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.

INVENTORY OF TRANSIT AGENCIES USING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES The APTA 2006 Vehicle Database (13) and CUTA’s Canadian Transit Fact Book: 2005 Operating Data (14) were researched to identify and inventory transit agencies with HC buses. This analysis revealed that 68 North Amer- ican (approximately 19% of the transit agencies that are members of APTA and/or CUTA and operate five or more HC motorbuses) have HC buses in their fleets. Sixteen of the transit agencies use two types of HC buses in their fleets. No North American transit agency operates three types of HC buses. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the number of transit agencies with HC buses in their fleets by type of HC bus and in parentheses the total number of HC buses. Table 2 shows the number of transit agencies using HC buses in North America by size of the active fleet and by type of HC bus. For transit agencies using HC buses in the United States, the average HC bus percentage of active fleets was approxi- mately 16%; for Canadian fleets using HC buses the HC bus percentage was approximately 14%. The percentage ranged widely for all sizes of active fleets. For the 16 small agencies (1 to 100 buses) the HC bus percentage ranged from 8% to 100%, with an average of 38%. For the 24 medium-size agencies (101 to 500 buses) the HC bus percentage ranged from 1% to 47%, and the average was 13%. The 19 large agencies (500 or more buses) also exhibited a wide range, 3% to 45% HC buses, with the average HC percentage approxi- mately 15%. SURVEY RESPONSES The transit agency questionnaire was sent to 59 U.S. and 9 Canadian agencies; 16 small, 27 medium, and 25 large (15,16). The breakdown of these 68 transit agencies by active fleet size and HC bus types is presented in Tables 1 and 2. These transit agencies have sub-fleets of five or more HC buses in their active motorbus fleets, with the size classifica- tion based on their active motorbus fleets. Agencies with 100 or fewer buses are labeled small, agencies with 101 to 500 buses are medium, and agencies with more than 500 buses are large. Sixteen U.S. transit agencies use two different types of HC buses. The transit agency questionnaire is pro- vided in Appendix A. 8 Thirty-two responses were received from these transit agencies, representing a response rate of 47%. The distribu- tion of responses by HC bus type is provided in Table 3. The remaining sections of this chapter report on the sur- vey’s findings from a variety of perspectives, including: • Type of services using HC buses, • Reasons for implementing HC buses, • Deployment dates of HC buses, • Different wage rates, • Legislative and regulatory impediments, • Facilities or infrastructure modifications, • Local service restrictions, • Actions taken to reduce dwell time, • Scheduling procedures for HC buses, • Approaches to mixed-fleet operations, • Experience with HC buses, • Ridership impacts of HC buses, • Agency-reported customer acceptance of HC buses, • Agency-reported operator acceptance, • Issues and concerns with use of HC buses, • Vehicle features and amenities (including accommo- dating bicycles), • Passengers using wheelchairs: equipment and experi- ence, • Operating experiences with HC buses, • Spare ratios for HC buses, and • Future plans for HC buses. TYPES OF SERVICE USING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Survey respondents were asked to indicate the types of ser- vice in which HC buses were used. In most cases, respon- dents reported multiple applications for the HC buses. The results are presented in Table 4. All transit agencies reporting the use of HC buses for BRT service used articulated buses, except two that used 45-ft buses. The entire bus fleet of GO Transit (Ontario) consists of intercity coaches (both 40-ft and 45-ft models). They use 85 of their 45-ft coaches on their BRT Highway 407/403 ser- vice. The city of Phoenix uses its 45-ft CompoBuses on BRT service routes. The seven other transit agencies use articu- lated buses for their BRT service. CHAPTER TWO USE OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES (SURVEY RESULTS)

9No. of Transit Agencies with HC Buses* (no. of HC buses operated) Country Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft Articulated and 45-ft Articulated and Double- Deck Double- Deck and 45-ft Totals United States 25 (1,802) 0 18 (273) 14 (3,321) 1 (156) 1 (22) 59 (5,574) Canada 7 (463) 1 (38) 1 (167) 0 0 0 9 (668) Totals 32 (2,265) 1 (38) 19 (440) 14 (3,321) 1 (156) 1 (22) 68 (6,242) Source: References 13 and 14. *Only includes transit agencies with more than five HC buses in their fleet. No. of Transit Agencies*a (no. of HC buses) by Size of Active Fleets Type of HC Bus 1–100 101–500 501+ Totals Articulated 3 (24) 22 (807) 22 (3,133) 47 (3,964) Double-Deck 1 (3) 1 (50) 1 (38) 3 (91) 45-ft 13 (236) 11 (337) 10 (1,614) 34 (2,187) Total No. of Transit Agencies (including mu ltiple HC fleets ) 17 34 33 84(a) Total No. of HC Buses (263) (1,194) (4,785) (6,242) Source: References 13 and 14. *Only includes transit agencies with more than five HC buses in their fleet. aSixteen transit agencies use two types of HC buses. TABLE 1 NUMBER OF NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT AGENCIES USING HC BUSES TABLE 2 NUMBER OF TRANSIT AGENCIES BY SIZE OF ACTIVE FLEET USING HC BUSES Size of Active Fleet Type of HC Bus Large Medium Small HC Fleet Totals Articulated Fleets 12 9 3 24 Double-Deck Fleets 1 1 1 3 45-ft Fleets 5 5 4 14 41a No. of Agencies by Size 13 12 7 32 Source: Transit agency survey responses. aNine of the respondents were using two types of HC buses. TABLE 3 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY SIZE OF ACTIVE FLEET AND HC BUS TYPE

