National Academies Press: OpenBook

Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies

« Previous: Chapter Three - Higher Capacity Buses in Various Applications
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Higher Capacity Bus Technologies." 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 45

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.

39 MANUFACTURERS OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES AND BUSES OFFERED The databases of APTA and CUTA were examined to iden- tify which bus manufacturers made the HC buses used by the 68 transit agencies. The results of that effort identified 16 manufacturers. Over the years, there have been changes in the corporate structures, ownership of bus manufacturers, and brand names. Some manufacturers have left the North American market, although 6 of these 16 continue to market HC buses. Additional potential bus manufacturers were iden- tified from APTA and CUTA membership directories and a review of trade magazines that feature information on mo- torbus transportation. At the time of this report, eight bus manufacturers were identified as currently marketing HC buses in North America to either the public or private trans- portation sectors. These eight manufacturers, along with the type of HC buses being marketed, are provided in Table 32. The bus manufacturers’ questionnaire (see Appendix A) was sent to the eight identified HC bus manufacturers. Re- sponses were received from seven manufacturers. The inter- est, type, and cost range information that was provided in the responses is presented in Table 32. Tables 33 and 34 contain technical descriptions of the HC models that the responding bus manufacturers reported to be marketing to North Ameri- can transit agencies OPERATING PERFORMANCE OF CURRENT HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES From the transit agency survey responses, several HC bus performance issues were reported. In the following sections, test data on acceleration, fuel economy, and noise perfor- mance of HC buses are presented to provide some quantifi- cation with respect to these performance areas. Acceleration and Fuel Economy of Higher Capacity Buses The survey asked respondents about their operating experi- ences with HC buses. The intent of the related survey question was to gather information on how transit agencies perceived the performance of their HC vehicles compared with their standard 40-ft buses for several performance measures. The transit agency responses to the survey question were presented in chapter two for each of the three types of HC vehicle. To examine three of the performance measures in more detail, recent reports from 2001 to 2005 of the ABTC were reviewed for all three types of HC buses and for 40-ft buses. Six reports on articulated buses, one on double-deck buses, four on 45-ft buses, and six on 40-ft buses were reviewed. The performance measures of acceleration, grade climbing, and fuel economy were examined and the results are given in Table 35. The Altoona data support the perceptions reported by tran- sit agencies of the performance of their diesel-powered articu- lated and/or 45-ft buses on both acceleration and gradability measures. Both the articulated and the double-deck buses tested were slower compared with the 40-ft buses tested. This is an ex- pected result because the four articulated buses were approxi- mately 50% heavier than the 40-ft buses tested. Information on the installed horsepower was not provided. However, based on the engine model information provided, it is estimated that the installed horsepower for the articulated and double-deck buses tested was about 20% to 25% higher than for the 40-ft buses. The acceleration of the 45-ft intercity coaches was better com- pared with the 40-ft buses tested. The Altoona data also support the reported performance relative to fuel economy for articulated and double-deck buses; that is, 30% to 35% poorer fuel economy overall when compared with 40-ft buses. The reported same or better per- formance on fuel economy of their 45-ft buses is most likely attributed to the type of service (express and/or commuter) because the ABTC-measured overall fuel economy was 26% poorer than that of the 40-ft buses. An emerging technology for transit buses is the use of hy- brid propulsion systems, which result in significant improve- ments in acceleration and fuel economy. The available Altoona test reports for buses using hybrid technology were examined for the effects on bus performance. Table 36 con- tains the acceleration, gradability, and fuel economy data for an articulated bus equipped with hybrid propulsion technol- ogy compared with five articulated buses, four equipped with diesel engines and one with a CNG engine. The perfor- mances of the diesel and CNG buses were averaged for all tests except the fuel economy test, which is the average of the four diesel buses. The data in Table 36 illustrate the potential for hybrid tech- nology in overcoming two of the common concerns of using CHAPTER FOUR HIGHER CAPACITY BUS TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE 32 LIST OF POTENTIAL SUPPLIERS OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES AS OF JANUARY 2007 Possibl e HC Bus Manufacturers Model ID HC Vehicle Type Max. Pass. Seats a Unit Cost (U.S. dollars in thousands) Market US/Canada Altoona Tests Co mp leted Meets Buy Am erica Meets Canada Motor Vehicle Regulations Alexander Dennis E500 Double-deck 81 600 U.S. & Can yes no yes Dam ilerChrysler Comm. Buses NA S 417 45-ft coach 58 450 U.S. & Can no no yes Motor Coach Industries D 4500 45-ft coach 57 450 to 500 U.S. & Can yes yes yes New Flyer D60LF Articulated 64 550 to 675 U.S. & Can yes yes yes DE60LF b Articulated—Hybrid 64 755 to 1,000 U.S. & Can yes yes yes DE60LFR b Articulated—Hybrid 64 760 to 1,000 U.S. & Can yes yes yes DE60LFA b Articulated—Hybrid 64 765 to 1,000 U.S. & Can yes yes yes North Am erican Bus Industries Exp. 4500 45-ft coach 54 inp U.S. yes yes inp 436 c Articulated 65 500 to 700 U.S. yes yes unknown 60-LFW c Articulated 61 500 to 700 U.S. yes yes unknown 60-BRT c Articulated BRT 58 650 to 850 U.S. yes yes unknown 65-BRT c Articulated BRT 67 700 to 900 U.S. no yes unknown Nova Bus Nova LFS Articulated inp inp Can no no yes Prevost Car X3-45 45-ft Coach inp inp U.S. & Can no no yes Van Hool AG300 Articulated 43 Mid 400s U.S. & Ca n no no yes AGG300 Double Articulated 61 Low 600s U.S. no no inp C2045 P&R 45-ft Coach 57 TBD U.S. no no inp Sources: HC Bus Manufacturersí Survey responses and References 22 and 23. aActual number of seats depends on customer specifications. bThe “R” identifies a Restyle model, an “A” identifies an advanced style BRT model, and no letter after LF identifies a traditional model. cThe “LFW” identifies a low-floor model, the “C” identifies a composite model, the “BRT” identifies a BRT model, and “436” identifies a standard floor model. inp = Information was not provided or available in literature; TBD = to be determined.

