National Academies Press: OpenBook

Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service (2008)

Chapter: Chapter One - Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13919.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13919.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13919.
×
Page 6

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.

5BACKGROUND For more than four decades, the 40-ft bus, operating on fixed- route transit service, has been the workhorse for transit service in North America cities. This standardization to a dominant vehicle type has offered the transit industry several advan- tages, including: • Standardization of vehicle characteristics, • Reasonable capacity for service delivery, • Standardized parts inventory, and • Industry-wide enhancements to standard bus technology. However, one observes a growing acceptance in the tran- sit industry of the concept of “family of services,” whereby different types of services or product lines are offered to meet the specific expectations of distinct market segments. In many cases, these different product lines require the deployment of different vehicle technologies, which provide different characteristics in terms of capacity, image, com- fort, maneuverability, etc. An initial study by TCRP resulted in the report, Use of Small Buses in Transit Service (1); examining where and how small buses were being deployed in regular and flexible services, and the experience with these buses. The present study complements the previous report by examining the experience with the other end of the bus spectrum; that is, higher-capacity (HC) buses. For the purposes of this study, HC buses include articulated, double- deck, 45-ft buses, and other buses that have a significant increase in passenger capacity compared with the conven- tional 40-ft bus. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Among the various types of HC buses, articulated buses have a long history of operation. An interview with transit histo- rian William A. Luke provided much of the following dis- cussion of the history of HC buses. The first articulated bus in North America was built by the Twin Coach Company in 1938 for the city of Baltimore and was a 4-axle 47-ft bus that had vertical (but not horizontal) articulation. Remodeled after the war as a “Super Twin” coach, 15 vehicles were built in 1948. However, it was not a huge success; “its major flaw was the inability to bend in the horizontal plane, resulting in an unacceptably large turning radius” (2). For the next three decades there was little interest in North America in articu- lated buses for transit. The situation was quite the contrary in Europe, which saw the development and progressive refine- ment of articulated bus technologies: “puller”-type articu- lated buses using under-floor engines; the development of controls to limit jackknifing; and the development of “pusher”-type articulated buses, with the engine located in the rear engine compartment location, similar to 40-ft buses (3). Most of the major continental European bus manufactur- ers (e.g., Ikarus, M.A.N., Mercedes, Scania, Van Hool, and Volvo) offered articulated bus models. The availability of robust articulated bus technology, combined with the pro- ductivity benefits such buses offered, led to wide-spread deployment of articulated buses in cities across continental Europe (although Great Britain continued to rely on double- deck buses as their prime HC bus of choice). During this same period, the transit industry was in seri- ous decline in the United States, with an increasing number of failures of private transit operators. Growing policy con- cern in the 1960s led to legislation by the U.S. federal gov- ernment in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in the areas of federal capital and operating subsidies. This federal support led to the public takeover of failing private transit systems across the United States, enabled massive expansion of tran- sit services, and fueled public expectations. However, during this same period, the transit industry also experienced grow- ing inflationary pressure on operating costs. One logical response to the increases in operating costs was to explore potential initiatives to increase labor produc- tivity. One such effort in the early 1970s was the creation of the Super Bus Consortium to evaluate the use of HC bus technology, in particular that of the articulated buses com- monly used in Europe (2). This in turn led to the development of an articulated bus specification, closely reflecting Euro- pean bus specifications, followed in 1976 by the creation of a Pooled Purchase Consortium. This consortium, led by Seat- tle Metro and the California Department of Transportation (DOT) (Caltrans), sought to purchase 400 articulated buses to be deployed in a variety of cities. The consortium used an Americanized version of the SuperBus specification, and awarded a contract to a joint venture of AM General Corpo- ration and M.A.N. for 399 buses, which were deployed in several cities including: Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Washing- ton, D.C. The introduction of these buses was successful, met with positive public acceptance, and improved operator pro- ductivity. M.A.N. subsequently opened its own production CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

