This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Incorrectly, I think. Must check Fowler. What do US guides say? Then again, We're Not A Dictionary. We could just delete that bit entirely -- Tarquin 11:00, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I can see no excuse for "busses" but it scores 430,000 google hits (i.e. mostly this type of bus) so obviously a lot of people use it. Shantavira 18:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I found an American Merriam-Webster dictionary that recommends it as an alternative spelling, mostly to prevent people from pronouncing it as SAMPAbjuz".Ez.-FZ 13:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've always been under the impression that busses is British and buses in the American derivative. Could be wrong, don't know how to verify (incidentally, I was looking at Wikipedia to see if anyone here had verified... so thanks, big help team. =)
Illustration: there are several lithographs by Honore Daumier that are in the public domain that would help make points now in "History" subsection. Wetman21:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Why this obsession with how it is spelt in the US (wherever that is!). How it is spelt in the majority of the big wide world is more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.228.61 (talk • contribs)
Gas - gases, walrus - walruses, atlas - atlases, their is no excuse to claim that busses is the plural of bus; busses is the plural of buss - ie a sloppy kiss.
buses are the safest
I read an interesting newspaper article about buses recently:
"the [US] National Transportation Safety Board decided ... not to recommend seat belts in school buses.
The board also recommended that buses be equipped with data recorders starting Jan. 1, 2003. ...
School bus design is closely regulated ... Motor coaches -- the type of bus used by Greyhound -- have no occupant protection standards.
Regardless, school buses and motor coaches are considered the safest forms of transportation on the road. On average, nine people are killed each year in school buses, and four die in motor coaches. Roughly 42 000 are killed annually in car and truck accidents."
-- Glen Johnson, Associated Press, 1999 Sept. 22
EditHint: Mention some of these facts in the article.
I have no clue how to fix this, but all the "edit" buttons in the article are in one line, like {edit} {edit} {edit} and looks kinda bad. -- Josh
satellite bus?
If something were written about Satellite Bus(s)es, should it have its own entry, or go in Electrical bus (or even Computer bus )? -FZ 13:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
reversion of changes by 213.51.209.230
I've reverted the changes by 213.51.209.230, which describe an articulated bus thus:
Articulated buses consist of a standard length bus fitted with a tow hitch and a trailer. The trailer part is connected to the front part with a rubberaccordion section.
With the exception of the accordian bit, this sounds more like a description of a bus+trailer combination, as widely used in Germany in the 1950s and, I believe, still used in some eastern european countries. It may be that some apparantly articulated buses are configured this way, but it certainly isn't the normal form. The most common form of modern articulated bus (eg. the MercedesBenz Citaros used in London) actually has the engine in the rear section, which can hardly therefore be described as a trailer. And obviously such a configuration requires something other than a tow-hitch. -- Chris j wood 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This sounds like speculation. Sources? (The assumptions that homelessness is caused by urban housing shortages, that such shortages exist, and that many homeless people ride buses all need substantiation.)
Homelessness and buses in the U.S.
Because of a variety of factors, housing shortages have become a chronic problem in most large American cities since the 1970s. The result has been an epidemic of homelessness. With no place to go, the homeless often end up riding around aimlessly on public buses, which offer advantages like temperature control, security, and comfort.
Unfortunately, the presence of homeless people strongly reduces the attractiveness of bus transit to other riders, due to factors like odor, hygiene, panhandling, crowding, etc.
I don't see why that passage should have been taken out. Have you ever actually commuted regularly on a typical big city bus? I use buses four days of the week and I've seen everything, including homeless people urinating in the bus.
It looks like the passage has some relevance, but its needs quite a bit of POV cleanup. First off, I can see no reason to limit discussion to the U.S. or to homeless passengers. The real issue is that people don't like sharing space with strangers - in particular strangers who are different from themselves. Then it can be seen as a more general issue contrasting public transport vs private transport such as the car. In fact, come to think of it, the whole issue is probably much better addressed on the public transport page where there is already some comment. -- Solipsist 11:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sure; I've seen plenty of bizarre things on public transport, but I'm hesitent to extrapolate a trend from any of them. I agree with Solipsist (oh, the irony) that the treatment in public transport is better. jdb ❋ 21:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I concede that public transport is probably the best point to address the issue in detail (and it should addressed in detail). I'll have to think about it and do a little research before I go and elaborate on it in that article, though. As written, public transport only addresses the issue of homeless people sleeping on public transport rather than the odor, hygiene, public health, or security issues, which I would argue are major disincentives for people to ride public transit---have you had the pleasure of sitting next to a fragrant homeless person lately? I also concede that Solipsist is probably right to generalize the issue to the broader problem of how many people don't like sharing personal space with strangers.