41 Model Identification Model Identification (BRT) a Technical Description NF D60LF NF b DE60LF (R) NABI 436 NABI 60LFW VH AG300 NF DE60LFA NABI 60 BRT NABI 65 BRT Length, Not Including Bu mp ers (ft) 60.7 61.7 59 60 59.75 62.7 60 65 Width, Not Including Mirrors (in.) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 Height (in.) 121 132 118 116 134 136 137 137 Approach Angle (deg) 9.01 9.01 9 9 9 8.5 9 9 Departure Angle (deg) 8.76 8.76 9 9 9 8.76 9 9 Breakover Angle (deg) 8.35 8.35 11/11 9/10.5 inp 8.35 8.7/10.2 8.7/8.1 Turning Radius, Outside (ft) 38.8 38.6 44 44 39.3 38.6 44 46 No. of Passenger Doors 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 3,4 3,4,5 2,3 2,3 Option for Passenger Doors on Left Side no yes no no inp yes yes yes Entrance/Exit Height at Doors (in.) 16 16 15 15 14.2 16 15 15 No. Steps to Enter/Exit 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Wheelchair Equipm ent (lift or ramp) R R L R R R R R Lift/Ram p Door Locations all all 1 1 2 all 1 1 Maximum Number of Seats 64 64 65 61 43 64 58 67 Maximum Number of Standees 57 53 inp inp 57 53 inp inp Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (lb) 63,880 b 63,880 66,000 66,000 inp 68,000 66,000 66,000 Propulsion Options c D, N D, N, H D, N, H D, N, H D & F D, N, H D, N, H D, N, H Powered Axle (two or three) 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 Source: Manufacturer survey responses and Reference 24. aBRT models have body streamlining features. bBoth the DE60LF and the DE60LFR were reported to have the same technical description information. cPropulsion codes: D = diesel, N = natural gas, H = hybrid (either diesel or gasoline), and F = fuel cell. Manufacturer codes: NF = New Flyer, NABI = North American Bus Industries, NB = Nova Bus, VH = Van Hool. inp = Information was not provided or available in literature Double-Deck Models 45-ft Models Technical Description AD E500 AD E500i 42’ AD E500H DC S417 MCI D4500 NABI Exp 4500 VH C2045 Length, Not Including Bu mp ers (ft) 40 42 42 45 45 45 45 Width, Not Including Mirrors (in.) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 Height (in.) 168 168 168 144 138 143 138 Approach Angle (deg) 8 8 8 inp 9.8 9 inp Departure Angle (deg) 9 8 8 inp 8.3 10 inp Breakover Angle (deg) 8 7 7 inp 5 a 8 inp Turning Radius, Outside (ft) 39 41 41 40 47 43 40.3 No. of Passenger Doors 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Option for Passenger Doors on Left Side no no no no no no no Entrance/Exit Height at Doors (in.) 13.4/12.5 b inp inp 6 c 15.6 b 16 b inp No. Steps to Enter/Exit 1 1 1 6 4 b 4 inp Wheelchair Equipm ent (lift or ram p) R R R L L L L Lift/Ram p Door Locations 2 2 2 rear center rear center/rear Maximum Number of Seats 81 89 79 58 57 53–57 d 57–65 d Maximum Number of Standees 10 2 15 0 a inp inp Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (lb) 52,000 52,000 52,000 50,516 48,000 52,000 50,700 Propulsion Options e D D H D D, H D D Source: Manufacturer survey responses and References 25 and 26. aRespondent stated that standees vary by state regulations. bInformation obtained from Altoona test reports for model. cKneeled. dNumber varied depending on seating selected. ePropulsion codes: D = diesel, N = natural gas, H = hybrid (either diesel or gasoline), and F = fuel cell. Manufacturer codes: AD = Alexander Dennis; DC = DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses, NA; MCI = Motor Coach Industries, NABI = North American Bus Industries, VH = Van Hool. inp. = information not provided. TABLE 33 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF HIGH CAPACITY BUSES (Articulated models) TABLE 34 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES (Double-deck and 45-ft models)