facility in the early 1980s and continued delivery of articu- lated buses until 1987. In a parallel development, Ikarus formed a joint venture with Crown Coach to build and market articulated transit buses in America. Ikarus technology and bodies were used with interiors and drive trains provided by American suppli- ers. There were 243 Crown–Ikarus Model 286 articulated puller-type buses assembled between 1981 and 1986. The initial deliveries were made to transit systems in Albany, Jacksonville, Honolulu, Houston, Louisville, Milwaukee, Portland, San Diego, and San Mateo. Ikarus also partnered with Orion Bus to market to Canadian systems. The Orion III articulated bus was delivered to transit systems in Ottawa and Toronto. The historical roots of the Ikarus articulated bus were transferred through the corporate structures of Ikarus USA and American Ikarus, and are now in North American Bus Industries. Other European manufacturers (e.g., Breda, Neoplan, Scania, and Volvo) (3) also entered the North American market with varying levels of success. Seattle pur- chased a unique dual-mode articulated bus from Breda for use in their downtown tunnel. In the early 1990s, New Flyer developed a high-floor articulated pusher-type bus, followed later by low-floor articulated bus models. More recently, the explosion of interest in North America in the concept of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has fueled a grow- ing interest in HC buses, in particular BRT-styled articulated buses. The roots of the BRT concept have existed for some time; there have been exclusive right-of-way busways in op- eration in Pittsburgh and in Ottawa since the late 1970s and early 1980s, and both transit systems rely extensively on the use of articulated buses for these services. In 1996, Vancouver introduced the 99 B-Line, which incorporated uniquely and stylishly branded articulated buses resulting in immediate success and attracting 15,000 passengers a day, 20% who formerly drove (4). The B-Line BRT product was further refined with the 98 and 97 B-Lines, which now use low-floor articulated buses. The B-Lines in Vancouver were viewed as one product line in a family of services. The high levels of service and capacity offered by the B-Lines served to grow ridership in these corridors to the point where the 98 B-Line is currently being replaced by the construction of rail transit along the same corridor. Interest in BRT started to grow in the United States in the late 1990s, promoted in particular by significant initiatives at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the FTA. A federal BRT demonstration pro- gram was initiated to research successful deployments around the world (e.g., Curitiba) and develop guidance (5–8) for the many transit systems across the United States that were planning HC transit corridors, many of which would use HC buses. These initiatives resulted in extensive research and evaluation concerning the keys to success of BRT sys- tems around the world, including extensive assessments of vehicle alternatives and characteristics (9–11). The intensive 6 focus on BRT and the growing number of BRT projects being deployed in North America have created a North American demand for new rail-like stylized HC buses. North American manufacturers have responded to this interest and demand with the development of a new array of BRT-styled buses, typically in a low-floor articulated design, and a new generation of BRT-style HC buses has been deployed, as new BRT systems come on line [e.g., Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Eugene (Oregon)]. The positive reaction to these vehicles, and their operating characteristics, has renewed interest in the use of HC buses in transit systems across North America. In terms of other HC buses under consideration in this report, double-deck buses also have historical roots. For ex- ample, the Fifth Avenue Coach in New York City used double-deck buses as early as 1912. The open-top double- deck coach actually became synonymous with Fifth Avenue all through the early part of the last century. The design proved both successful and durable, and double-deck buses were operated until 1953 (12). However, with a few exceptions and experimentations, North American interest in double-deck buses remained dormant for the next four decades. The inter- est in double-deck buses was rekindled in British Columbia the late 1990s, when BC Transit (BCT)–Victoria began examining the possibility of acquiring double-deck buses to provide improvements in capacity, customer comfort, and financial performance. BCT and Dennis Specialist Vehicles developed a specification that met their needs. A contract for ten double-deck buses utilizing standard North American components was issued in 1998. The bus subsequently com- pleted the Altoona Bus Testing Center (ABTC) tests, was cer- tified for the North America market, and has been deployed in the cities of Victoria, Kelowna (BC), and Las Vegas. The 1990s also saw a variety of other HC bus technolo- gies introduced into North America. The largest deployment was that of 45-ft intercity coaches, used in suburban com- muter operations. Before 1991, 45-ft buses were prohibited by most jurisdictions. However, the 1991 federal program ISTEA introduced the concept of the National Network (NN) highways, and defined vehicle width and length stan- dards for the NN. In particular, it prohibited states from restricting buses that were 45 ft or less on NN highways, which enabled this new type of HC bus. New 45-ft bus in- tercity coach models were developed and marketed, and transit systems started taking advantage of this opportunity deploying them on long-distance commuter express ser- vices, typically along Interstate highways or expressways, to serve suburban park-and-ride terminals. Today, more than 2,000 such buses, primarily sold by Motor Coach Industries (MCI) Inc., are currently in operation across North America. In addition, in the late 1990s, the North American Bus Industries introduced a low-floor composite-body two-axle 45-ft transit bus to the U.S. market. The Model 45C-LFW CompoBus is deployed in the cities of Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Tempe.