However, several experimental uses of double decker buses have not proved them to be practical in U.S. operations other than for sightseeing groups.
I'm curious as to why DD buses haven't caught on in the U.S. except as sightseeing buses -- esp. on heavily-trafficked routes. Can anyone expand upon this? 140.247.60.20605:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but my best guess is that most American cities tend to have much longer and wider streets than in Europe, so if a bus line becomes really popular, then the local transit agency will simply add more buses or switch to extra-long articulated buses.
Also, Americans simply don't ride buses as much as in other countries because we have cheap gas (we don't tax it as much) and most of our cities are not laid out well for efficient bus use.
As for inner-city neighborhoods where buses are more popular, a major problem is that many such cities, like Los Angeles, are nearly bankrupt and cannot afford to put their electrical and phone wires underground. The result is that their skies are cluttered with old lines which are just barely high enough for trucks and ordinary buses to pass underneath. A double-decker bus plowing through those lines would create an enormous mess and cause massive service outages.
Finally, I think another reason is that our courts are very plaintiff-friendly. Our public transit agencies get sued every day by people who are run over by bus drivers, people who trip and fall on the bus, people who trip and fall getting on or off the bus, people who are robbed on the bus, people who are arrested by the police because they refuse to pay the bus driver, etc. Adding double-decker buses would result in having to defend against lawsuits from people who fell down the stairs because the driver braked suddenly. However, sightseeing companies are probably able to use such buses because they are not public agencies, have more control over who can board, and can simply jack up prices to cover the cost of their liability insurance. --Coolcaesar17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a bus operator, I would say: the height of the signs and such is the main cause. A regular single-decker coach is about 11 ft and 6 inches tall. Most bridges and overpasses are right about 13 feet and some inches. That leaves practically NO ROOM for a second deck.
DD buses can be down to 4 m high, that is 13 ft 2 in. But then tall people can't stand upright on the lowest deck. --BIL (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bus types aren't quite right
There should be categorization by size, by use, and by propulsion/energy type
Buses are generally diesel, but there are CNG and electric buses available. Hybrid diesel/electric buses may be avialable soon.
Bus sizes can vary from minibus (about 14 to 20 people) to mid-sized bus (26-35) to maxi-bus (up to 42-seats) baby coach (32-40) to coach (42-49) to XL coach (55 to 61) passengers. Double-deckers and/or articulated buses are counted in a different category.
microbus -- basically a converted van with extra high-ceilings, there offer walk-in high-back chair seating.
minibus -- generally converted from heavy-duty van or truck platforms, they offer greater carrying capacity than full-size vans at the cost of wider width. They can be ordered in a variety of seating configurations, but usually seat about 18-24 plus some luggage space. Available with perimeter seating (all seats with back against the walls) or forward-facing seating (normal).
mid-sized bus -- built on mid-sized truck platforms, these buses offer greater carrying capacity (often up to 35-seats and some luggage space). They could be front or rear-engined.
maxi-bus -- built on large truck platforms, these buses offer up to 42 seats without the investment of a full-sized coach. Sometimes these are known as mid-sized buses. Usually front-engined.
baby-coach -- built on shortened version of a standard coach, these have only 2 axles instead of the three on a standard coach, with reduced seating capacity, but retains the underneath luggage space. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
coach -- standard coach in the US is 40 foot long and seats 42-50 people, with underneath luggage space, and has three axles: front, drive, and tag. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
XL coach -- 45 foot version of standard coach, these represent the longest length coach allowed on highways without special permits. The extra length allows installation of extra seats, resulting in up to 62 seats. Not permitted on all roads. Check your state highway restrictions. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
Buses are generally divided into three use types: tour/intercity bus, transit bus, and school bus.
Tour/intercity buses have luggage space placed under the main cabin. They can achieve high speeds and are more comfortable on the highways with air-suspensions over long distances.
Transit buses are designed for intracity use with lots of starts and stops. Their top speed is lower, and latest models have lower floors and multiple entry-ways, and NO luggage space. They often have a combination of perimeter and forward-facing seating to maximize the amount of standing space available.
