|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 157
CHAPTER V
LOW-FLOOR BUSES
INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FINDINGS
The experience of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and
Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia were studied to evaluate the operational
experience of the transit authority, He Impact on riders with disabilities, ant! the impact
on general public riders.
A low-floor bus is one which has a floor between the front and rear doors
sufficiency low enough to remove Me need for steps In Me vicinity of the cloors or in the
aisle between Me cloors. A low-floor bus with a Chinch floor and a kneeling feature
allows the step up from a sit nch curb to be reduced to four or five inches. ADA
standarcis allow a ramp slope of I:6 for heights In this range, so a ramp for wheelchairs
would neect to be only 24 to 30 Inches long. Buses currently being purchased typically
have 48-~nch ramps.
By comparison, a conventional North American transit bus has a floor 30 to 35
inches above the street, with three steps inside the door, the first of which is 14 or 15
Inches high. A kneeling feature reduces the height of Me first step by three to five
inches. Access for wheelchair users and others who cannot climb steps is provided by
means of a lift In the front or rear door.
AD of the low-floor buses which were studied are 40-foot coaches manufactured
by New Flyer Industries (mode! D40LF). They are typical of low-floor currently being
purchased by Norm American public transit systems. The low-floor section extends
only from the front door to the rear door, which is typically located just rear of the
TCRP B-1A V-1 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 158
Table V-~. Key Specifications for Low-Floor Buses
New Flyer Mocte} D40LF
Key Statistics
Length
Width
Entrance height
Kneeling height
40 feet
102 inches
14.4 inches
11.4 inches
Seats 36
(max. without wheelchairs)
Ramp length 44 inches
Ramp width 30.5 inches
Front door Muff 31 inches
Nova Corporation Mode} [FS
Key Statistics
Length
with
Enhance height
Kneeling height
Seats 49
(max. without wheelchairs
40 feet
102 inches
14 inches
14 inches
Front door wicket 43 inches
Special Notice
The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit
Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of
the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they
are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.
TCRP B-lA V-2 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 159
center of Me bus. Rear of the rear door, Me aisle has a series of steps up to an elevated
section over the engine and the rear axle. Full-s~ze "true low-floor" urban transit buses
fin which the low floor extends Me entire length of the vehicle) are currently In use In
Europe but are just recently being marketed by the Nova Bus Corporation in America.
Key specifications of the New Flyer low-floor buses and the Nova Bus
Corporation vehicle are provided In the following box.
At all the case study sites, the buses have front-door ramps powered by a
hydraulic drive located underneath the front door area. Normally, the ramp is operated
by the driver using simple controls mounted on the dashboard. In the event the ramp
does not operate normally, the driver can deploy the ramp manually. A leather strap is
attached to the lip of the ramp which the driver can use to lift the ramp from its stowed
position. Once the ramp is lifted to the vertical position, its fall to the deployed position
is braked by resistance In the hydraulic mechanism. A similar procedure allows the
ramp to be stowed manually. Wheelchair tie down locations are located near the front
of the bus on both sides of the aisle. The first forward-fac~ng seats and the side-fac~ng
seats In front of them fold up to create space for wheelchairs.
The space immediately behind the driver on bow sides of Me aisle (between the
driver and the first seats) is taken up by two wheel-housings. These wheel-hous~ngs
look quite bulky, reaching almost as high as the seat backs, and extending almost five
feet behind the front entryway. The bus width gives wheelchair users considerable
room to maneuver. There Is 35.5 inches of clearance between Me wheel-hous~ngs, and a
minimum of 38 inches clearance In turn past Me farebox. Me entryway is 31 inches
wide. Aft of the rear door, there is a short step up to an elevated seating area.
TCRP B-lA V-3 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 160
The following are key results from Me four case studies conducted for We low
floor bus portion of the report
.
.
.
.
.
.
Boarding and alighting times for non-disabled passengers are faster on low
floor buses Man on conventional buses. The difference Is on the orcler of one
second per passenger.
Simulated boar&as and Lightings by wheelchair passengers in Champaign
Urbana and at BC Trans* indicate that boarding is faster on low-floor buses
than on conventional buses win lifts. The difference is one Me order of one
minute. Alighting is also faster, wad a difference on the order of half a
minute.
Analysis of dwell times for wheelchair users at BC Transit suggests a boarding
time advantage of only 17 seconds for low-floor buses in actual revenue
service. However, this results depends on only five observed wheelchair
boardings on low-floor buses. The dweD-dme analysis shows the average
wheelchair boarding takes about two and a half minutes In revenue service.
Analysis of dwell times at BC Transit shows that passengers wit h other
mobility difficulties board a low-floor bus In Free to four seconds less time
per passenger than they board a conventional bus.
The observed differences in boarding and alighting time are undikely to result
In measurable differences In operating speed.
Repair frequency and maintenance cost are much lower for accessibility
equipment on low-floor buses than on conventional buses. Annual
maintenance costs per bus were $2,400 less In Champaign-Urbana and $300
less In Ann Arbor.
TCRP B-lA Vat Draft Final Report
OCR for page 161
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ramps on low-floor buses have much better ~n-service reliability than lifts on
conventional buses. Incidents relating to difficult operation or failure of lifts
are common. Ramp failure is rare, and difficulties can be easily overcome by
manual operation.
No evidence of increased passenger accident rates due to the low-floor design,
including the step up in the back of the bus, were found.
None of the case studies provided clear evidence of whether low-floor buses
win increase ridership by passengers with disabilities or divert ridership from
paratrans* service.
Riciers with disabilities have varied opinions about the ease of use and safety
of low-floor buses comparer} to conventional buses with lifts. Many riders,
especially users of electric wheelchairs, find the low-floor buses easier to use.
Other riders have difficulties stemming from steep ramp angles that can occur
when buses must stop where there is no curb or when the kneeling feature
cannot be deployed.
Despite some difficulties with ramps, riders who use wheelchairs generally
prefer low-floor buses because of the greater reliability of ramps compared to
lifts. Many other riders with disabilities also prefer low-floor buses because of
easier boarding and alighting and other features.
The overall operating cost of low-floor buses appears to be similar to that of
conventional buses, with Me exception of He cost of maintaining accessibility
equipment. There appears to be no measurable difference In price between
low-floor and conventional buses resulting solely from the low-floor design.
TCRP B-lA V-5 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 162
CASE STUDY SITES
Information was obtained from case studies conducted for this research In Ann
Arbor, Michigan and Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; from research by a team from the
University of Michigan In Ann Arbors; and from a case study of accessible buses In
Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia conducted by BC Transit for the Canadian
Transport Development Centre (TDC).2 Except as otherwise cited, aU the data shown In
this chapter come from these sources. Ann Arbor and Champaign-Urbana were
selected as case study sites for this research because they have the most extensive record
of low-~Door bus transit service In the United States. Both of them also have Jift
equipped accessible buses for comparison purposes. Vancouver and Victoria, both
operated by BC Transit, are among the few transit systems In Canada which offer
wheelchair accessible fixed-route transit service. Vancouver uses lift buses for
accessibility, while Victoria uses low-~Roor buses. (BC Transit, Vancouver, acquired 298
lift-equ~ppec! buses between 1990 and 1995. lYs most recent order was for 108 low-~door
buses in 1996.) Summary data about the case study sues is provided In Table V-2.
Attempts to compare low-floor buses with conventional buses depend on the
particular equipment being used. As indicated before, all of the case study locations use
similar low-floor equipment. However, as shown In Table V-3, there are notable
differences in the conventional buses in use, the accessibility equipment on those buses,
and policies regarding its use. For example, BC Transit's policy of requiring wheelchair
users to board backwards significantly influenced passengers' perceptions. At MID
iLevine, l.C. and Torng, G. Dwell Time Effects of the Low Floor Bus Design, paper presented at the
1994 Aru~ual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
2Geehan, T. (TransVision Consultants), An Evaluation of Accessible Transit Buses in Vancouver and
Victoria, Final Report, Transport Development Center, Report No. TP 12709E, Montreal, June 1995.
TCRP B-lA V-6 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 163
Table V-2. Case Study Sites -- Key Statistics
_
Ann-Arbor Champaign- BC Transit BC Transit
Transportation Urbana Mass Vancouver Victoria
Authority Transit District
(AATA) (MTD)
Service Area Population | 189,000 | L11,330 | 1.8 minion | 292,400
_
Total Bus Fleet 57 54b 699 buses 167
244 trolley
buses
Nwnber of Low-floor | lea | 15 | None | 21
Buses
Date Low-Floor Buses | January 1993 | prig 1993 | n.a. | May 1992
Put in Service April 1993
Number of Lift Buses | 34 | 39 | 277 40' buses ~167
21 60' buses
All fleet data pertain to die time of die case studies.
Forty-foot buses only. AATA also operates eight low-floor Orion II buses in fixed-route service.
bExcluding contracted campus service.
TCRP B-lA V-7 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 164
Table V-3. Conventional Bus Equipment at Case Study Sites
BC Transit-Vancouver
MC! Classic and New Flyer with front-door Lift-U lifts.
Passengers using wheelchairs or scooter are requested to board the lifts backwards.
Champaign-Urbana MID
FIxible, 35-foot, 96-inch wide with front-door Lift-U lifts.
Grumman F[xible, 35-foot and 40-foot, 96-~nch wide with front-cloor EEC lifts.
Passengers are encouraged to board the EEC lifts backwards.
Ann-Arbor Transit Authority
RT~06, 35-foot, 96-~nch wicle with rear-door GMC lifts.
TCRP B-lA V-S D rapt Final Report
OCR for page 165
Pl~e V-[ -or Bus Operand by the In Labor Transpod~lon body
f !
I
"I 1 1 1
-j ~79 D~ BUZZ Reporf
OCR for page 166
Pl~e V-~ Lo~-Iloor Bus Operated by the Champal~~rb~a Mass lit Dlshld
~ Ace. ; ~
;.. .....
IMP B-j ~V-10 D~ BUZZ Report
OCR for page 167
Figure V-3. Interior of Ann Arbor low-Floor Bus Looking Forward
TCRP B-IA V-1 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 190
Your feeling of safetr on the lift/ramp
The ease of moving down the bus aisle
The ease of orienting the chair/scooter to move into position
The ease of maneuvering into the securement position
The time it takes to get out of the bus
Your feeling of safety on Me lift/ramp during exiting
Ratings were more favorable for low-floor buses for Amount oftzmefor ramp/lift to
descend, The ease of turning around when you boar~forward, and for most procedures
related to the securement process. However, the securement mechanism is not part of
the low-floor design. Even though participants' ratings were higher for the lift-buses
than the low-floor buses on most items, their ratings on Overall satisfaction with the design
of [he vehicle were higher for low-floor buses than lift-buses. This result could reflect
participants' perceptions of the likely reliability of the ramps, an issue that was not
nclucled on the surveys and therefore was not actuaBy tested.
Differences in aisle clearances that affect maneuvering were described In Me
section on boarding anc! alighting lime, which found no significant difference
maneuvering tone between low-floor and conventional buses. The focus group
participants at MID agreed that maneuvering to and from the tie down area is easier on
MTD's low-floor buses. It is easier partly because Me low-floor buses are 102 inches
wide, while MTD's lift buses are 96 inches wicle. However, it is also the case that,
because of Me large wheel-weD covers In the front of Me low-floor buses, there are no
passenger seats between the front door and the tie down area. By comparison, in a
TCRP B-IA V-34 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 191
conventional bus, it is easy for a passenger boarding In a wheelchair to rod over or run
into the feet of passengers seated In the side-fac~ng seats mounted over the wheel weds.
Four manual wheelchair users who responded to Me MID clisabled rider survey
found no difference In ease of getting from the door area to the seat or tie-down area,
while three users of electric wheeTchans or scooters found the low-floor buses easier.
Presumably the wider aisles on the low-floor buses make a greater difference for the
electric wheelchair and scooter users.
MID drivers generally confirmed the observations of the focus group
participants. Boarding can be delayed because other passengers, especially children,
won't get out of the way. There are fewer passengers in the way on the low-floor buses.
The wider aisles on these buses also help. One aspect of boarding that requires a little
extra effort and tune by the striver on a low floor bus Is that three seats must be lifted
instead of one as on the conventional buses.
Most of the MTD riders with disabilities who participated in Me boarding
simulations or responded to a survey found ramps safer than life;. Reasons given
included Dislike of lifts, including a fear of heights, mistrust of mechanical devices, and
a prior accident on a lift. ~ the case of manual wheelchair users' Me advantages of
ramps appear to be tempered by concerns related to negotiating an inclined ramp, with
possibilities of tipping backward, losing traction, losing control on the way down, or
even roping off the side of Me ramp.
Other Riders with Disabilities
Evidence on the -preferences of riders win disabilities, other than wheelchair
users, comes from surveys of BC Transit paratransit users, a survey of low-floor bus
TCRP B-lA V-35 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 192
passengers in Ann Arbor, and focus groups and individual rider interviews In an four
cities.
Non-wheelcha~r users who were interviewed included, In Ann Arbor, a blind
woman who had also broken her ankle and a person with arthritis who walks with a
cane, and In Champaign-Urbana, two blink! riders and one rider with vertigo. Me Ann
Arbor riders found the low-floor buses easier to get on and off. They cited factors such
as the lack of steps, wider doors, and the ability to take a shopping cart on the bus. One
woman stated that the low-floor buses are easier to kneel, a feature she always requests.