10 Percentage of Respondents Citing a Specific Application (for all, and for individual types of HC buses)* Types of Service Where HC Buses Are Used All Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft Trunk Service Routes—All Day 56% 83% 67% 7% Trunk Service Routes—Only in Peak Service 24% 38% 7% Bus Rapid Transit Routes 22% 29% 14% Express/Long Distance Co mmu ter Routes 56% 38% 67% 86% Special Services (e.g., sports event specials) 27% 33% 21% Other (e.g., special Saturday-only service, supplem ental services, em ergency service when the rail service goes down) 10% 17% No. of Higher Capacity Bus Fleets 41 24 3 14 Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Respondents could cite more than one application/use for HC buses; therefore, the totals do not add up to 100%. Table reports the percentage of all respondents in each category that cited a given type of use. This provides a relative weighting of each category of use, first for all HC buses as a whole, then broken down according to each type of HC bus operated by respondents. Reasons for Implementing HC Buses Frequency of “Most Im portant” Ranking* (% of respondents who provided ranking) No. of Respondents Citing “Important” for Each Reason (% of all survey respondents ) Provide Increased Seating Capacity 15 (60%) 30 (94%) Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 2 (8%) 23 (72%) Increase Bus Operator Productivity 2 (8%) 22 (69%) Bus Rapid Transit Service 1 (4%) 9 (28%) Marketing Image 0 19 (59%) Passenger Co mf ort 3 (12%) 19 (59%) Other (e.g., build ridership along future rail corridor, reduce downtown bus congestion, serve ma jor em ployer destination) 2 (8%) 3 (9%) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings. TABLE 4 USES OF HC BUSES—PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY CATEGORY OF USE TABLE 5 PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES FOR ALL RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Survey respondents were asked the primary reasons HC buses were used and the results are given in Table 5. The fol- lowing three tables provide the specific responses by type of HC fleet: articulated buses (Table 6), double-deck fleets (Table 7), and 45-ft fleets (Table 8). The most frequently cited reason for deploying HC buses (94%) was to increase seating capacity, often to alleviate excessive standing on spe- cific routes. This is particularly true for the articulated and double-deck fleets. Marketing image and passenger comfort were cited more often as the primary reason for implementa- tion of the 45-ft fleets. The distinctions reflected in some of the comments be- tween “increasing seat capacity,” “increasing bus operator productivity,” and “reducing peak vehicle requirements” are subtle and reflect more a distinction in emphasis than funda- mental differences in the reasons driving the deployment of HC buses. For example, one respondent mentioned that the goal was to “address overloads on the system’s busiest route, while not increasing peak vehicle requirement or operator needs.” Another respondent commented “Reduced vehicles also reduces operator needs.” A few respondents were more focused on the savings in labor than the increase in seat ca- pacity per se. Although the survey wording referred to “increased seat capacity,” for some systems with high-demand routes in downtown or campus areas, respondents mentioned that in- creased “total” capacity was the driving motivation. Other specific operational objectives were also men- tioned, including: • Reducing downtown street congestion caused by large numbers of buses, and • Building ridership along a future rail corridor. With respect to this last point, one respondent provided the following comment: Both articulated and 45-ft intercity coaches have been a vital part of our fleet. Their use will likely be reduced somewhat in the next 10 years as selected major bus corridors are converted to light rail or commuter rail.

11 Reasons for Im plem enting Articulated Buses Frequency of “Most Im portant” Ranking* (% of respondents who provided ranking) (% of all respondents with articulated buses) Provide Increased Seating Capacity 13 (69%) 23 (96%) Increase Bus Operator Productivity 2 (11%) 17 (71%) Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 1 (5%) 18 (75%) Bus Rapid Transit Service 1 (5%) 8 (33%) Marketing Image 1 (5%) 13 (54%) Passenger Comfort 1 (5%) 14 (58%) Other 0 2 (8%) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings. No. of Respondents Citing “Important” TABLE 6 SURVEY RESPONDENTS’ PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING ARTICULATED BUSES Reasons for Implementing Double- Deck Buses Frequency of “Most Im portant” Ranking* (% of respondents who provided ranking) Citing “Important” No. of Respondents (% of all respondents with double-deck buses) Provide Increased Seating Capacity 1 (50%) 3 (100%) Increase Bus Operator Productivity 0 2 (67%) Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 1 (50%) 2 (67%) Bus Rapid Transit Service 0 1 (33%) Marketing Image 0 2 (67%) Passenger Co mf ort 0 1 (33%) Other 0 0 Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings. TABLE 7 SURVEY RESPONDENTS’ PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING HIGHER CAPACITY DOUBLE-DECK BUSES Reasons for Im plem enting 45-ft Buses Frequency of “Most Im portant” Ranking* (% of respondents who provided ranking) (% of all respondents with 45-ft buses) Provide Increased Seating Capacity 6 (55%) 12 (86%) Increase Bus Operator Productivity 0 8 (57%) Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 0 8 (57%) Bus Rapid Transit Service 0 1 (7%) Marketing Image 0 10 (71%) Passenger Co mf ort 3 (27%) 9 (64%) Other: 2 (18%) 2 (14%) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings. Citing “Important” No. of Respondents TABLE 8 SURVEY RESPONDENTS’ PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 45-FT BUSES

12 Legislative/Regulatory Impediment Action Taken Axle Load Nevada revised statue to increase axle load for public transportation vehicles Articulated Bus Length Utah DOT issues an exemption certificate each year to allow 60-ft articulated buses to operate on Utah’s highways Bike Racks on 45-ft Coaches California revised statute to allow bike racks on coaches Double-Deck Bus Height The double-deck buses are over-height and must carry an over-height permit issued by the Province of British Columbia Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 9 REPORTED LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS TO USE HC BUSES Finally, several respondents focused primarily on the marketing image provided by the HC vehicles, typically for BRT applications or 45-ft coaches, or the enhanced customer comfort. Comments included: • Improves image and makes program more visible; • Avoids passenger perception of standard bus service; • Encourages “choice” riders to use the transit option; and • Makes bus equivalent to car: reclining seats, provide live satellite feed. DEPLOYMENT DATES OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES As discussed in the section on the historical evolution of HC buses in chapter one, articulated buses have operated in North America for nearly three decades. Among the respondents to the survey operating articulated buses, five (21%) were members of the original Seattle/Caltrans pur- chase consortium in the late 1970s, and 50% of the re- spondents deployed their articulated buses more than two