School bus, in the US, can sit up to 70+ people with narrow bench seating, and has required set of rear escape doors and such.
This article is extremely biased towards the US - in fact, less than a passing mention is made of buses in other countries through the whole article. --Stevefarrell13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. In the U.S., the mentality is "I need my personal car, you should ride a bus". Why not tell us more about buses elsewhere? Vaoverland22:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article improvements
I added some info about various types of bus service such as local, intercity/interstate, shuttle, school, tour and charter. The wording of my additions could possibly use some improvements but i feel it's a decent start at least. I do think their should be a separate section on the specific types bus vehicles such as transit, coach, shuttle, mini-busses, double-decker, etc.. Also we should provide more info on the types of fuels/power sources currently used in busses including diesel /bio-diesel, electric, bio-fuels (ethanol, etc), hydrogen, etc. Also the types of amenities available fancier coach style busses (such as those used by touring musicians). These include lavatories, satellite TV, sleeping facilities, and other RV-like amenities. --Cab8811:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since "bus" is abbreviated from the Latin "omnibus", surely the plural should be "bi", abbreviated from the Latin "omnibi"...58.136.112.903:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice (presumable ironic) point but not really correct since "omnibus" is not a Latin nominative singular noun like "populus" (where plural is indeed populi) but rather ablative case (formed by appending -ibus). 203.255.186.13403:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1895 bus is cool historically, but maybe the article would be better served by a more contemporary photo, which is more representative of bus service today. Twinxort18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted the gallery so i put it back. It's nice and could help to diminish that non-international point of view feeling of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.98.17.25 (talk • contribs) .
Correct. I took it out the first time, and have removed it again. The reason I took it out is because the gallery is somewhat unsightly, and because the whole thing is now duplicated on Commons and linked on the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Types of buses
I have moved the section below from the article page to here because it largely overlaps with 'Types of bus service' and is completely unsourced. -- Donald Albury12:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Buses comes in many shapes and sizes, each optimized for its own specific niche. They are usually diesel-powered, though more recently fuel cell, CNG, and hybrid power sources are becoming available. In general, there are three types of buses: transit buses, school buses, and touring coaches. Transit buses are designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, urban operation, and few amenities. Most city transit buses are of the transit type. Transit buses tend to have low floors, no luggage space, lots of standing room, and two or more doors, often double-width doors. Transit buses can be single deck or double deck, anywhere from a mini shuttle of 10 people (basically a large van) all the way to 120-seat double-deckers or 140-seat articulated "trailer" coaches. School buses are also designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, and urban operation. It has virtually NO amenities, except those mandated by law, such as rear escape door. The seats are also tighter and only central corridor is available, no standing. As a result, school buses often seat 60-80 children in a 40-ft long coach. School buses can vary from small 10-passenger wheel-chair lift minibuses all the way to 40-ft long school buses capable of fitting in 70+ children. Touring coaches, finally, are designed for long distance runs with luxury. They are designed for highway cruising and often come with reclining seats, footrests, video systems, PA systems, private AC outlet, and so on, as well as a lot of luggage space under the main cabin. US DOT limits maximum length of a single vehicle to 45 ft long, and 102 inches wide, and that is the dimension of most touring coaches. Touring coaches in US vary from 12-pax minicoaches to 24-seater minibuses to mid-size buses (28-42 pax) to 30-ft long baby coaches, 40-ft long coaches, and 45-ft long maxi-coaches.
I respectfully disagree. The "types of service" section is more important, but it properly says little about types of hardware. The bus type section should be restored, perhaps pruned to a bullet list, with a link for each physical type that has its own article, and a short definition for any type that does not. -- Jim.henderson18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably me who did the original change, and looks like I did it *again*. :-) While I agree that "types of service" is important, there is NO discussion at all on the types of hardware, as Jim pointed out. We'll probably have to separate into two sections, "Bus Service Markets" and "Bus Size Subtypes". --Kschang7707:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mini and midi are good additions, though their paragraphs are perhaps a bit long and their details might profitably be relegated to linked articles. Some of the motor coach additions definitely ought to be in the linked article instead. And "dualies" are used without being defined. I do not propose to define them here, but in that case this isn't where to use them, either. When a subject is big, then one article shouldn't try to cover it all. Buses are not as big as Medicine or India, but their article should only attempt to present and outline the topic, with links to the specifics. Balance and selectiveness are major parts of an editor's job. Completeness is not what it's about.
Thanks Hassocks5489 - I've recently learnt about the "ref" button too so next time I should be able to do it meself! :-)
Far too many pictures of articulated buses
So i'm taking it upon myself to upload and add a picture of a single deck midibus. Backifran
We only have two photos of artics on there, so I don't know if that's "far too many", but I do think your photo idea is a good, solid one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was three before.. the one on the top right, the one described "bendybus" and a poor quality photo of several in a line in a US city.
Two bendys are perhaps slightly too many; one double decker is exactly right and so is one shot of several parked intercity coaches. One midi is also the right number. I see no exterior of the most common modern "standard" size bus, however, like the M1 I rode two hours ago up Madison Avenue in New York. Jim.henderson18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like that image?, I wouldn't insert that one but that bus seats 49 plus 12 or so standing.. it's a Leyland Lynx. Although a more modern one would perhaps be appropriate, as I went on that very bus two days ago and the driver claimed it was a 'sack of shit'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backifran (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I put the picture of the leyland lynx up, but thought after i'd done so that this picture of a Volvo B10M would have been better - ::
Modern articulated bus
I think its a bad idea to be able to edit a page like this but it certainly isn't the normal form. The most common form of modern articulated bus (eg. the MercedesBenz Citaros used in London) actually has the engine in the rear section, which can hardly therefore be described as a trailer. And obviously such a configuration requires something other than a tow-hitch. -- Chris j wood 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My brother told me to ask you guys on here. Tomorrow Im starting a book report and I MUST know something about transportation involving buses. If you help me, I'll tell you my grade and help you if you need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnnathan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add useful link (Ozebus.com.au)
Ok, so I can't add this useful link because it's against the conflict of interest provisions. However I respectfully request that it be considered to add to this page, as it is the main portal to the Australian Bus Industry: www.ozebus.com.au
The site contains useful content, resources, ppt presentations, links, forums, and academic papers. For more info, please contact admin@bic.asn.au Ozebus (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Ozebus[reply]
Incidentally, French Wikipedia has an article stub for "Stanislas Baudry", but said stub lacks any sources or citations. While I can translate it, an independent source would be preferable. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a reference to an early experiment with public transport (web page also cited) dated 1662. The web-page in question is cited in the French Wikipedia article for "omnibus", which is separate from the French Wikipedia article for "autobus" or bus. Should the same separation be done to the English articles? Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this reference in Nantes web page: Rodrigue, Dr. Jean-Paul. "Omnibus, Paris Late 19th century" Hofstra_University for Stanislas Baudry's activities. And also why it was called "omnibus". Apparently the name of the terminus gave him the idea. The site is http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch6en/conc6en/omni.html Added 23rd Oct 2009
In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). --85.22.7.146 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I have heard of Kombibuss, I think in Bill Bryson's "Neither Here Nor There" when he travelled to Uppsala on a bus that was basically a freight vehicle with some seats attached :). But we don't have them here so I am not sure I am qualified to add it. I would just add it as Kombibuss.
The intro says "generally 8 to 200 passengers". I accept that "generally" implies that sometimes they are outside this range, no doubt there is some Guinness World Record of 450 people squeezing onto a Routemaster or something, but isn't 200 a bit high? I'd say 80-- that is the most I have seen in the UK. Perhaps 100 as a margin. Again, the "generally" does not exclude it being outside these limits. I don't think bendy buses etc tend to have more capacity because of statutory limites etc, though no doubt this varies from place to place. But surely 200 is a bit on the steep side. SimonTrew (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW my reason for asking is there have been two edits to this number today, to 250 then 300, which I have reverted. (Half expecting 350 later.) But going back quite a way through the history I can't find a number other than 200 for upper limit, so not sure if it has been changed without discussion before. SimonTrew (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't see the reference, brlliant. Yeah, I still would maybe disagree they are "generally" that size, it's a bit like saying people are "generally" 2'6" to 8'11.1", but at least there's a ref now and we can discuss within that, great. SimonTrew (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have too many pictures on this article, as the right side of the screen is almost solidly pictures. It's crowded right now, you see. I plan on cleaning this up over the weekend to make it appear less crowded and a little more elegant. This will involve removing all the images, and then placing images again from a clean-sheet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are way to many pics in this article. I was going to move the horsedrawn one so its looks better with the history section but theres just no room to move it! Does it really need a zillion pictures of different colors? Thanks.
