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 53
54 The second approach is POP, with off-board fare collec- The survey found that some transit agencies with articu- tion. This is the approach that all LRT systems have been lated or double-deck buses are using the rear-facing approach using for the last two decades, and has now been adopted by for wheelchairs (e.g., AC Transit, Victoria and Kelowna, and recent BRT systems [e.g., York Region Transit Viva and York Region) and/or access by the second door (e.g., AC Lane Transit EmX (Eugene, Oregon)]. It has proven to be a Transit and York Region). Both approaches significantly re- critical component of the York Region Transit Viva system, duce dwell time for boarding, positioning, and securing not only in terms of speeding up passenger movement and re- wheelchairs). ducing dwell time, but also in terms of enhancing the image of the BRT system (D. Roberts, ITrans Consulting, personal communication, Feb. 9, 2007). Every BRT stop or station is TRADE-OFFS IN USING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES equipped with one or more piece of ticket vending and/or validating equipment. Passengers are responsible for having The survey and case studies indicate certain trade-offs in a valid fare title (monthly or day pass), for validating a ticket, using HC buses. Although high-volume short-trip applica- or for purchasing a one-ride fare. The receipt serves as their tions can easily be served by using the articulated bus design POP. This approach allows for all-door entry for all passen- with its intrinsic potential for shorter dwell times, double- gers, removes fare control responsibility from the operator, deck buses have also been successfully deployed for this type and reduces dwell time, but also requires a significant capital of route. If seats are a high priority and roadway height clear- investment as well as active random enforcement. ance is not a problem, then the double-deck bus design offers the highest capacity, with a quiet upper-deck ride, and supe- Experience in Transporting Wheelchair Users rior views. If one is trying to provide a premium quality ride for the long-distance commuter customers, then the 45-ft in- As was discussed in chapter two, transporting wheelchair tercity coach design with its long wheelbase, quiet ride, and users represents one of the most significant negative aspects passenger amenities will likely continue to dominate this ser- for survey respondents operating 45-ft intercity coaches. vice application, assuming wheelchair passengers are few. Wheelchairs are difficult to accommodate (they require the moving of seats), disruptive to the operator, and require sig- When should a transit agency consider an HC vehicle, and nificant time to operate the lift. which type is most suitable? These are the two questions that TABLE 47 HC VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES--PROS AND CONS HC Type Pros Cons Articulated 3 or 4 doors available for exiting. Also for Larger roadway foot print. boarding if pre-paid fare collection is used. Longer bus stop zones required. Shorter dwell times. May have slower acceleration capability. Turning radius comparable to 40-ft buses. Low-floor results in higher passenger Available in low-floor design, which compartment road noise. facilitates boarding and exiting. Some passengers do not like the Wheelchair access and transport similar to articulated joint to ride in--cannot see out 40-ft buses. and it moves. State regulations on length may be an impediment. Double-Deck Capable of more seats per bus than other Longer time to exit from upper deck. HC types. Access to upper deck requires climbing Upper deck very quiet. stairwell. Excellent views from upper deck. Requires highest roadway height clearance Smallest of HC types in roadway footprint. (at least 14 ft) and may limit routing. Available in low-floor design, which Some state regulations on height may be facilitates boarding/exiting. impediment. Ramp wheelchair access. Possible procurement issues for U.S. transit agencies. 45-ft Longer wheelbase provides smoother ride. Longer wheelbase leads to larger turning High-deck floor reduces passenger radius. compartment noise. One door entry/exit leads to longer dwell Good acceleration capability. times. Passenger amenities available; reclining Has 3­5 step entrance/exit. seats, individual lights/vents, tables. Narrowest of aisle widths, causes slower Storage for luggage and cargo in storage boarding/exiting and difficulty with bays. packages and bags. High-deck floor and lift leads to longer wheelchair boarding/exiting times. Longer boarding time can in turn have a repercussion on the dwell time of other buses sharing the bus stop.