’s (including Ottawa) had started serious test programs or research projects regarding Bi-articulated buses. These programs and research projects, always end the same way, they are just way too expensive to operate for what they can actually do.
However, they both ddb’s and artics, can severely damage roads and our remaining bus Transitways (busways). Hence why our Transitways use concrete instead of asphalt in the docking lane (inner lane) of the Transitway stations. Asphalt roadways often develop tire ruts when multiple heavy vehicles like ddb’s and artics, travel the same path daily over a period of just months. In certain weird zones of our road network, empty ddb’s have been known to be toppled right over on their side because of wind gusts.