Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service (2008)

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.

47 WHY AND WHERE ARE THEY USED (DRIVING FACTORS IN DECISIONS)? Higher capacity buses are used in a variety of applications, as was discussed in chapter two, but certain patterns are appar- ent, depending on the type of HC bus being considered: • Articulated buses are predominantly deployed in all- day heavy-demand trunk (or BRT) services, but are also used to a lesser extent in various other types of services, including peak-only service on trunk routes, commuter express services to park-and-ride lots, trippers that experience overloads, replacement service for rail shut- downs, and high-demand special events. • Only three systems have deployed double-deck buses (although several others are planning to), and deployment has been for long-distance commuter express services (e.g., Victoria Regional Transit), and also on heavy- demand trunk routes (e.g., Las Vegas and Victoria). • Forty-five-foot intercity coaches are the most focused in their application, because they are overwhelmingly used in long-distance express commuter services. They are occasionally also used to serve special high-demand sports events or in emergencies. Phoenix Transit uses its 45-ft Compo buses for BRT express service. GO Transit (Orlando, Florida) also uses 45-ft coaches for their suburban circumferential BRT service; however, this is an unusual configuration for BRT, because it is almost entirely used along expressways, and stop dis- tance is much greater than is typical for BRT service. • Some respondents mentioned that HC buses were being used to increase ridership along a future rail corridor (LRT or commuter rail). EXPERIENCE WITH HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Overall Findings with Respect to Higher Capacity Buses In terms of experience, two general conclusions can be made from the synthesis findings. First, there is no evidence that ridership is directly affected by the introduction of HC buses. Respondents were evenly divided between those who thought that measurable ridership increases could be attrib- uted to the introduction of HC buses and those who did not. Where ridership increases were apparent, it appeared to be more of a result of other factors than the mere increase in capacity, including an increase in the level of service through the introduction of a BRT, introduction of attractive new transit pass programs (e.g., university U-Pass programs), and enhancement of customer amenities on vehicles (although there remains little understanding of how this affects rider- ship behavior). The second general finding is that experience with HC buses has generally been positive, with some variation by type of vehicle. The overall positive experience is evident from various indicators: • Respondents reported overwhelmingly that HC buses had met their expectations. • Respondents rated their experience with HC buses as very good (59% to 71%). • Agency-reported customer acceptance was noted as being positive (64% to 79% ranked customer experi- ence as very good). • Agency-reported operator acceptance was noted as being positive (64% to 79% ranked operator experience as very good). • In terms of vehicle performance, survey respondents ranked the performance of 45-ft and double-deck buses as the same or better than that of their standard buses. • Spare ratios for all HC buses were the same or lower than for standard buses. The most common area of concern for all transit systems with HC buses was the capital cost of the vehicle, ranked as the most, or second most, significant concern by approxi- mately one-third of survey respondents. No other single issue was significant across all HC buses. Experience and Issues Related to Specific Vehicle Types A number of vehicle-specific areas of concern were men- tioned for the various types of buses. Forty-Five-Foot Buses In general, 45-ft buses ranked high in performance, ride qual- ity and comfort, amenities, and respondent experience, but suffered in four specific areas: CHAPTER FIVE EXPERIENCES WITH HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES

48 Fleet ID Model Propulsion Year No. 2600 DE60LF Diesel–electric hybrid 2004 214a 2800 D60LF Diesel 2004 30 2300 D60HF Diesel 1998–2000 273 aIncludes the prototype bus. TABLE 41 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT ARTICULATED BUS SUB-FLEET • A majority of respondents mentioned that the turning maneuverability of 45-ft buses was poorer than that of the standard bus. This is explained by the longer wheel- base of the vehicle, which increases ride comfort, but constrains its use on routes with tight turns. • Several respondents mentioned that the wheelchair lift and securement system was a considerable constraint because of the disruption it caused and the time required for operation; at least one respondent mentioned that they would avoid using 45-ft buses on routes with reg- ular wheelchair patrons. • Several respondents mentioned that the steep steps and the narrow aisle were a limitation for some customers. • The dwell time of 45-ft buses at stops, caused by passen- gers boarding up the steep