decades ago. Twenty-nine percent of respondents have deployed articulated buses in the last 10 years; of these, just under half acquired articulated buses for use in a BRT operation. The situation is quite different with respect to the de- ployment of 45-ft buses. As previously mentioned, in 1991, ISTEA introduced the concept of National Network (NN) highways, and defined vehicle width and length standards 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 intercity coach mod- els were developed and marketed, and transit systems started taking advantage of this opportunity to deploy 45-ft coaches on long-distance commuter express services, typi- cally along Interstate highways or expressways, to serve suburban park-and-ride terminals. Among survey respon- dents, the earliest deployment of 45-ft coaches was in 1994, but it appears to have taken a few years for these vehicles to become more commonplace: 78% of the reported deploy- ments of 45-ft coaches and buses have occurred since the year 2000. DIFFERENT WAGE RATES The vast majority of transit agencies, 31 of 32 (97%) do not pay operators of HC buses a different wage rate. The only ex- ception is the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, which pays the operators of the MAX (BRT articulated) and The Deuce (double-deck) buses $1 per hour more than their other bus operators. It should also be noted that in the past King County Metro Transit had a wage differential; however, it has since been negotiated out of the labor agreement. 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). Only four transit agencies reported any legislative or regula- tory impediments to the use of their HC buses, and these impediments and the actions taken are listed in Table 9. FACILITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS The survey sought to assess the capital cost of modifications to facilities or infrastructure necessitated by the deployment of HC buses. Respondents reported that the facilities and/or infrastructure modifications ranged from modest amounts to $1,600,000. Only 4 of the 29 respondents reported expendi- tures between $900,000 and $1,600,000. Table 10 provides a breakdown of the types of modifications that were made. In most situations, required capital modifications appear to be very modest. However, it should be noted that in some cases, planning for HC buses was carried out well in advance and modifications to maintenance facilities were incorporated into the planning and design of new facilities. In addition, many articulated bus fleets were deployed many years ago, and the costs of modifications are a distant memory. In terms of specific modifications required by the type of HC bus, those agencies using double-deck bus fleets cited modifications required as a result of the height of the vehicle. Items mentioned included the removal or modification of

13 Percentage of Respondents Citing a Specific Type of Infrastructure Modification (for all, and for individual types of HC buses)* Types ofFacilities/Infrastructure Modifications All Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft Maintenance Shops 72% 79% 33% 50% Bus Stop 50% 62% 0 21% Terminals/Loops 34% 46% 0 0 Wash Facilities 22% 21% 33% 14% On-Street Parking 19% 25% 0 0 Fueling Facilities 19% 21% 0 14% Roadway 6% 4% 33% 0 Other 3% 14% 33% 0 No. of HC Type Fleets 32 24 3 14 Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Respondents could cite more than one type of facility/infrastructure modification that was implemented when HC buses were deployed; therefore, the totals do not add up to 100%. Table reports the percentage of all respondents in each category that cited a given type of modification that was carried out. This provides a relative weighting for each type of modification, first for all HC buses as a whole, and then broken down according to each type of HC bus operated by respondents. TABLE 10 FACILITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTED overhead obstructions along a route, such as low tree limbs or overhead cables; modification to door openings; fuel is- land modifications; brush wash upgrades; purchase of portable lifts; and the purchase of movable stairs with a work platform to access the roof of the buses, which are approxi- mately 14 ft above ground level. One respondent indicated that modification costs were as follows: • Modification to door openings to 14 ft 8 in.—$162,000. • Fuel island modifications—$10,000 (included in the previous expenditure). • Paint booth modifications—$68,000. • Brush wash upgrades—$308,286. • Portable lifts—$198,000. Those agencies using articulated buses cited modifica- tions that were related to the longer length of the vehicle. Modifications reported for bus stops included bus bays lengthened, street furniture moved to accommodate the three doors, the installation of new bus stop pads (59 ft in length) to accommodate all doors, and the addition of curb space for bus layovers. As would be expected, the lengthening of a bus stop may result in the removal of some on-street parking. The terminal and loops modifications reported were also related to the ve- hicles’ increased length, and included the lengthening of bus bays, the increase in length of layover positions, and modi- fied loading gates. Almost 70% of the respondents using articulated buses reported some modifications to their maintenance facilities, including the lengthening bays and inspection pits, installa- tion of three-axle lift sets and in-ground three-post lifts (some adjustable in spacing), and modifications to the exhaust vent system to accommodate the 60-ft three-axle vehicles. Agencies cited the need to revise their yard-parking con- figuration or to increase their storage areas to accommodate their articulated buses. The modifications to the wash facili- ties included the programming of the bus wash cycle for a longer travel path and increasing the length of the steam cleaning bay. The reported modifications to the fueling facil- ities included the re-alignment of fueling hoses, addition of extra fueling hoses, and changes to vacuum hoses to accom- modate the articulated buses. Agencies using 45-ft buses reported fewer modifica- tions to facilities or infrastructure, primarily the addition of wheelchair-boarding pads at bus stops. LOCAL SERVICE RESTRICTIONS Nine of the transit agencies reported service restrictions for their HC buses. Table 11 summarizes the reported restric- tions. Restrictions included limits on bus speed and allowance of standees. Some double-deck buses were not used in high winds. ACTIONS TAKEN TO REDUCE DWELL TIME All things being equal, the introduction of HC buses will in- crease dwell time at bus stops because of the greater number of passengers alighting and boarding. The increased dwell time is further exacerbated if all boarding passengers have to enter through the front door for purposes of fare control by the operator. Some transit agencies have therefore taken ac- tions to reduce dwell time at stops for their HC buses. A sum- mary of the categories of actions taken is given in Table 12. Table 13 lists the specific actions taken by category.

