Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

58 Low-floor Vehicles Many agencies are selecting low-floor vehicles to serve not only people in wheelchairs but also the numerous wheeled items that could benefit from this design, such as strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles. The difference between low- and high-floor boarding is shown in Figure 56. Bombardier’s promotional material highlights the advantages of low-floor vehicles for its FLEXITY 2 tram. It states, “Since urban com- munities are generally ageing, we have designed the FLEXITY 2 tram with the needs of the less mobile in mind. The low-floor entrance and entirely step-free interior are key features— not just for the elderly but also for passengers with pushchairs or heavy shopping bags” (Bombardier Transportation 2010). The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) in Charlotte, North Carolina, ordered its new LYNX light rail vehicles with low floors from Siemens Transportation Systems. Its 2006 press release announces arrival of the first vehicles with 68 seats as well as four bicycle racks and space for four wheel- chairs (APTA Passenger Transport Archive 2006). Low-floor cars have also been installed for the Denmark/Sweden inter- national rail link serving Copenhagen’s Kastrup Airport, in CHAPTER EIGHT VEHICLE DESIGN LITERATURE REVIEW ON VEHICLE DESIGN With the passage of the ADA in 1990, transit agencies in the United States have been required to accommodate wheel- chairs in their vehicles. U.S.DOT has assigned specific measurements to all components of various public transport vehicles in conjunction with ADA requirements. Modes include local and intercity buses and vans, light and heavy rail, commuter and intercity rail, and all other forms of trans- port (e.g., monorails, ferries, automated guideway transit) (Code of Federal Regulations 2007). As older vehicles were replaced, U.S. fleets have now been designed to meet ADA regulations. Many agencies in Canada have also purchased vehicles that meet ADA regulations. As passengers bring more large items onto buses and trains, competition has arisen for space in the wheelchair areas. In addition to creating policies to deal with these con- flicting needs, transit operators are struggling to change the design of their vehicles, some by retrofitting their existing fleets, some by rethinking the space when ordering new vehi- cles. This section of the report focuses on accommodating large items that are not covered by the ADA requirements. FIGURE 56 A standard high-floor bus in Santa Maria, California (left), has several steps to enter, compared with a low-floor vehicle (right) in Salt Lake City, which has only one step into the vehicle (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates).

59 order to “accommodate bikes, wheelchairs, and persons with baggage” (Leigh Fisher Associates et al. 2002). Modifications Not only for new car orders but even when vehicles are being retrofitted, low-floor vehicles are being recognized for their efficiency when boarding wheeled vehicles. For example, designed to coincide with the progressive opening of the new Green Line from late 2009 to late 2010, DART’s Super Light Rail Vehicles (SLRVs) car refurbishment and platform rebuilding project will expand system capacity and acces- sibility. The SLRVs are created by inserting new low-floor center sections at the articulation joints of the 115 existing light rail vehicles. These new spaces will be level with newly raised platforms and will be able to house wheelchairs, bicy- cles, luggage, and strollers (DART 2008). Other transit agencies are making more modest modifica- tions to respond to the needs of passengers with large items. Toronto undertook a CAN$650,000 modification project that offered more room for standing passengers on its street- cars. As part of the renovation, the stanchion pole near the entrance was removed on many of the vehicles “to make boarding easier for passengers with strollers and bundle buggies” (Kalinowski 2007). Subsequent to the opening of its line to the San Francisco Airport in 2003, BART removed seats near the vehicle doors to make more room for luggage, in addition to bicycles and strollers. As a further modification to promote bicycling, a report prepared for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition rec- ommends studying the feasibility of a bike car and exploring installation of bike hooks and a bike priority area on new cars that BART is planning to order (Vi 2009). The New York MTA is an example of a bus operator that has made modifications for luggage. The agency announced a pilot program in 2009 to install luggage racks on 10 buses on the seven routes serving Kennedy and LaGuardia Air- ports (MTA 2009). California’s Tri Delta has also made bus modifications, in this case to accommodate an increasing number of stroll- ers. By removing one set of seats, each bus has room for two strollers (with room for two more if the wheelchair area is unoccupied). In response, ridership of those with strollers jumped, and the agency received a plaque from the Trans- portation Equity and Community Health organization in rec- ognition of the move (APTA Passenger Transport Archive 2006). Tri Delta’s experience is discussed in chapter five. Considerations for Ordering New Vehicles A TCRP report on Rail Transit Capacity notes, “Commuter rail cars are generally designed with the maximum number of seats possible, although this tradition is changing somewhat where wheelchairs and bicycles must be accommodated” (Parkinson and Fisher 1996). This statement is borne out by the bicycle design considerations for the new Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit Authority (SMART) in California, approved for funding by voters in 2008. In planning SMART, a 70-mile passenger rail system, directors confirmed staff recommen- dations “that the trains, running in two-car sets would have… room for 24 to 36 bicycles and fold-down seats where the bike racks are. There will also be some work tables, luggage racks, Wi-Fi and reading lights. The seats about 32.5 inches apart, a standard for commuter rail but more room than in typical airline coach class” (Norberg 2010). Seat spacing that is not cramped is in alignment with a finding by the Easter Seals Project ACTION report Over- sized/Overweight Mobility Aids: Status of the Issue. This brief synthesis offers an overview of the problems posed by an increase in obesity rates in the United States, which will affect the nation’s transit systems in a variety of ways. For example, more overweight Americans will necessitate an increased use of larger mobility aids, which will challenge existing ADA specifications and regulations and thereby affect future design of transit vehicles. According to the report, “Because acces- sible transit vehicles are designed to accommodate mobility aids that can fit within a 30” x 48” clear space, problems can arise when passengers using mobility aids that exceed these dimensions (i.e., very large wheelchairs and scooters, reclin- ing chairs, gurneys, Segways) need to use bus lifts, safely engage securement devices, and maneuver through a transit vehicle” (Pass and Thompson 2004). The report further describes the following: The U.S. Access Board defines the required clear space (envelope) for a wheelchair or mobility aid as a minimum 48 inches long and a minimum 30 inches wide, measured at 2 inches above the floor or platform surface, and extending to a height of 30 inches minimum above the floor or platform surface. The minimum clear width at the floor or platform surface is 28 ½ inches. These requirements were based on research conducted in the late 1970’s. However, the accessibility standards in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom now have a larger envelope than the U.S. standard. Preliminary findings from ongoing research conducted by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Universal Design at Buffalo supports larger clearances. Their data shows that a clear floor space as large as 33 x 56 inches may be needed to accommodate people with the largest space needs (Pass and Thompson 2004). Indeed, another Easter Seals report, Status Report on the Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and Private Transportation, points out that there is no set of national standards for vehicle interior design and warns that “problem[s occur] when new vehicles are purchased and dif- ferent seating layouts or other features are selected, without full understanding of the relationship between components” (Nelson\Nygaard 2008).