The blind woman wad a broken ankle noted that she can lose her balance on the steps
of a conventional bus, a problem which does not exist on low-floor buses. She also
observed that her guide dog is able to lie under the first seat on the low-floor buses
because there is no wheel weD under the seat. She felt that it is a little easier to get to a
seat on a low-floor bus, even though the distance to the first seat is longer than on a
conventional bus.
According to a blind rider in Champaign-Urbana, boarding with a guide dog is
easier on a low-floor bus. In particular, if there are several people boarding at once, so
that boarding passengers have to wait In line as fares are paid, dogs find it hard to
pause on We steps of a conventional bus. Over non-wheelcha~r users In Champaign-
Urbana had no strong preference for either type of bus.
The on-board survey In Ann Arbor included responses from 56 riders who
reported some difficulty going up and down steps. As reported In He section on
perceptions of general public riders, they generally preferred low-floor buses by a
slightly wider margin Pan other riders.
TCRP B-lA V-36 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 193
The surveys of BC Transit paratransit users Included results from 35 lift-bus
riders In Vancouver ant! 42 low-floor bus riders in Victoria. These samples included
both wheelchair users and non-wheelchair users. The low-floor bus riders gave higher
satisfaction ratings than the lift-bus riders on 20 out of 21 features, typically by a spread
of about half a point on a five-point scale. Some of the features rated do not appear to
have any connection to the bus design, including Ease of access to the bus stop, Suitability
of the bus stop, Operator's willingness and athhude, and Ability to find i?lformahon. Since
Victoria riders also rated these features better than Vancouver riders, it is possible that
the differences stem from the composition of the samples, or a different overall
approach to accessible bus service in We two cities.
Driver Perceptions
Information about drivers' perceptions is available from a group interview of
four drivers on MTD's safety and tra~rung committee. In addition to items already
noted, the drivers made the following observations:
.
.
.
The drivers were of the belief that no wheelchair riders prefer the lift buses
over me low-floor buses. It is the drivers' impression that the reliability of the
ramps compensates for Me ramp angle for the passengers.
In cold weather, Me bottom of Me ramp can pick up snow and ice which the
driver has to scrape off. The drivers suggested a heating element for melting
ice on the ramp. When Me ramp is wet, its longitudinal ribs can cause sliding.
The drivers prefer the low-floor buses in general. They have better seats, a
better ride, a more adjustable steering wheel, and are faster than MTD's older
buses. Passenger boarding goes faster, and the driver has better visibility
TCRP B-lA V-37 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 194
around the passengers. The only negative from He drivers' perspective is that
there is no place for Hem to stow their gear.
· The drivers hear no complaints about Here being fewer seats on the low-floor
buses. However, passengers win longer legs do complain about lack of knee
room.
Preferences of Non-Disabled Riders
An on-boarc3 survey In Ann Arbor founct that most riders, including riders who
have some difficulty going up and down steps, find low-floor buses easier to use. As
shown in Table V-10, 89% of riders with difficulty going up and down steps and 82% of
other riders, stated that low-floor buses are easier to board than conventional buses with
steps. Seventy-five percent of riders with difficulty going up and clown steps and 72%
of other riders fire! low-floor buses better with respect to ease of leaving the bus.
Smaller majorities found low-floor buses better with respect to the feeling of roominess
and the ability to see out. For the other issues, less than half of riders had a preference
for low-floor buses. However, in no case did more Han 15% of riders actually prefer
conventional buses with steps; He balance stated Hey had no preference.
Economic Evaluation
The relative cost of providing accessible bus service win lift buses or low-floor
buses will depend on He following factors:
Purchase cost.
Number of buses required for service to provide desired capacity and
headways.
Maintenance cost.
.
TCRP B-lA V-38 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 195
.
Purchase Cost
Cost of complementary paratransit service for riders with disabilities who
cannot use accessible fixed route buses.
Prices for 40-foot conventional and low-floor buses appear to be comparable.
AATA paid $19S,000 per bus for the ten low-floor buses delivered in January 1993,
compared to $185,000 per bus for an order of conventional buses purchased four years
earlier. A second order by AATA for delivery of 15 low-floor buses in the spring of 1995
cost $225,000 per 40-foot bus. Bid prices were obtained from four other systems in the
United States which purchased low-floor buses during 1994. For these four systems,
plus AATA, the average bid price for a 40-foot, diesel powered, low-floor bus was
$227,000. The total spread of bid prices was only from $220,000 to $234,000. There was
no clear relationship to order size which ranged from 15 to 150. AD of the buses were
manufactured by New Flyer.