14 Percentage of Respondents Citing a Specific Type of Action to Reduce Dwell Time (for all, and for individual types of HC buses)* Actions Taken to Reduce Dwell Ti me s at Stops All Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft Fare Collection Procedures 38% 33% 33% 21% Wheelchair Acco mm odations 28% 29% 33% 7% Bus Stop Design/Signage 19% 17% 33% 7% Changes to Policies/Procedures 3% 4% 0 0 Other 9% 4% 67% 0 Total No. Types of Action Taken 32 24 3 14 Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Respondents could cite more than one type of action taken to reduce dwell time at stops; therefore, totals do not add up to 100%. Table reports the percentage of all respondents in each category that cited a given type of dwell-time reduction action. Some respondents use two types of HC buses. This provides a relative weighting for each type of action, first for all HC buses as a whole, and then broken down according to each type of HC bus operated by respondents. TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF THE TYPES OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE DWELL TIME Type of Action Actions Taken Bus Stop Design/Signage Used three doors Inform ation tubes were installed on the Las Vegas Strip Better signage for custom er inform ation Larger stop platform area Variable message sign at stop indicating departure time of next bus, which encourages passengers to prepare and line up for approaching bus Fare Collection Procedures Encourage use of pre-paid fare me dia Outbound PM Express and regional routes pay on exiting Inbound pay on boarding—Outbound pay upon exiting (all routes) Introduction of “proof of paym ent” to encourage all door boarding Ticket vending m achines at stops to sell tickets and day passes Off-board fare collection—boarding through all doors Introduction of sm art card system that helped to speed boarding All cam pus routes are “open” (university pass program )) Wheelchair Acco mm odations Low-floor buses to facilitate easier and faster boarding Wheelchair strap program that secures straps faster Bus stop m odification to accom m odate articulated door spacing New articulated bus board wheelchairs via ram p in second door Operator training Changes to Policies/Procedures Honor system for proof of payment. Security personnel conduct random checks to validate fares. Violation fee increased steadily, now at $150 Canadian. Other On double-deck buses a second stairway will be added to speed up boarding and alighting. Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 13 ACTIONS TAKEN BY CATEGORY TO IMPROVE DWELL TIME Type of HC Bus Local Service Restriction Articulated Passenger loads restricted to 150% seated capacity Speed limited to 55 mph and interlining with other routes was eliminated Used only on routes where bus stops and roadway could acco mm odate Double-Deck No standees allowed on upper deck Certain routes are restricted because of vertical clearance issues Do not use during high winds 45-ft No standees allowed on coaches on roadways (some transit agencies reported allowing standees on their coaches) Operator training for 45-ft coaches, in particular for use of tag wheels during winter operations 45-ft coaches not used on routes that regularly carry persons in wheelchairs Not allowed on trunk or local lines. 45-ft buses are allowed on supplem ental services Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF LOCAL SERVICE RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF HC BUSES REPORTED

15 Operation Scheduling Practices for HC Buses Mixed Only change was that on som e routes the number of buses was lowered when substituting with an articulated bus for a 40-ft bus. Som e additional recovery time for a double-deck bus is provided that will be changed as needed after data are receive d from the first year of live operations. Many individual express trips and school trips are targeted during the planning stage to have an artic assignm ent. In ma ny cases, three standard bus-type trips are collapsed into two artic-type trips. Each of these trips is assigned an artic bus type in the schedule database and the interline scheduling program module is used to connect as ma ny of these trips together to form vehicle blocks. Goal is to ma xi mi ze the use of articulated buses on as ma ny high-volum e trips as possible. Las Vegas Strip schedule was changed to a frequency-based headway service. Two supervisors coordinate the buses on the Las Vegas Strip. Constrained Interlining occurs only with articulated bus routes and trips. Running time is adjusted, if required. Highest patronage trips are assigned to an HC bus. Interlining with other routes was restricted owing to bus length as com pared with bus stop lengths on other routes. Certain routes cannot acco mm odate articulated buses, so the scheduling param eters were adjusted to prohibit so me interlining. Changes were made to interlining to ensure two bus types were not put on same route. Restricted Procedures were changed so that certain types of service could not have an HC bus assigned, thereby lim iting interlining opportunities. Artic buses could not be interlined with other buses. 45-ft coaches are dedicated to co mmu ter express service only. Source: Transit agency survey responses. Artic bus = articulated bus. TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF SCHEDULING PRACTICES FOR HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES For those agencies operating a mix of HC and standard buses on individual routes, two-thirds try to design the sched- ule of HC buses based on some assessment of demand by trip, whereas one-third do not take any special actions with respect to scheduling HC buses. One respondent mentioned that it had tried in the past to adjust headways on specific routes where a mix of HC and standard buses was being operated to reflect the ca- pacity of the bus scheduled for the trip, but abandoned this approach. EXPERIENCE WITH HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Overwhelmingly (94%), transit agencies reported that their HC buses met their expectations. The two transit agencies that believed expectations were not met cited vehicle deficiencies as the cause of their dissatisfaction. The specific vehicle deficiencies reported by the two re- spondents were: • Boarding on 45-ft coaches is extremely slow, and • The specific articulated buses purchased were equipped with under-performing engines. Table 15 summarizes experiences with the use of the var- ious types of HC buses from the perspectives of the cus- tomers, the operators, and the agencies. Experience with HC buses is by and large positive from all perspectives. SCHEDULING PROCEDURES FOR HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Forty-seven percent of the transit agencies reported some scheduling procedure changes for their HC buses. One tran- sit agency reported that it did no interlining; therefore, there were no scheduling changes. A summary of comments on scheduling changes and constraints is cited in Table 14. APPROACHES TO MIXED-FLEET OPERATIONS Twenty-three percent of respondents dedicate their HC buses to specific routes, at least during peaks and base service, whereas 76% of the transit agencies reported that they have mixed operations with their HC and 40-ft fleets. However, some of the latter respondents indicated that a route is basi- cally dedicated to HC buses; however, capacity is supple- mented by 40-ft buses in the peaks. One respondent indicated that it would like to dedicate 45-ft buses to the specific ex- press commuter routes, but lack a sufficient fleet to do so and therefore mix HC 45-ft and 40-ft coaches. Two systems used their HC buses for a BRT or a limited stop service in a corri- dor, while running parallel local service in the same corridor using standard buses. One respondent noted that the running time had to be increased for the corridor’s articulated bus be- cause of its slower acceleration. One system used the HC buses for a complete route, while using standard buses for a short-turn variation of the same route.

16 Transit Agency Experience Agency-Reported Customer Experience Agency-Reported Operator Experience Type of HC Bus (number) Very good Acceptable Poor Very good Acceptable Poor Very good Acceptable Poor Articulated (24) 59% 30% 11% 84% 12% 4% 64% 32% 4% Double-Deck (3) 67% 33% 100% 67% 33% 45-ft (14) 71% 29% 100% 79% 21% Alla 64% 30% 7% 90% 7% 2% 69% 29% 2% Source: Transit agency survey responses. aPercentage does not always add to 100 because of rounding. TABLE 15 SUMMARY OF THE REPORTED EXPERIENCE WITH THE USE OF HC BUSES Have Observed Measurably Increased Ridership Types of HC Vehicles (no. of fleets) Yes No Unknown Articulated (24) 8 (33%) 10 (42%) 6 (25%) Double-Deck (3) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 45-ft (14) 6 (43%) 6 (43%) 2 (14%) All Three (32) 13 (41%) 12 (38%) 7 (22%) Source: Transit agency survey responses. Note: The summation by types of HC bus does not equal the “All” number because there are fleets with more than one type of HC vehicle in use. TABLE 16 AGENCY-REPORTED RIDERSHIP IMPACTS BY INTRODUCTION OF HIGHER CAPACITY VEHICLES RIDERSHIP IMPACTS OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES The survey asked what had been the impact on ridership from the use of HC buses. The survey responses do not provide a clear answer, as is shown in Table 16. Several of those reporting an increase in ridership with the introduction of HC buses provided their insight as to why. The reported reasons were: • Demand constrained by seat capacity; • Provides a quality image and a comfortable ride; and • When passengers feel better about public transit, their word of mouth comments raise awareness and ridership. For respondents who indicated that the introduction of HC buses resulted in ridership increases, the typical situation ap- peared to be a capacity-constrained latent demand, fre- quently on commuter express services to park-and-ride lots. In such cases, the additional seats obtained by deploying double-deck buses or 45-ft coaches are immediately filled, resulting in ridership increases. This appears to be less apparent with respondents with articulated bus fleets. There may be several explanations. First, as discussed previously, the majority of respondents with articulated buses introduced these vehicles many years ago and any ridership increases that may have resulted directly from their deployment would no longer be apparent. Second, the main benefit from articulated buses, from a customer’s point of view, is the reduction of overloads and pass-ups that occur on specific trips. This is a benefit to ex- isting riders, but does not create “new” riders per se; it may, however, encourage retention of existing riders over time, but this is difficult to perceive or measure. Several respondents had difficulty distinguishing the ridership effects of the vehicles. One typical response was, “Ridership has increased, but we cannot attribute that to introducing coach-type buses per se.” This is equally true with new BRT systems; they introduce an integrated pack- age of service enhancements, and although most report siz- able increases in corridor ridership, it is extremely difficult to isolate the impact of any single factor, such as the use of enhanced HC buses. AGENCY-REPORTED CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Survey respondents were asked to assess customer accep- tance with respect to HC buses. Table 16 indicates that the transit agency respondents perceive that customers’ accep- tance of HC bus service is very high. The respondents were also asked to identify the features that customers most like and dislike. Table 17 provides a summary of these cited features. With respect to articulated buses, customers like the re- duction of crowding that accompanies the deployment of articulated buses. The design of the interior of the articula- tion is one of the unique issues: some systems include seats and others hip-rests. Some customers do not like the seats in the articulation because of the turning movement and the difficulty of seeing outside. Double-deck bus customers greatly appreciate the better view available from the upper deck and these seats fill quickly on long-distance runs, although some customers do not like negotiating the stair- well. With respect to 45-ft coaches, these vehicles typically include enhanced customer amenities and provide a more comfortable ride; these features are believed to be highly appreciated by customers, resulting in a high level of agency-reported customer acceptance. A few respondents commented, however, that some customers dislike the steep stairs and narrow aisles.