stairs, can have a repercussion on the dwell time of other buses sharing the same stop or bus bay, and becomes even more pronounced if wheel- chair passengers need to board or exit the bus. Double-Deck Bus The double-deck bus ranked high with respect to seat capac- ity, turning maneuverability, and attractiveness of the vehicle to both customers and operators; the upper deck in particular is very popular because of the view it offers and the quietness of the ride. Issues of concern included: • Winter operation (although that has now been mitigated by the addition of a control to temporarily decrease the load on the tag axle). • Passenger movement in the tight stairwell and related potential for safety concerns (although no negative ex- perience was actually reported). • Dwell time (Las Vegas has opted to acquire a bus with two stairwells to improve passenger interior flow). Interestingly, none of the respondents operating double-deck buses viewed the infrastructure modification cost as significant. Articulated Buses Respondents with articulated buses were much more divided in their opinions concerning experience with the vehicle. The only area where a majority of respondents believed that the articulated bus was superior in performance to standard buses concerned turning maneuverability. This finding is not surprising because of the shorter wheelbase of the front sec- tion of the articulated bus. However, more than half of respondents perceived that the performance of articulated buses was less than that of standard 40-ft buses, in three areas in particular: • Fuel economy, • Grade climbing, and • Acceleration. Historically, acceleration, caused by underpowered engines, appears to be a common problem in articulated buses. One pos- sible explanation may be the inability to fit a larger engine in the engine compartment. Although the problem appears to have been significant with older articulated bus models, and may be eliminated in the future through the deployment of hybrid ar- ticulated buses (discussed in chapter four), it was a commonly reported area of concern. One respondent mentioned that the poor acceleration resulted in different running times than for a standard bus in the same corridor. In addition to the above-mentioned issues related to the HC vehicles, only those operating articulated buses cited maintenance costs as a major issue or concern (12 of 23, or 52%), and a somewhat smaller percentage (10 of 23, or 43%) reported articulated bus reliability to be lower than their 40-ft buses. On a vehicle basis, articulated buses have more com- ponents to fail and repair (an extra axle; additional tires, brakes, and doors; the articulated joint; etc.); therefore, those survey responses may be in question. However, none of the other HC vehicle types (except the 45-ft Compo bus) reported poorer reliability or maintenance costs as an issue or concern. King County Metro Transit Maintenance Experience with Articulated Buses To explore the issue of articulated bus maintenance cost in more detail, the experience of King Country Metro was ex- amined. King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, was a member of the original Super-Bus Consortium and has oper- ated articulated buses since 1978. Over the years, it has operated a wide range of articulated buses, including dual- mode articulated buses and most recently a significant fleet of diesel–electric hybrid articulated buses. Approximately one-half of Metro Transit’s active fleet is articulated vehicles and as of January 2007 Metro Transit had 517 articulated motor buses in revenue service as shown in Table 41. Composition of the Metro Transit 40-ft sub-fleet is shown in Table 42. Metro Transit uses approximately 57% of the motor bus articulated buses for its CORE service, 35% for Express service, and 8% for other high ridership routes (mixed articu- lated and 40-ft service). The 40-ft buses are used primarily on the CORE service routes; however, some are used on lower

49 Fleet ID Model Propulsion Year No. 3600 D40LF Diesel 2003 100 9000 Phantom 40 Diesel 1999 6 3200 Phantom 40 Diesel 1997 210 Fleet ID Propulsion Seats Maintenance Cost ($/vehicle-mile) Miles Between Road Calls Fuel Economy (mpg) 2600—Articulated Hybrid 58 0.7103 5,628 3.5 2800—Articulated Diesel 58 0.7198 4,424 2.4 2300—Articulated Diesel 64 0.8352 4,123 3.4 Weighted Average 61.2 0.7768 4,763 3.4 3600—40-ft Diesel 35 0.5846 5,069 4.1 9000—40-ft Diesel 42 0.3829 9,552 5.1 3200—40-ft Diesel 42 0.6000 6,494 4.5 Weighted Average 38.9 0.5775 7,539 4.5 Source: King County Metro Transit. Fleet ID Propulsion Seats Maintenance Cost ($/seat-mile) Seat-Miles Between Road Calls Fuel Economy (seat-miles/gal.) 2600—Articulated Hybrid 58 0.0122 203 2800—Articulated Diesel 58 0.0124 139 2300—Articulated Diesel 64 0.0130 218 Weighted Average 61.2 0.0126 7,478 207 3600—40-ft Diesel 35 0.0167 143 9000—40-ft Diesel 42 0.0091 214 3200—40-ft Diesel 42 0.0143 189 Weighted Average 38.9 0.0142 7,539 182 TABLE 43 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT OPERATIONAL DATA FOR ARTICULATED AND 40-FT BUS SUB-FLEETS TABLE 44 OPERATIONAL DATA COMPARED ON A SEAT-MILE BASIS FOR METRO TRANSIT SUB-FLEETS TABLE 42 