By comparison, staff of Santa Clara County Transit surveyed 11 transit systems
In the United States which had made recent purchases of conventional buses, and found
an average bid price of $236,000. By subtracting out costs for extras, including natural
gas propulsion or extended warranties, a "base price" for a standard 40-foot coach was
calculated, which averaged $228,000 for the 11 orders. Based on tenders received by BC
Transit In May 1995, the capital cost for bow a lift-equipped bus and a low-floor bus
was $324,500 Canadian ($243,000 U.S.). These results appear to confirm that there is no
measurable difference In price resulting solely from the low-floor design.
TCRP B-lA V-39 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 196
Table V-IO. Percent of Riders Preferring Low-Floor Buses
No Difficult with Some Difficultly with
Steps (n=256) Steps (n=56)
~_ _ _
| Ease of getting on the bus 82% 89%
| Ease of getting to a seat 41% 48%
| Ease of leaving the bus 72% 75%
| Availabilitr of seats 34% 44%
.
Seated comfort 39% 38%
1
| Feeling ofroonuness 63% 59%
| Smoothness of the ride 47% 46%
| Feeling of personal security 25% 29%
Ability to see out l 60% | 63'
Source: Survey of riders on-board low-floor buses, July 1994.
TCRP B-1A VITO Draft Final Report
OCR for page 197
Number of Buses Requiredfor Service
There could be a difference in the number of buses required for service if bus
operating speeds were significantly different or if passenger-carry~ng capacity were
significantly different. The analysis indicates that operating speeds are not significantly
different at the patronage levels typical of most North American transit systems. Low-
floor buses do have less seating capacity than conventional buses, but they have
somewhat more standing room. None of the case study operators has actually added
buses to make up for lost seating capacity. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed
that the number of buses required for service win not change as a result of using low-
floor buses.
Maintenance Cost
The analysis shows a clear savings In maintenance cost resulting from the lower
cost of maintaining ramps instead of lifts: $300 per bus per year In Ann Arbor and
$2,400 per bus per year In Champaign-Urbana, with no measurable difference in other
maintenance costs. Most of the difference between the two systems stems from
differences In the cost of maintaining different lift designs rather than differences in the
cost of maintaining ramps.
Cost of Complementary Paratransit
Low-floor buses will permit some individuals to use fixed-route transit service
who would be prevented from using it with conventional buses. Under a system of
ADA eligibility certification, it is possible Mat the number of people eligible for
complementary paratrans~t could be reduced. It is also possible, Even a program of
travel training and publicity, Mat people who can use fixed-route buses some of the
TCRP B-lA V~1 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 198
time would choose to rely on paratransit for fewer trips if the fixed-route service used
low-floor buses. It was not possible to quantify these effects In the case studies. In ah
likelihood, a significant Impact win only occur when a transit system has a fleet which is
preclominantly low-floor buses, and the system makes a concerted effort to encourage a
shift In ridership.
Summary of Economic Evaluation
On the basis of the available evidence, low-floor buses win result in no change In
capital costs, and a reduction of $300 to $2,400 per bus per year In operating cost as a
result of reduced maintenance costs compared to conventional buses with lifts.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES--LESSONS LEARNED
The case studies provide very limited information about implementation issues.
Both AATA and MTD used a demonstration bus provicled by New Flyer ~clushies to
test whether clearances would be problem on any routes (they were not), ant] to gain
acceptance from the disabled community and operations staff. Both systems placed the
low-floor buses on more heavily-used routes, a decision which appears to have been
popular with disabled riders and the general public. AATA used the buses on all routes
at first to let people in all parts of the service area see them before placing them
predominantly on specific routes. Neither system guarantees low-floor bus service on
particular routes or runs. Neither system promoted low-floor buses to riders with
disabilities, or made special efforts to encourage paratransit riders to shift hips.
APPLICABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY
The lessons learned in Ann Arbor and Champaign-Urbana should apply well to
other small to medium-s~zed transit systems. Both systems provided a test of operation
TCRP B-1A V-42 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 199
in hot and cold weather and in snowy conditions. Champaign-Urbana is flat, but Ann
Arbor includes some hilly terrain. However, the case studies do not provide any
evidence about operations in a large-city environment with heavy passenger loadings.
Both of Me case study systems, as wed as BC Transit In Victoria, use low-floor buses
with front-door ramps. The results of the case studies would not necessarily apply to
low-floor buses who rear-door ramps.
TCRP B-lA V-43 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 200
Representative terms from entire chapter:
conventional buses