17 Type of HC Bus Most Liked Most Disliked Articulated More seats—less standing Less overcrowding More space Ability to carry mo re passengers, no one left at the stop Novelty of articulated joint Sm ooth ride Comfortable interior Bounce and m ovem ent of rear seats at highway speeds Low-floor bus ride not as sm ooth Seats in articulated joint Road dust entering passenger com partm ent Longer wait tim es a As a HC commu ter bus b Double-Deck Comfort and quiet of upper deck View from the upper deck Having to negotiate tight stairwell 45-ft Ride quality Comfort of bus for long distance trips Quality of passenger co mp artm ent Am enities Im age Narrow aisle ways Steeper stairwell Longer boarding tim e Longer boarding time can in turn have a possible repercussion on the dwell tim e of other buses sharing the bus stop Source: Transit agency survey responses. aWhen bus is substituted for 40-ft buses. bWhen equipped with transit seating and no amenities. TABLE 17 AGENCY-REPORTED CUSTOMER MOST LIKED AND MOST DISLIKED FEATURES OF HIGHER CAPACITY SERVICE AGENCY-REPORTED OPERATOR ACCEPTANCE Similar to the previously discussed customer acceptance, survey respondents reported that operators generally like HC buses. This is believed to be especially true for operators of double-deck and 45-ft buses; as one respondent with both double-deck and 45-ft buses mentioned, operators appreciate the recognition that accompanies being the operator of a very recognizable vehicle. In Victoria, senior operators primarily choose the runs with the double-deck buses and so it is very difficult for junior operators to sign up for these runs. Several respondents indicated that operators appreciate the 45-ft coaches for various reasons, including the smooth ride and operation on highways; effective heating, ventila- tion, and air conditioning system; better line of sight from the high driver platform; dependability, etc. Some respondents mentioned that operators appreciate the tight turning radius of articulated buses. In terms of features disliked by operators, the most fre- quently mentioned issue for operators of articulated buses con- cerned poor acceleration, which is the main factor explaining the difference between customer and operator acceptance (see Table 15). In addition, a few respondents mentioned that operators were sometimes concerned with operating articu- lated buses in snow. Two features were disliked by operators of 45-ft coaches. The first concerned the difficulty and time involved in board- ing and securing customers using wheelchairs. As explained by one respondent: [T]he wheelchair lift requires two bench seats to be moved forward for each wheelchair: bus can accommodate up to 2 wheelchairs. The seats are difficult to slide due to their limited use. The operator has to exit the bus and operate the lift from outside the bus and away from the driver console; he/she may have to stand in poor weather and does not have access to the radio or other fixed device communications on the bus. Several respondents mentioned the time involved for this procedure. The second feature about 45-ft coaches that was disliked by operators concerns its large turning radius that results from its long wheelbase; one comment was that “the swinging tag axle leads to more corner damage.” ISSUES OR CONCERNS RAISED WITH USE OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Transit agencies were asked to identify any major issues or concerns that were raised by their use of HC buses. They were also asked to rank these issues and concerns. Table 18 provides a summary of the major issues and concerns that were reported. The transit agencies were asked to indicate the type of HC bus and to rank the major issue/concern, with “1” indicating the most important. The following tables identify the major issues/concerns reported by survey respondents by type of HC bus: articu- lated buses (Table 19), double-deck buses (Table 20), and 45-ft buses (Table 21). When reviewing these tables, the one common major issue or concern for all HC buses mentioned by several respondents is the capital cost of the vehicles. In terms of issues that are specific to types of HC buses, the articulated buses stimulated various comments. Some respon- dents expressed concern about the capital cost of retrofitting facilities, although several admitted that new garage facilities had been planned with articulated buses in mind and, there- fore, did not create any costs for retrofitting. In addition, a few respondents expressed considerable concern over the mainte- nance and/or operating costs for articulated buses, ranking

18 Frequency of “Importance” Ranking* (% of all respondents with HC Buses) Major Issues and Concerns Raised Ranked “1” or “2” Any Ranking Capital Cost of Vehicles 10 (32%) 15 (48%) Facility Retrofit Costs 6 (19%) 7 (23%) Operating Costs (labor, fuel) 4 (13%) 9 (29%) Maintenance Costs 4 (13%) 12 (39%) Dwell Ti me/F are Collection 2 (6%) 6 (19%) Acco mm odation of Wheelchairs 2 (6%) 4 (13%) Acco mm odation of Bicycles 1 (3%) 2 (6%) Safety and Security 0 2 (6%) Vehicle Reliability 1 (3%) 8 (26%) Winter Operations 2 (6%) 10 (32%) Operating Constraints 0 3 (10%) Other (e.g., tail swing when exiting stop) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *The numbers in parentheses are the number of ranking citations as a percentage of all respondents with HC buses; they do not add up to 100%. TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED BY USE OF HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Frequency of “Im portance” Ranking* (% of all respondents with articulated buses) Major Issue/Concern Raised Ranked “1” or “2” Any Ranking Capital Cost of Vehicles 5 (22%) 10 (43%) Facility Retrofit Costs 5 (22%) 6 (26%) Operating Costs (labor, fuel) 4 (17%) 9 (39%) Maintenance Costs 6 (26%) 12 (52%) Dwell Time/Fare Collection 0 2 (9%) Acco mm odation of Wheelchairs 0 0 Acco mm odation of Bicycles 0 1 (4%) Safety and Security 0 1 (4%) Vehicle Reliability 3 (13%) 8 (35%) Winter Operations 1 (4%) 8 (35%) Operating Constraints 0 3 (13%) Other (e.g., tail swing when exiting stop) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) No. of Articulated Bus Fleets (23) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *The numbers in parentheses are the number of ranking citations as a percentage of all respondents with articulated buses; they do not add up to 100%. TABLE 19 MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS RANKED 1 OR 2 FOR ARTICULATED BUSES this either first or second, and more than 50% had some level of concern with respect to maintenance costs. It is difficult to determine to what extent this is related to individual bus model design, or inherent to the concept of articulated buses. In addition, a few respondents also mentioned being concerned about the operation of articulated buses in snow conditions, and the risk of jackknifing. VEHICLE FEATURES AND AMENITIES The responses to the questions concerning vehicle features and amenities (e.g., accommodating bicycles) are summa- rized in Table 22. The five transit agencies that reported hav- ing enhanced passenger amenities on their articulated buses (e.g., enhanced seats, reading lights, and storage areas) were using those buses in either BRT or commuter and express services. Of the 16 transit agencies that reported having security features on their HC buses all had recording security cam- eras. In addition, one had a silent alarm and two cited the use of a vehicle location system as security equipment. The double-deck buses have a TV monitor that allows the opera- tor to monitor passenger activity upstairs.

19 Frequency of “Importance” Ranking* (% of all respondents with Double-Deck Buses) Major Issue/Concern Raised Ranked “1” or “2” Any Ranking Capital Cost of Vehicles 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Facility Retrofit Costs 0 0 Operating Costs (labor, fuel) 0 0 Maintenance Costs 0 0 Dwell Ti me/F are Collection 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Acco mm odation of Wheelchairs 0 0 Acco mm odation of Bicycles 0 0 Safety and Security 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Vehicle Reliability 0 0 Winter Operations 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Operating Constraints 0 0 Other (tail swing when exiting stop) 0 0 No. of Double-Deck Bus Fleets (3) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *The numbers in parentheses are the number of ranking citations as a percentage of all respondents with double-deck buses; they do not add up to 100%. TABLE 20 MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS RANKED 1 OR 2 FOR DOUBLE-DECK BUSES Frequency of “Importance” Ranking* (% of all respondents with 45-ft Buses) Major Issue/Concern Raised Ranked “1” or “2” Any Ranking Capital Cost of Vehicles 4 (29%) 4 (29%) Facility Retrofit Costs 1 (7%) 1 (7%) Operating Costs (labor, fuel) 0 0 Maintenance Costs 0 0 Dwell Ti me/F are Collection 1 (7%) 3 (21%) Acco mm odation of Wheelchairs 2 (14%) 4 (29%) Acco mm odation of Bicycles 1 (7%) 1 (7%) Safety and Security 0 0 Vehicle Reliability 0 0 Winter Operations 0 1 (7%) Operating Constraints 0 0 Other (tail swing when exiting stop) 0 0 No. of 45-ft Bus Fleets (14) Source: Transit agency survey responses. *The numbers in parentheses are the number of ranking citations as a percentage of all respondents with 45-ft buses; they do not add up to 100%. TABLE 21 MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS RANKED 1 OR 2 FOR 45-FT BUSES Percentage of Respondents Citing a Specific Type of Vehicle Feature or Am enity (for all, and for individual types of HC buses)* Vehicle Feature or Amenity All 45-ft Security Features 44% 43% Enhanced Passenger Am enities 54% 100% Transported Bicycles 80% 71% No. of Survey Responses 41 Articulated 50% 21% 88% 24 Double-Deck 67% 100% 67% 3 14 Source: Transit agency survey responses. *Respondents could cite more than one type of vehicle feature; therefore, totals do not add up to 100%. Table reports the percentage of all respondents in each category that cited a given type of vehicle feature. This provides a relative weighting for each type of feature, first for all HC buses as a whole, and then broken down according to each type of HC bus operated by respondents. TABLE 22 HIGHER CAPACITY VEHICLE FEATURES AND AMENITIES