42 Average Tim es to Reach Test Speeds, in seconds (percent difference of tim e—HC bus com pared with 40-ft bus) Test Speeds (mph) Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft Inter-City Coach 40-ft 10 4.7 (−6%) 6.2 (24%) 4.0 (–20%) 5.0 20 9.1 (5%) 10.4 (20%) 7.4 (–8%) 8.7 30 14.8 (11%) 16.4 (23%) 11.6 (–13%) 13.3 40 24.7 (18%) 25.8 (23%) 17.6 (–11%) 21.0 50 43.3 (30%) 43.6 (31%) 27.1 (–18%) 33.2 Average Calculated Sustainable Grade at Test Speeds, in percent (percent difference of sustainable grade—HC bus compared with 40-ft bus) 10 10.8 (–4%) 9.2 (–18%) 13.0 (16%) 11.2 40 3.9 (–23%) 3.8 (–28%) 6.5 (23%) 5.3 Test Cycle a Average Fuel Econom y for Test Cycle, in mpg (percent difference of m pg—HC bus com pared with 40-ft bus) CBD 2.4 (–31%) 2.3 (–34%) 2.5 (–28%) 3.5 Arterial 2.9 (–29%) 2.6 (–36%) 3.0 (–27%) 4.1 Commuter 5.3 (–27%) 4.6 (–37%) 5.9 (–19%) 7.3 Overall 3.0 (–30%) 2.8 (–35%) 3.2 (–26%) 4.3 Source: References 24–27. aReference 28, Section 5.12(20) Design Operating Profile. TABLE 35 TESTING RESULTS OF HC BUSES COMPARED WITH 40-FT BUSES (All buses—Diesel propulsion) articulated buses, namely acceleration capability and fuel economy. All tests were conducted at seated load weight. The hybrid articulated bus test weight was 49,880 lb. The average seated load weight of the five diesel/CNG articulated buses was 51,288 lb. Although the hybrid articulated bus was lighter by approximately 3% (1,400 lb), which undoubtedly helped its performance, buses equipped with hybrid technology could provide significant improvement in acceleration and fuel economy performance compared with similar buses equipped with conventional internal combustion engines. Another comment received was that the articulated buses could not operate all day on a single tank of fuel. The hybrid articulated was equipped with a 167-gallon fuel tank. That size tank would provide a range capability of 718 miles, assuming the bus was operating on the Design Operating Profile test cycle. The four diesel articulated buses were equipped with fuel tanks with capacity of from 120 to 140 gal- lons. The calculated ranges would be 360 to 420 miles, again assuming that the buses were operating on the Design Oper- ating Profile test cycle. The lowest fuel economy for the test buses was 2.2 mpg (Central Business District cycle) for a bus equipped with a 140-gallon fuel tank, which results in a com- puted maximum range of 308 miles. The fuel economy data appear to indicate that articulated buses should be able to op- erate all day without requiring refueling in most situations. Most certainly, the hybrid articulated bus that was tested had the capability of operating all day. Operating Performance Comparison of King County Metro Transit Fleets Over the years, Metro Transit has tested its different motor bus fleets for acceleration and grade climbing capability. Of particular interest in recent tests was evaluating the capabil- ity of its new hybrid articulated buses. In Table 37, the times to reach various speeds for various grades are presented for the articulated and 40-ft fleets. All buses were tested at 130% of seated load weight, with the air-conditioning system off. The test grades are typical of Metro Transit’s hilly routes. The test weight of the bus is also given in this table. The Metro Transit test results clearly show the improve- ment in performance with the hybrid technology. The diesel–electric hybrid articulated bus was the only articulated sub-fleet that met all of Metro Transit’s performance specifi- cations. On a level road the diesel–electric hybrid was nearly as quick as the much lighter weight 40-ft bus, which should facilitate interchangeability when assigning buses to routes. The articulated buses of the 2800 fleet are identical to the buses in the 2600 fleet (hybrid) except for the propulsion