I have just added a load of additional content removed from the bus manufacturing article which I think should focus more on the manufacturers and less of the vehicles. It has also added a load of additional images. Feel free to work with the new content and we may need to consider a split if the article is now getting too long. PeterEastern (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic at all. You are suggesting the article now needs splitting, yet that is precisely because you've just totally unbalanced it with this import of content from 'bus manufacturing'. We now have just one single paragraph on types, alongside pages of content about independent front suspensions, body and chassis considerations and engine positioning etc etc. If you thought that this article was light on this info, you should have summarised it here, and kept the detail at bus manufacturing. If you think 'bus manufacturing' should only be about companies, which I can's see the logic of, then judging by what you have imported here, what you probably should of done is move what you took out of that article and put into another child article, such as bus design, and summarised that here. Infact, the Bus manufacturing article now looks completly pointless, it has no real focus at all. Why should the info about identification or rebuilds even be in there now? I am also generally concerned that in these big rewrites, you seem to lose little details, such as now there is no mention of designs needing to meet a tilt test, which seemed to dissappear in this edit. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that they also just undid a lot of work I did in clearing out a lot of images. I'm inclined to revert it all, honestly, for the reasons you mentioned, since this seems an ill-conceived shuffle of content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I have been working across a lot of articles recently and possibly was too quick here. If my edits are considered to be counter-productive I will not be offended by a revert while we discuss and explore any possible changes; indeed it may be more appropriate for me to do the revert myself to make it clear that there are no hard feelings. I would suggest however that we take the opportunity to review the roles of the two articles briefly and do a clean-up at the same time? My motivation was the get all the content about the vehicles themselves into one place and about the manufacturing of buses in another, together with design issues if relevant to manufacturing. I feel that the bus manufacturing is currently pretty weak because most of the previous content related to the design of vehicles rather than manufacturing. I recently did significant work on the Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company and there is a lot more to add about the way these companies and manufacturing techniques evolved over time. PeterEastern (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add list of buses
Here is a proposed list of buses with photographs for addition to the article. Please see discussion in the next section about whether this should be in this article or a split one...
[[[File:PlaxtonPrimo1.jpg|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus in White. This bus is shorter than the Plaxton Centro]]]
[[[File:Lancashire United Optare Versa unfinished livery.jpg|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Optare bus in unfinished livery. There are new Optare buses to this day.]]]
[[[File:Countryliner PP2 MX56 NLZ.JPG|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus. This bus is quite new. It is shorter than the Plaxton Centro or some Dennis Darts]]]
Split into 'list of buses' article
It has been proposed that the new 'list of buses' section be split out into a new article. This section is to discuss the merits of creating such an article.
The initial request was placed on a individual contributors talk to which the contributor responded: I think you should bring this up on the appropriate talk page, and get consensus there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)--85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that a list of buses does not belong in this article, but that it could make a good separate article if people which to develop it - I support the split as long as there are people who which to develop it and stop it becoming a huge photo-library. PeterEastern (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be general agreement that a list of buses would not be appropriate in a general article about 'buses'. See elsewhere on this talk page for other discussions on the matter mainly in response to questions from your IP address. I would again encourage you to set up a proper user profile if you which to engage in discussion on what should and should not be in an article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13 Jan 2011 edits
This edit has reverted a number of recent changes and additions to the article without apparent justification. Could the editor please register with a user name and talk about their motivation for the edit here. If the intention was just to add back the list of buses (which I suggest needs to be in a separate article) and that the other changes a mistake then I suggest that someone needs to repair the article - which I am happy to do. PeterEastern (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the talk page associated with the IP address used for these edit more thoroughly and teh damage done by the edits I have now reverted the changes from the article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that 85.12.88.17 has again added the list of buses section to this article and made other changes without any discussion as has been requested here and also on his talk page. The disputed changes have again been reverted pending discussion. I also note that no-one has offered to support the development of the suggested separate article as requested above which suggests that the logical outcome will be to leave the content out of Wikipedia entirely. PeterEastern (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added this in since on-stop battery recharging seems to become more and more popular; btw I wonder whether witricity (no-battery) powered buses exist; ie via electromagnetic induction lines in the road itself.
