ORIGIN OF THE BUS, THE TRANSPORTATION THAT CONTINUES TO EVOLVE

ORIGIN OF THE BUS, THE TRANSPORTATION THAT CONTINUES TO EVOLVE

In any city, the public transport par excellence is the bus. Known in different ways (bus, bus, gondola, bus, bus, among others), this means of transportation has existed since the 17th century and is still essential today.
Of course, like any other vehicle, the bus has evolved to the versions we know today, and which are now more ecological. However, it all started in Paris, France in 1662.

The first version of this transport had nothing to do with what we know today, and rather it was considered very uncomfortable and, moreover, expensive. This line consisted of a kind of carriage pulled by horses and it worked until 1677. However, the idea did not end there.

 

FROM THE TRAM TO THE BUS

Although the tram was invented in 1775, it did not become as popular. It was 50 years later, in 1825, that another predecessor of the modern bus appeared and it was a complete success. Colonel Stanislas Baudry’s bus, which was created in Nantes (France) and later reached large cities such as New York and London.

Baudry’s idea arose when he wanted to make his thermal baths business more accessible to the public and he came up with the idea of creating a people transportation system that started from the city center xxx porno, inspired by the old stagecoaches.

FROM THE TRAM TO THE BUS

Sooner than later, the colonel realized that the transport was used by more people than those who went to his business and decided to expand it. He founded the Entreprise Générale des Ómnibus, which had its terminal in front of the most popular stores in the city.

The word “bus” comes from the Latin phrase “Omnes omnibus”, that is, “there is everything for everyone”, which was the slogan of the new vehicle. Although this invention was very revolutionary, it was still a step away from reaching the bus.

 

THE ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST BUS

In 1831, Englishman Walter Hancock invented the bus. The main difference was that this one had a steam engine and therefore did not need horses to move. However, it was first known as the “Infant”.

The first bus line covered the London City Line and the City of Stratford. Six decades later came the gasoline engine, which was the work of the German company Benz (Karl Benz). His first trip was on March 18, 1895.

The model, which only allowed six seats plus the driver, improved over the years. In 1920, with the four-cylinder engines, new models appeared that tried to make better use of space until the O 6600 H model was launched in 1961, which is very similar to today’s buses.

 

NEW TECHNOLOGIES: ELECTRIC BUSES

NEW TECHNOLOGIES: ELECTRIC BUSES

It is true that electric cars have become fashionable in this century, however, the experimentation dates from much earlier. In Berlin, the Aboag company experimented in 1898 with the first electric buses. However, this energy was a failure.

Another of the pioneers in this field was the Spanish Emilio de la Cuadra and his General Car Company. In the end he did not achieve his goal, and adopted the internal combustion engine devised by the Swiss Marc Birkigt.

Despite the fact that the appearance of the metro (subway) in 1863 threatened the use of the bus, this means of transport continues to be essential. And, little by little, they are using cleaner alternative energies, such as natural gas, methane, hydrogen and electricity.

 

Related Posts

 

Neighbourhood Governance and Management: Challenge or Opportunity for Local Government?

This was a bumper conference: more and more good speakers kept appearing at the podium like rabbits out of a hat. The morning chair, Sue Charteris of Shared Intelligence, kept up a brisk pace and the remote control for the slide show couldn’t work fast enough for the man who is himself on fast-forward, Ben Paige of MORI.

Dan Corry of NLGN set the scene: the challenge for local authorities is to bring the two strands of neighbourhood management, and governance, together. Not just bringing service delivery closer to the people but facilitating the people to share in decision-making too.

The Government defines neighbourhood management as a way of joining up the different agencies, including housing agencies, working in deprived neighbourhoods and offering a single point of contact for residents and businesses so they don’t keep getting passed on. It’s giving managers at a local level the clout to sort things out.

Dan Corry argued the case for new localism and devolving powers down to neighbourhoods, because the model is pluralistic (bringing different groups of people together) holistic (seeing things from the user’s point of view, not professional silos) and can move faster than the higher tiers of government.

He also voiced the anxieties: as a tier of government, are they unrepresentative if not elected? How do they relate to the democratic role of councillors? How to get local people involved? The danger that richer neighbourhoods will operate the system more effectively, get more resources and more results. And of course new structures mean new effort and new costs. But he saw it as a great opportunity and a challenge to be taken up.

Tony Breslin of the Citizenship Foundation defined citizenship, community and neighbourhood, and in doing so raised several issues which became themes during the day. The first is that the citizenship education his organisation provides aims to build political participation by bringing politics to the people, not trying to bring people to politics. This was echoed by Richard Hewgill of the Tenant Participation Advisory Services who was a lone voice speaking for tenants, residents, ordinary people – the people who this agenda is supposed to be for.

He said that local authorities used to tell tenants what was good for them. There was some evidence of change but still a lot of cynicism. “We don’t want to be seen as customers. Residents don’t really have customer choice. There has to be a meaningful partnership”. And he told the professionals: “Don’t do training for tenants to teach them to speak your language, the professional gobbledegook”. I.e. break down the barriers that stop people participating in local government rather that trying to teach a few to mount them.

The cynicism of the professionals and council officers who say, “When we try to consult the public, they just want to watch television” was palpable. Richard Hewgill argued earnestly for more imaginative and genuine effort to work with people. “Don’t write people off just because they don’t come to a meeting. My Housing Association has just drawn up 15 ways to communicate and even then it’s not exhaustive.

“Negotiate the structure, agree the rules of engagement and stick to it. Don’t promise what can’t be given. Treat everyone with respect. Everyone has a right to be heard.”

Polling can make you cynical: Ben Paige of MORI provided the evidence the cynics already knew: people want their council to listen to them and put that far above wanting the council to actually tackle problems or act on what people say. 26% of people say they would like to be involved in community partnerships but only 2% actually do. “We are lazy as a nation. Just accept this” he said. But he echoed Richard Hewgill in saying that councils need a more radical and committed approach. Consultations need to be followed with information on what’s been done as a result. The public can spot short term initiatives which serve the politicians or officers. They are switched off when decisions are taken behind closed doors. He pointed to NDC (New Deal for the Community) areas as giving genuine community participation and leading to genuine results.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) civil servant Joe Montgomery of the tackling Disadvantage Group agreed that NDC is delivering: “You can achieve a lot where the machinery is on the ground”, he said, “but it is a big financial commitment”. NDC achievements challenge the idea that people don’t really want to get involved, but also raise the question of funding.

Star speaker Hazel Blears, Home Office Minister, supported the idea raised by several speakers that the learning and the funding needs to be mainstreamed. “We know what works; now we need to embed that learning for the long term”. She said the Government was simplifying funding streams and letting go of purse strings. Now the challenge was for local authorities to let go further to neighbourhoods. She conjured up a picture of what’s gone wrong: of government having withdrawn into the town hall leaving people ignorant and disengaged. “The old view, that people need managing, led to mistakes. Experts, particularly planners, imposed solutions, like streets in the sky and slum-clearance”.

There were impressive reports from local authorities – Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Rochdale, who have tried neighbourhood management and found it works. Kerry Bolister of Wolverhampton City Council explained the ingredients of their success: the neighbourhoods are not ward-based but designed to tackle deprived areas; the management teams are freed from day-to-day service delivery; they are not reliant on temporary funding streams; they are strategically involved in services and offer a one-stop-shop for enforcement.

In short, the future is looking bright but not easy.