43 Test Results Diesel/CNG Hybrid Test Speeds (mph) Calculated Times to Speeds (in seconds) Hybrid Articulated Compared with Diesel/CNG Articulated (in percent difference) 10 4.0 3.8 5% better 20 9.1 8.6 5% better 30 15.9 14.7 8% better 40 25.9 23.1 11% better 50 42.3 35.2 17% better Calculated Sustainable Grade at Test Speed 10 10.8% 10.8% same 40 3.7% 4.6% 24 % better Calculated Acceleration, (in ft/s/s) 1 4.1 4.1 same 5 3.7 3.8 3% better 10 3.3 3.5 6% better 15 2.9 3.1 7% better 20 2.5 2.7 9% better Fuel Economy for Test Cycle (in mpga) Test Cycleb CBD 2.4 3.7 54% better Arterial 2.9 4.2 45% better Commuter 5.3 6.6 25% better Overall 3.0 4.4 47% better Source: References 24 and 27. aFuel economy data are the average of four diesel articulated buses. bReference 28, Section 5.12(20) Design Operating Profile. TABLE 36 ALTOONA BUS TESTING RESULTS: DIESEL VERSUS HYBRID PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY technology. When comparing the test performance between these two fleets, the improvement with the hybrid technology is as follows: • 0–20 Level Road Test—hybrid is 13% better. • 0–45 Level Road Test—hybrid is 15% better. • 0–20 5% Grade Test—hybrid is 17% better. • 0–10 9% Grade Test—hybrid is 6% better. • Highest Maintainable Speed on 5% Grade Test— hybrid is 1% better. To make use of the low emissions of hybrid technology, the hybrid articulated buses will replace the dual-propulsion articulated buses that were used for routes servicing the downtown tunnel. In the tunnel, the hybrid articulated buses are operated using a special computer program that limits Articulated Buses Test 40-ft Diesel HF Diesel DM Diesel LF Hybrid LF Metro Spec. Metro Fleet Identification 3200 2300 5000 2800 2600 Test Weight (lb) 39,050 56,560 65,550 56,118 57,753 130% SLW Passenger Seats 42 64 58 58 58 0–20 m ph—Level Road (sec) 7.91 9.74 9.84 9.09 7.94 9 0–45 m ph—Level Road (sec) 30.61 38.32 46.28 40.12 34.10 36 0–20 m ph—5% Grade (sec) 11.86 21.65 18.13 15.76 13.05 14 0–10 m ph—9% Grade (sec) 5.39 6.32 7.83 6.43 6.02 9 Highest Maintainable Speed on 5% Grade (m ph) Pass Pass N/A 43.4 43.1 43 Notes: SLW = seated load weight, mph = miles per hour, HF = high floor, LF = low floor, DM = dual mode, N/A = not available. Source: King County Metro Transit. TABLE 37 PERFORMANCE TEST COMPARISONS OF KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT FLEETS

44 Interior Sound Levels in dB(A) APTA Guidelines 80 dB(A) External Noise Source 0 to 35 Acceleration 80 dB(A) Test 0–35 Test Bus Type Average Peak Average Peak Less than Less Than Articulated—Diesel a 57.0 a 64.6 75.7 a 86.6 65 83 Articulated—Hybrid D/E 54.2 58.7 79.2 82.2 65 83 Double-Deck—Diesel Lower Deck 44.6 45.5 76.4 77.5 65 83 Upper Deck 40.4 41.4 64.4 66.6 65 83 45-ft Intercity—Diesel b 39.0 b 46.3 69.9 b 79.6 65 83 45-ft Com po—CNG 50.8 55.9 76.6 79.9 65 83 40-ft—Diesel c 52.0 c 63.2 77.1 c 83.2 65 83 D/E = diesel/electric; CNG = compressed natural gas. Source: References 24–27. aThe average measurements are for the average of four articulated buses. bThe average measurements are for the average of three 45-ft intercity coaches. cThe average measurements are for the average of four 40-ft buses. TABLE 38 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NOISE TEST DATA FOR HC BUSES horsepower to approximately 100. This is enough power to operate the bus electrical loads and run in the tunnel using the battery. In the 1.3 miles inside the tunnel, the fuel consumed is about 1.5 cups, and there are essentially no emissions and no odor (J. Boon, King County Metro Transit, personal com- munication, March 4, 2007). Internal Sound Levels for Higher Capacity Buses Internal sound levels are a growing concern for the transit in- dustry in general. Data from the noise tests conducted at ABTC were reviewed to obtain data on the performance of HC and 40-ft buses. All tests are conducted with the bus at seated load weight. Two internal sound level tests are conducted. 1. With doors and windows closed and the engine and all accessories off, the external surface of the left side of the bus is exposed to a 80 decibel [dB(A)] uniform pressure level using a white noise generator. The noise transmitted to the interior is measured at six locations, five in the center aisle at 48 inches in height (nominal ear height of seated passenger) and one at the driver seat at ear height. 2. With all openings closed and all accessories on, the bus is accelerated at full throttle from zero to 35 mph. The internal sound levels are measured at four loca- tions in the center aisle at 48 inches in height. The sound levels are measured on a logarithmic scale, and some example perceptions of the change of sound levels are listed here: • A 1-db(A) change is an imperceptible change, • A 3-db(A) change is barely perceptible, and • A 10-db(A) increase is perceived as twice as loud. To place a sound level in perspective, a 40 dB(A) sound level would be similar to that of a quiet library or home (29). Internal noise test data for 10 HC buses are given in Ta- ble 38. Data for the average of four 40-ft diesel buses are also included for comparison purposes. As shown in the table, the passenger compartments of the 45-ft intercity and the double-deck buses are considerably quieter than the other bus types. The elevation from the road- way and engine would tend to make the upper deck of the double-deck and the 45-ft intercity buses quieter. A LOOK AT THE FUTURE Some hints of changes in HC vehicle technologies are begin- ning to emerge. The change to a hybrid propulsion technology appears to be increasingly accepted. The significant improve- ment in vehicle performance (acceleration and gradability), along with improved fuel economy make hybrid propulsion in- creasingly attractive, in spite of the higher initial capital costs. Transit agencies in Europe are increasingly using 15-m buses for their intercity and regional routes because of the higher seat capacities and improved operator productivity. Figure 27 shows a low-floor 15-m bus operating in Zeven, Germany. There are a few transit agencies in Europe and South Amer- ica that are using double (or bi) articulated buses that provide very high capacities. These 24-m vehicles usually operate in bus lanes or exclusive busways. Recent French INRETS (Insti- tut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité) research on super-high capacity buses was presented at a 2006 BRT conference in France (30). Bordeaux, in France, operated a line with 10 megabuses from 1988 to 2004, when they were replaced by light-rail transit (LRT). There have been high-floor bi-articulated buses in operation in Curitiba and Sao Paolo since 1992, and there are bi-articulated buses either in opera- tion, or planned, in Utrecht (The Netherlands), Aachen, Wuppertal, Goteborg, and Hamburg (Germany). The Wupper- tal bus is shown in Figure 28. A recent U.S. innovation of attempting to produce lighter- weight transit buses using composite technology was not a

45 FIGURE 27 A 15-m low-floor EVB Linenbuse. FIGURE 28 Wuppertal, Germany, 24-m bi-articulated bus. [Source: Soulas (30)]. marketing success. One composite model was an HC bus, the 45C-LFW, which has a maximum capacity of 47 seats. The concept was to take advantage of the lighter body weight (estimated at 7,000 lb) to design a longer-body, low-floor two-axle bus and recapture seats that had been lost with the low-floor design that could be powered by CNG. A two-part article in Metro Magazine provides some insight into the business and regulatory issues that contributed to the demise of the innovation (31). Fleets of the 45C-LFW are currently operating at three transit agencies. CAPITAL COSTS OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents cited capital cost of an HC bus as a major concern or issue. To explore this issue further, the APTA 2006 Transit Vehicle Database (13) was reviewed for cost data on recent purchases of HC buses. Fourteen transit agencies reported on their purchases of 428 HC buses (all types) in 2005 and 2006, and a summary of the reported cost data is presented in Table 39. Because many of the bus-type combinations involve only a few procurements, which can result in a wide variation in cost-per-seat data, the number of agencies involved is provided along with the total number of buses purchased. Because the propulsion technology used is a significant cost factor, the data are presented by propulsion technologies. The number of seats on a bus model can vary significantly, and has a direct impact on the bus capital cost-per-seat met- ric. The maximum number of seats is affected by bus design (standard versus low-floor models), and the actual number is determined by the seating arrangements chosen by the transit system. The impact of the number of seats can be observed from the data in Table 39. A summary comparison of HC and 40-ft buses using similar technologies and bus designs is given in Table 40. HC Bus Type Propulsion No. of Buses (agencies) Cost Range Seats per Bus Cost per Seat Range Articulated Diesel 76 (4) $435,693–$508,976 43–61 $7,142–$10,995 Articulated a Diesel 40 (2) $476,411–$498,000 63–68 $7,324–$7,562 Articulated b C NG 200 (1) $644,000 57 $11,298 Articulated Diesel/Electric 12 (1) $650,000 57 $11,404 Double-Deck Diesel 50 (1) $583,963 80 $7,300 45-ft c Diesel 50 (5) $422,156–$496,257 57 $7,406–$8,706 40-ft Bus Type Propulsion No. of Buses (agencies) Average Costs Seats per Bus (average) Average Cost per Seat 40-ft Diesel 1,635 (45) $339,023 38.9 $8,715 40-fta Diesel 28 (4) $298,699 38.7 $7,718 40-ft CNG 354 (6) $363,033 40.3 $9,008 40-ft Diesel/Electric 128 (10) $456,674 38.5 $11,862 Source: Reference 13. aStandard floor vehicles. bBRT vehicle with special features. cStandard high-deck intercity coaches. TABLE 39 CAPITAL COSTS OF RECENTLY PURCHASED HC BUSES

46 Capital Cost Percent Difference HC Compared with Average 40-ft (in percent) HC Type vs. 40-ft Co mp arison (floor height and propulsion—for both) On bus basis On seat basis Articulated vs. 40-ft (LF and diesel) 28% to 50% 17% to 26% Articulated vs. 40-ft (HF and diesel) 59% to 68% –2% to –5% Articulated vs. 40-ft (LF and CNG) a 77% 25% Articulated vs. 40-ft (LF and diesel/electric) 42% –4% Double-Deck vs. 40-ft (LF and diesel) 72% –16% LF = low floor, HF = high floor, CNG = compressed natural gas. aArticulated CNG bus had BRT features and the 40-ft buses did not. TABLE 40 COMPARISON OF HC VERSUS 40-FT CAPITAL COST FOR SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES The cost of all types of HC buses is much more attractive when examined on a cost-per-seat basis. The most dramatic difference using a cost-per-seat basis rather than a cost-per- vehicle basis is for the double-deck bus, and all articulated models exhibited significant improvement. It is also apparent that the propulsion technologies used and the options chosen (i.e., BRT features and passenger amenities) have major im- pacts on capital costs.

Next: Chapter Five - Experiences with Higher Capacity Buses »
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!