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT 40-FT BUS SUB-FLEET ridership Express routes. The average age for the articulated fleet buses is 5.5 years and for the 40-ft fleet buses 8.1 years. Maintenance data for 2006 were obtained for both the articulated and 40-ft fleets. The annual miles traveled per bus ranges from 35,000 to 37,000 (see Table 43). The loss of passenger seats when changing from standard floor to low-floor bus design is apparent in Table 43. For the seating arrangement chosen by Metro Transit, one low-floor articulated bus is equal to approximately 1.6 low-floor 40-ft buses on a passenger seat basis. Comparing the standard floor models, the factor would be 1.5. The weighted average for all sub-fleets is one articulated bus is equal to 1.57 40-ft buses on a seat basis. If one applies those factors to the operational data in Table 43, an operational cost on a passenger seat basis is obtained and the results are given in Table 44. On a seat-mile basis, the articulated fleets are less costly than the 40-ft fleets in both maintenance costs and fuel. Any comparisons of the road call experience is complicated be- cause the average age of the total articulated fleet is approx- imately 2.5 years less than the total 40-ft fleet. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) using Metro Transit’s newest low-floor articulated buses, conducted a recent evaluation of hybrid technology (32). The buses were identical except for the propulsion system; the test fleet was made up of 20 hybrid articulated buses and the con- trol fleet 20 diesel articulated buses. The test period was 12 months, and the service routes and vehicle-miles of the test and control fleets were similar. A summary of the evaluation results is given in Table 45. The evaluation results show a significant improvement in fuel cost (17 cents per mile) with only a small increase in the maintenance cost of the hybrid propulsion system (1 cent per mile) when compared with the diesel control fleet. These findings, in combination with the findings in chap- ter four, indicate that hybrid propulsion technologies offer a promising approach to overcoming some of the concerns expressed with respect to articulated buses, in particular, with respect to the issues of acceleration and fuel economy in frequent stop-and-go types of operations. SAFETY ISSUES Safety Considerations Related to Higher Capacity Buses The operation of HC buses does not appear to create signif- icant safety concerns. However, two considerations related to safety were identified. The first concerned double-deck buses and the potential safety concern created by the interior

50 Fleet Type No. of Collisions Percent of All Collisions No. of Buses Percent of Total Fleet Total Cost of All Collisions Average Cost per Collision Articulated 684 39.09 573 40.00 $281,257 $411 40-ft 700 40.00 568 39.66 $296,027 $423 Source: King County Metro Transit. TABLE 46 COLLISION STATISTICS FOR ARTICULATED AND 40-FT MOTOR BUSES IN 2005 Evaluation Item Diesel Ryerson Base Hybrid Atlantic Base Difference Hybrid vs. Diesel Monthly Average Miles per Bus 2,949 3,096 +5% Fuel Econom y (mpg) 2.50 3.17 +27% Fuel Cost per Mile ($): Diesel at $1.98/gal. 0.79 0.62 –22% Total Maintenance Cost per Mile ($) 0.46 0.44 –4% Propulsion—Only Maintenance Costs per Mile ($) 0.12 0.13 +8% Total Operating Cost per Mile ($) 1.25 1.06 –15% Miles Between All Road Calls 5,896 4,954 –16% Miles Between Propulsion Road Calls 12,199 10,616 –13% Source: Reference 32. TABLE 45 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS OF METRO TRANSIT’S HYBRID AND DIESEL ARTICULATED BUSES stairwell. The interior design has focused special attention to stanchions and hand holds, and a restriction has been estab- lished that prohibits standees on the upper deck. Interviews with staff at BC Transit indicated that there had been no serious accidents as a result of the interior stairwell. The second issue mentioned by survey respondents re- lated to articulated buses: the left rear corner of some articu- lated buses may swing out when turning corners or departing from bus bays, which may cause accidents. This problem was more common in the past with “puller-type” articulated buses. An incursion of the right side of the second section can occur with “pusher-type” articulated buses. The major dif- ference between these problems is that the operator can ob- serve the right side incursion; however, the operator cannot observe the left rear corner excursion. Performing safe turns at intersections is a concern for all types of buses. To communicate to motorists and pedestrians that a bus is about to turn, the Champaign–Urbana MTD has installed strobe lights on the sides of its buses (two on 40-ft and three on articulated) that flash when the turn signals are activated. An audio signal (beeping) is activated when the bus is mak- ing a right turn to warn pedestrians of the maneuver. One respondent expressed concern about the safety of passengers using the third or fourth door of an articulated bus, and how difficult it is for operators to observe passen- gers in those doors. This respondent is investigating the use of different mirrors and the possible use of an ultrasonic sen- sor