60 The TCRP report Bus Rapid Transit: Volume 2: Imple- mentation Guidelines posits how to optimize vehicle design for accessibility and efficiency. “Easy and rapid passenger boarding, alighting, and circulation are still basic BRT vehicle requirements to minimize dwell times. Distinct BRT vehicle interior layouts usually involve large standing/cir- culation areas around doors. These aid boarding, alighting, and circulation and also function as storage areas for baby carriages, strollers, shopping carts, and wheelchairs and, in the process, support the image of a quality system that meets the needs of the entire community” (Levinson et al. 2003). Manufacturers are responding to transit agencies’ needs in their new designs. For example, Alstrom’s AGV offers a wider width for better access by those with reduced mobil- ity (see Figure 57). The modular design can be customized for specific needs, such as more or less space for bicycles. Bombardier has produced a multilevel car for NJ Transit with upper and lower seating levels as well as an intermedi- ate level at each end of the car for wheelchairs, bicycles, or luggage. (Harnack 2009). FIGURE 57 Pittsburgh’s light rail vehicles have a wide aisle that accommodates standees and large items (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Bombardier is the manufacturer for Toronto’s 234 new subway cars, dubbed the Toronto Rocket. Each car is to be equipped with two “multipurpose areas” (12 per train) that are designed to house wheelchairs and, if not occupied, “other mobility devices, strollers, bicycles, or large luggage items” (Toronto Transit Commission 2010) (see Figure 58). SURVEY RESULTS Agencies that completed the survey were asked whether designated storage/space for large items is an issue when the agency purchases new vehicles. Most agencies do not consider space/storage issues (Table 30). Although affirma- tive responses were narrowly distributed among agencies of all sizes, 30 of 39 agencies (77%) do not consider desig- nated storage for large items when reviewing the designs and considering the purchase of new vehicles. It can be noted, however, given a few of the comments to this question, that respondents did not consider the term “large items” to include wheelchairs. FIGURE 58 Perimeter seating in a Bombardier CX-100 car in Singapore (courtesy: Mailer Diablo, Copyright © 2006 Mailer Diablo on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BPLRT-Int- CX100.JPG). TABLE 30 IS DESIGNATED STORAGE/SPACE FOR LARGE ITEMS A CONSIDERATION OF YOUR AGENCY WHEN PURCHASING NEW VEHICLES? Yes 23% (9) No 77% (30) n = 39. Of the agencies that consider storage and space, one midsized agency admitted “we’ve actively discussed it” but did not end up purchasing the vehicle with a “seating lay- out showing forward facing seats removed for stroller/large item[s].” Agency staff concluded that they “may pilot other seating plans in future productions.” One large agency detailed its considerations: “Better organization of space would be more user friendly and mini- mize conflicts between different users; bicycle storage and wheelchair spaces are considerations. I’m not aware of plans for luggage racks.” Another large agency noted that it does not consider storage space for purchases of “buses and other transit vehicles,” but there is “some consideration on com- muter rail.” Agencies that indicated that they do not consider storage space when purchasing new vehicles variously cited the effectiveness of current policies and vehicles, or a lack of demand or need (see Figure 59).

61 FIGURE 59 Standard bus seating configurations offer limited space for large items (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates).