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 44
45
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
FIGURE 27 A 15-m low-floor EVB Linenbuse. 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
FIGURE 28 Wuppertal, Germany, 24-m bi-articulated bus. 40-ft buses using similar technologies and bus designs is
[Source: Soulas (30)]. given in Table 40.
TABLE 39
CAPITAL COSTS OF RECENTLY PURCHASED HC BUSES
HC No. of Buses
Bus Type Propulsion (agencies) Cost Range Seats per Bus Cost per Seat Range
Articulated Diesel 76 (4) $435,693$508,976 4361 $7,142$10,995
Articulateda Diesel 40 (2) $476,411$498,000 6368 $7,324$7,562
Articulatedb CNG 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-ftc Diesel 50 (5) $422,156$496,257 57 $7,406$8,706
40-ft No. of Buses Seats per Bus
Bus Type Propulsion (agencies) Average Costs (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.
a
Standard floor vehicles.
b
BRT vehicle with special features.
c
Standard high-deck intercity coaches.
OCR for page 45
46
TABLE 40
COMPARISON OF HC VERSUS 40-FT CAPITAL COST
FOR SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES
Capital Cost Percent Difference
HC Type vs. 40-ft Comparison HC Compared with Average 40-ft (in percent)
(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.
a
Articulated CNG bus had BRT features and the 40-ft buses did not.
The cost of all types of HC buses is much more attractive models exhibited significant improvement. It is also apparent
when examined on a cost-per-seat basis. The most dramatic that the propulsion technologies used and the options chosen
difference using a cost-per-seat basis rather than a cost-per- (i.e., BRT features and passenger amenities) have major im-
vehicle basis is for the double-deck bus, and all articulated pacts on capital costs.