on those doors. One interesting issue concerns winter conditions (snow). A little more than one-third of agencies reported some level of concern with winter operations with their articulated fleets. Only one rated this as their highest major concern. The Denver RTD routinely equips its articulated fleet with snow tires on the drive axle, and reports no special problems with operating in snow conditions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that jackknifing of articulated buses can still occur; however, it does not appear to be a serious concern for many. King County Metro Transit Safety Experience with Articulated Buses To better understand any potential concerns with articulated buses, safety statistics were obtained from Metro Transit for motor bus collisions for 2005. There were four bus groups: articulated buses (573), 40-ft buses (568), trolleybuses (161), and small buses (130). The collision statistics for the articu- lated and 40-ft fleets are given in Table 46. The articulated and 40-ft fleets operate in similar traffic environments and have similar mileage. The percentages of collisions are consistent with the percentages of the total fleet. There is no significant difference in the average cost per collision for the two fleets. The Metro Transit safety staff concluded that the collision safety record of the articulated buses is similar to that of the 40-ft buses. There does not ap- pear to be any difference in risk between the two fleets based on collision statistics. INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES The costs of modifications were not identified by respondents as a significant area of concern, and the monetary value of the modifications appeared relatively modest, certainly in com- parison with the capital cost of the vehicles themselves.

51 The survey discussion in chapter two identified a number of infrastructure modifications that may need to be carried out to deploy HC buses. With respect to 45-ft intercity coaches, the location of the wheelchair lift toward the mid-section or rear of the bus may require the modification of concrete pads at bus stops. This modification would be applicable for any bus with a lift or ramp in a location other than the first door. The length of articulated buses may lead to a number of potential modifications to stops in terms of removed parking spots or lengthened concrete pads (depending on whether the bus has a third door). Articulated buses may also require modifications to maintenance pits and hoists, paint booths, wash facilities, location of air hoses, striping of parking areas, etc. However, survey respondents did not identify these modifications as particularly onerous. In many cases, deployment of the articulated buses had been contemplated well in advance of the actual acquisition of the buses and had been incorporated into the design require- ments of garage facilities. For example, the Champaign– Urbana MTD had designed their garage to have storage rows that were 240 ft in length, which allowed them to store six 40-ft buses or four 60-ft articulated buses. Long-term plan- ning for HC buses that can be incorporated into maintenance facility design greatly reduces the requirement for retrofits to maintenance and storage facilities. With respect to double-deck buses, the vehicle’s height is the obvious factor in possibly requiring infrastructure modi- fications, which might lead to modifications of garage doors, maintenance bays, paint booths, bus wash equipment, service islands, etc. It will also require the acquisition of a work plat- form to access the roof for maintenance. The height clearance of the double-deck bus along planned routes will need to be carefully assessed, as will clearance for adjacent power poles, in particular where there is pronounced crowning of the roadway. However, the Victoria case study indicates that this can be achieved simply and did not involve many modifications. As discussed in the Victoria case study, the smaller turn- ing radius of the double-deck bus may also require relocation of street furniture at stops because of the vehicle’s overhang sweep. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS Survey respondents did not identify regulatory limitations as a significant issue, although some references were made to the limitations created by the regulations for double- deck buses (height and weight) and articulated buses (length). To assess this issue in more detail, regulations on vehicle size and weight were reviewed, and the findings are detailed in Appendix C. The latest configuration of the double-deck bus measures 14 ft in height and the articulated bus models are 60 to 65 ft in length. The review of state and provincial regulations in- dicates that the double-deck buses meet the height limits of 21 states, and the 60-ft articulated buses meet the length lim- its of 17 states. Exemption certificates may be needed in the other states and in all Canadian provinces, as was done in Victoria and Kelowna, British Columbia. The federal regulation on weight (CFR 658.17 Weight) was changed in February 2007 to extend the exception for buses of a single axle limit of 24,000 lb on the NN until October 2009. The tandem axle limit remains at 34,000 lb. OTHER OPERATIONAL ISSUES Labor Issues There were no labor issues of significance related to the op- eration of HC buses. The survey found that 97% of transit agencies do not pay operators of HC buses a different wage rate. In terms of training, little special training is provided for operating HC buses. Some transit agencies provide operators with training concerning the tag axle on 45-ft intercity coaches. Others provide in-vehicle training for operators to become familiar with the driving of an HC bus; an example was the Denver RTD, which has two underground terminals in the downtown area that are very busy with articulated and 45-ft buses. The training is essentially practice to become fa- miliar with the set up and turning queues necessary to nego- tiate the circular path and docking properly in the bay. Scheduling The survey found that less than one-third of respondents ded- icate their HC buses to specific routes, whereas more than two-thirds mix HC and standard operations along single routes. Mixed operations can however take many forms: • Trunk service operated by HC buses, with added trips at the peak provided by standard buses (or vice versa). • BRT or limited stop service operated along a corridor using HC buses, with local service operated along the same corridor with standard buses (or vice versa). • Mixed operation along a route resulting from an inade- quate number of HC buses, etc. If a route is built specifically for HC buses, then specifying HC buses at the block level can be handled by most schedul- ing packages. This is also the situation if the different services

52 in a given corridor (e.g., BRT and local) are treated, and blocked, separately. From a scheduling perspective, express services are often treated as a separate system altogether, which allows optimization while ensuring use of dedicated in- tercity coaches. However, to fully mix HC and standard buses into a given route schedule requires working at the “trip” (rather than “block”) level, and this in turn requires a special- purpose optimization module for vehicle blocking, as well as considerable on-street supervision (J. Pappas, personal com- munication, Feb. 14, 2007). One transit agency reported try- ing to manage the headways of different capacity vehicles on the same route, based on the individual capacity of the vehi- cles, but abandoned this approach. One-third of the systems using mixed operations made no attempt to deploy the HC buses based on demand. Beyond routes that are dedicated (and blocked) for HC buses, many respondents indicated that their HC buses were used to address specific overload situations, such as school trips. There are two approaches. In the first approach, a tran- sit agency may simply deploy HC buses to the entire route experiencing the overload situation. This ensures that the overload trip is accommodated, but may provide excess capacity for the rest of the block, and might be viewed as an underutilization of the capacity of the HC bus. This may occur because the agency does not have the internal scheduling expertise or tools, or because it is easier to obtain “capital” funding to acquire HC buses than the “operational” funding required to add trippers for individual overload situations. The second approach would require working at the trip level, and might involve the use of interlining if minimizing peak bus requirements was an agency objective. OC Transpo in Ottawa is one agency that traditionally has had an aggressive objective of using the scheduling system to minimize peak bus requirements through the use of interlining, and this applies as well to their articulated buses (J. Koffman, OC Transpo, personal communication, Feb. 11, 2007). Of OC Transpo’s approximately 160 articulated buses available on a daily basis, about 85% (135) of these buses are required for base service and are blocked for routes designed for articulated buses (i.e., transitway core routes and a small number of trunk arterial routes). The remaining 25 or so articulated buses are available for interlining. The objective is to maximize the efficient use of the artic- ulated buses by stringing together as many individual trips that have heavy demand, while minimizing the overall num- ber of peak buses required. Having extensive data is an im- portant ingredient for schedule optimization. For example, OC Transpo has been using a very sophisticated APC system for more than two decades. Its APC system provides them with extensive data on passenger loads by trip (to determine where articulated buses would be valuable). It also measures running times for in-service and deadhead trips (which is re- quired for trip-based scheduling and interline optimization). In addition, to enable the most efficient interline opti- mization, the transit agency has worked aggressively with local school boards to encourage different school start times and to shift them away from the commuter peak. This coop- eration between OC Transpo and the schools has worked very well, and start times of schools now vary considerably (e.g., 8:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 9:15 a.m., etc.). This permits