7SCOPE This report will synthesize the current use and experience with HC buses in North America. The scope for this study includes articulated, double-deck, 45-ft, and other buses that provide greater passenger capacity than the conventional 40-ft transit bus. This study draws on transit agencies’ experiences and available technical information in comparing HC buses with the use of conventional 40-ft buses, with respect to a wide range of planning, operational, and maintenance issues. APPROACH The methodology used to prepare this synthesis involved several elements: • HC Fleet Data were collected from APTA and the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). APTA’s vehicle fleet databases and CUTA’s annual operating data were analyzed to identify those systems that oper- ate HC buses in transit service. • The literature and Internet were searched for informa- tion relating to HC buses and their use. • A survey of transit agencies using HC buses was sent to all transit systems in the United States and Canada that had reported to APTA or CUTA having a fleet of five or more HC buses. The survey asked questions concerning the types of services where HC buses were used, the pri- mary reasons for implementing HC buses, modifications to facilities and other actions that were made to deploy HC buses, vehicle features, acceptance and operating experience, issues and concerns, etc. • A survey was conducted of HC bus manufacturers to better understand the range of HC bus vehicles currently available and their relative technological characteristics. – APTA’s vehicle fleet database and vehicle cost in- formation were obtained from the bus manufacturers for their models of HC buses to identify capital costs of new HC vehicles. • Vehicle test results were obtained from the ABTC. This supplemented the information obtained from the bus manufacturers and provided a comparable basis for as- sessing the technical performance of these vehicles in a number of areas (e.g., fuel consumption, acceleration, and noise). • The survey results helped to identify a number of inter- esting applications of HC buses. Ad hoc conversations were held with transit staff and experts on specific aspects of the synthesis, and mini-case studies were conducted by telephone or through on-site visits. The rest of this report discusses the results from these efforts. Chapter two will outline the results from the survey of transit systems. Findings from the case studies are pre- sented in chapter three. In chapter four, there is a discussion of the various aspects related to vehicle technology. Chapter five synthesizes the experience based on the research, and identifies a number of issues emerging from this experience. Finally, chapter six outlines the conclusions of the study and areas for future research. Copies of the questionnaires sent to transit agencies and to bus manufacturers are included as Appendix A. Appendix B contains a list of the study participants and Appendix C is a survey of the size and weight limits mandated by the federal government and states or provinces. It should be noted that the terms “standard” and “40-ft” are used interchangeably in the report to mean the conven- tional 40-ft transit bus.

Next: Chapter Two - Use of Higher Capacity Buses (Survey Results) »
Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 75: Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service explores the use of higher capacity (HC) public transit buses in trunk, express, long-distance commuter, Bus Rapid Transit, and special (e.g., sports and special events) services in North America. For purposes of this study, HC buses included articulated, double-deck, 45-ft, and other buses that have a significant increase in passenger capacity compared with conventional 40-ft buses.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!