con- siderable efficiency in the interlining of buses; for example, an interlined articulated bus might have a block that links: • An early school trip starting at 7 a.m., finishing at 7:30 (for a 7:45 school start), to • An express commuter trip downtown from 7:45 to 8:15 a.m., and to • Another school trip to arrive for a 9:15 a.m. school start time. The overall process for interlining buses (including artic- ulated buses) is schematically as follows: • The Service Planning Department develops a service plan, specifically taking into account HC buses, and the Scheduling Department has the responsibility of imple- menting the service plan. • The scheduling system is used to efficiently block the majority of service. • An interline network is assembled with a variety of trips including express trips, school trips, counterflow trips, industrial park trips, etc. • Each trip is assigned a vehicle option (40-ft low-floor default, 60-ft, etc.). • An enhanced vehicle blocker module (Hastus Minibus) is used to optimize the interline network, based on a wide range of cost penalties, with the objective of min- imizing the number of buses required to deliver service to the peak interline network. • The module uses a variety of criteria (expressed as cost penalties) as part of its optimization process; examples include the total number of buses, vehicle-specific des- ignation, layover requirement, and length of block. OC Transpo also allows for trip shifting (i.e., varying the start and end time of a trip by a few minutes) to increase the efficiency of the optimization. Applying cost penal- ties controls the degree of shifting. • The process is carried out iteratively, examining each solution proposed by Hastus Minibus, and involves continuous consultation with the Service Planning De- partment staff to arrive at the best possible compromise However, as important as the sophistication of the sched- uling process is, the day-to-day operational management concerning bus assignments is critical to ensure that the articulated buses actually end up on the designated runs. The best plan for articulated buses will only be as good as its execution. To this purpose, OC Transpo has automated the assignment process to assist the “bus starter” in assigning the right bus to the right run. However, because errors can

53 happen, they manually check the assignments each day to see how each garage performs. When performance begins to fall off, the Fleet Department is notified immediately. The ongo- ing daily monitoring of the articulated assignments (and other bus type-specific assignments, such as low floor, bike racks, APCs, etc.) is in the process of being automated so that both the Planning and Fleet Departments can immediately identify weaknesses in the chain. Such a process requires considerable access to data, so- phisticated scheduling tools, staff expertise, and manage- ment oversight, but enables an optimization process that makes best use of limited resources, such as HC buses and operators, and results in higher efficiency and revenue-cost performance. Reducing Dwell Time The use of HC buses increases individual vehicle capacity, which can be used to increase overall route capacity, ex- pressed in passengers per hour. However, the increased number of passengers boarding and alighting will also increase dwell time at stops, which will increase overall running time, and therefore negates the route capacity in- crease provided by HC buses. Some agencies have there- fore sought to reduce dwell time to maximize the benefit derived from the deployment of HC buses. Survey respon- dents cited the following efforts to reduce boarding and alighting times: • Specify vehicles with three doors (e.g., Vancouver and Champaign–Urbana MTD) and/or extra-wide doors (44 in.) at Champaign–Urbana MTD. • Add and/or lengthen concrete pads at bus stops so that all doors can be used to exit. • Install variable message sign indicating departure time of next bus for BRT routes [e.g., Los Angeles Metro Rapid and York Region Transit Viva (Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada)] or on heavy demand routes (e.g., Champaign–Urbana MTD); this encourages passengers to prepare themselves in advance of bus arrival at stop. • Install better signage at stop to reduce questions to operator. • Specify rear-facing wheelchair position to significantly reduce time required by passenger in wheelchair to po- sition and secure themselves (e.g., Victoria and York Region Transit). • Move access of wheelchair to second (and wider) door [e.g., AC Transit (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California) and York Region Transit]. • Implement wheelchair strap program that enables wheelchair passengers to secure straps more quickly (e.g., AC Transit). • Include a second stairway for double-deck buses to speed up boarding and alighting (e.g., Las Vegas). • Address fare collection procedures. Fare Collection Issues Significant reduction in the dwell time of HC buses can be achieved through fare collection system initiatives. A first level of effort is to encourage a higher proportion of passen- gers to use pre-paid media. • Smart cards allow for more rapid boarding than cash fares or magnetic media: SouthWest Transit (Eden Prairie, Minnesota) found the use of smart cards helped to speed boarding on their 45-ft coaches. • Day passes sold by ticket vending machines at stops: Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission sells a 24-h pass for $5.00. • Existence of a university pass program that enables the operator to open all doors at university stops: I-Card used at Champaign–Urban a MTD. A second approach is to vary the fare control point based on passenger flows. • Outbound PM Express and Regional routes pay on exiting. • Inbound pay on boarding and outbound pay on exiting (e.g., King County Metro Transit); this is sometimes as- sociated with a downtown fare-free zone. The most efficient fare collection strategy reducing HC bus dwell time is the use of proof of payment (POP) control. In such systems, passengers are responsible for having or purchasing a valid fare title. Fare control is carried out on a random basis by roving fare inspectors. Although this has been in existence a long time on LRT, it has recently become increasingly popular in conjunction with the recent interest and deployment of BRT systems. Its advantage is that it al- lows operators of LRT or HC buses to open all doors, which minimizes alighting and boarding times. Two basic approaches have been identified through this research. The first approach is POP, with all-door access for pass customers only. This has been used by OC Transpo since its deployment of articulated buses on the transitway in 1983 (J. Koffman, OC Transpo, personal communication, Feb. 14, 2007). To achieve the maximum efficiency of the three-door articulated buses being used on routes with high levels of off- and-on movement, a POP approach to fare control was insti- tuted. Passengers with monthly or day passes can enter through any door; passengers with tickets or cash need to pass by the operator, deposit their payment into the farebox, and receive a transfer that serves as a POP receipt. It requires no platform fare vending equipment and works well in an environment where an extremely high proportion of passen- gers use passes. It is used by OC Transpo on all routes with articulated buses, but the operator has the discretion of whether to open the back doors.

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

55 HC Type Vehicle Design Issue Choices to be Made Articulated Passenger accommodations in articulated joint Placing seats in the joint will increase the number of seats in bus. Using hip rests in the joints will increase capacity of bus. Factors to consider— length of trip and mobility of passengers. Door number and side More and wider doors can facilitate shorter dwell times. Additional doors will reduce the number of seats. Choosing to have doors on both sides will reduce seats but enable use of center street stations. The ability to shorten dwell time will depend on the fare collection practice used. A proof of payment approach will allow the use of all doors for boarding/exiting and result in the shortest dwell times. Advanced features and styling Streamlined styling for BRT services. The bullet nose improves operator mirror vision by reducing blind spots. Increases the length of bus. Improves marketing image. Propulsion/fuel Geographic location may dictate low emissions alternative fuel. Alternative fuel increases vehicle curb weight and may limit capacity. Hybrid technology improves performance and fuel economy. Also, capital cost is increased. Double-Deck Propulsion Hybrid technology requires a 2 ft longer vehicle. Weight increases 650 lb. Loss of 3 seats and an increase of 5 standees. Addition of second stairway Improves passenger circulation between decks and shortens dwell time. Loss of 4 seats plus one flip- up seat in wheelchair position. All Strobes on sides Light-emitting diode strobe lights flash when turn signal is activated and warn motorist and pedestrians of intention of bus maneuver. TABLE 48 HC VEHICLE DESIGN ISSUES transit managers frequently ask. The information that was gathered during this study provides some insights with re- spect to current practices and has been used to develop a table of pros and cons that provides an overview of current choices and applications (Table 47). VEHICLE DESIGN ISSUES At the time of the preparation of this report (March 2007), transit agencies that wished to deploy HC buses faced a de- cision tree with three main branches: articulated bus, double- deck bus, or 45-ft intercity coach. Each of these branches has many sub-branches with respect to the specific design pa- rameters of the vehicle with respect to propulsion, fuel, doors, seating type and arrangements, passenger amenities (trays, vents, lights, electrical power, wireless access, etc.), climate control system, wheelchair accommodations and accommo- dations for other passengers with disabilities, and a multitude of other decisions. The previous section discussed the rationale for the selec- tion of HC buses based on service attributes, along with the advantages and disadvantages for each type. The information received from the transit agencies also helps to highlight vehicle design choices, and these are presented in Table 48.