20 HC Bus Type Means of Acco mm odations Articulated 19 respondents used a front bike rack that would acco mm odate two bicycles Two BRT system s provide racks inside the vehicle for bicycles One respondent is going to front bike racks that would acco mm odate three bicycles Double-Deck Two respondents use a front bike rack that will acco mm odate two bicycles 45-ft Intercity Coach Three respondents transport bicycles in the under floor storage bays. Two indicated that a ma xi mu m of two bicycles could be acco mm odated One respondent used a front bike rack that would acco mm odate two bicycles Five respondents did not indicate how bicycles were acco mm odated, but reported that they were 45-ft Transit Bus One respondent used a front bike rack that would acco mm odate two bicycles Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 23 ACCOMMODATION OF BICYCLES ON HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES (by HC bus type) Wheelchair Passenger Experience Type of HC Bus Better Same Poorer No. of Fleets Articulated 18 (95%) 1 (5%) 19 Double-Deck 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 45-ft 6 (43%)a 8 (57%) 14 Source: Transit agency survey responses. aTwo fleets only have 40-ft intercity coaches for comparison, and the other four fleets have high floor 40-ft buses for comparison. TABLE 24 REPORTED EXPERIENCE WITH TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS IN WHEELCHAIRS A large majority of respondents provided means for trans- porting bicycles for their riders. A breakdown of how respon- dents transported bicycles by HC bus type is given in Table 23. WHEELCHAIR EQUIPMENT AND PASSENGER EXPERIENCE The equipment for boarding passengers using wheelchairs for articulated and double-deck buses was for the most part located in the first door, which is typical for most standard buses in the North America. The exceptions for the articu- lated fleets were for some BRT vehicles and for the articu- lated buses designed and manufactured in Europe. For the double-deck fleets, one had ramps in both first and second doors, one had only the first door, and one had only the sec- ond door. Five respondents (15%) (four in Canada and AC Transit in the United States) used the rear-facing compart- ment design with padded backrest for accommodating wheelchairs. Of these five systems, three used a combination of one forward plus one rear-facing position, whereas two Canadian systems used two rear-facing positions. The 45-ft fleets using the intercity coaches all had a sec- ond access door, used only for wheelchair boarding with a lift. The fleet using the 45-ft composite transit bus had the ramp in the second door with three forward-facing positions. In terms of experience with respect to the transporting of passengers using wheelchairs, the survey responses indi- cated a dichotomy of experiences with HC buses. The artic- ulated fleets overwhelmingly reported that the experience was the same as with standard 40-ft buses (95%), with only one respondent reporting an inferior experience. One re- spondent indicated that its articulated buses were well used and very crowded, and a possible difficulty of passengers using wheelchairs reaching the wheelchair positions. The double-deck bus fleets reported that experience was either the same or better. However, the response from respondents with 45-ft bus fleets was significantly different: more than half (57%) re- ported that the experience of transporting passengers with wheelchairs was poorer than on 40-ft buses. In further analy- sis of the responses, this experience was found to be related more to the use of the lifts versus ramps than to HC bus types. The vast majority of the 45-ft buses used were high-deck in- tercity coaches, and all of those reporting a “poorer” experi- ence were comparing it with their experience with low-floor 40-ft buses. The 45-ft fleets that reported the same experi- ence were comparing with their high-floor 40-ft transit buses or intercity coaches. Table 24 provides a breakdown of the experiences with transporting passengers in wheelchairs. An examination of the following comments of the 45-ft fleets sheds some additional insight on the issue. • Location of lift mid-bus versus at entrance well, seating loss of eight positions as seats needed to be slid in tracks and folded before boarding, instead of quick flip-up seats, lift versus ramp on low floors, full boarding requiring 8 min more that standard stairwell lift and 12 min more than low-floor ramp. • Longer boarding time required for a wheelchair on 45-ft bus. • Takes two to three times as long to board as a standard 40-ft bus. • Intercity wheelchair lift is very slow, with a long load- ing time. • Poorer with wheelchairs, requiring moving seats and 5 min to deploy lifts. • Longer time to load as a result of having to move the ambulatory seats out of the way. The dissatisfaction stems from the longer time it takes to board and secure a passenger using a wheelchair. The longer time is inherent to the elevation of the vehicle from the ground causing a greater amount of vertical travel; the prepa- ration of a wheelchair position also takes more effort and time. There may also be additional issue time required when two wheelchair users are on the bus, depending on their re- spective exit stop. It may be necessary to offload the first

21 Operating Experience Compared with Standard 40-ft Bus Performance Measure Better Same Poorer Unknown Accelerationa 2 (8%) 10 (42%) 12 (50%) 0 Grade Climbinga 2 (8%) 9 (38%) 13 (54%) 0 Road Clearance 1 (4%) 20 (87%) 2 (9%) 0 Turning Maneuverability 12 (52%) 8 (35%) 3 (13%) 0 Fuel Economy 0 4 (17%) 19 (83%) 0 Range 1 (4%) 13 (56%) 6 (26%) 3 (13%) Reliability 1 (4%) 11 (48%) 10 (43%) 1 (5%) Availability 0 11 (48%) 10 (43%) 2 (9%) Road Calls 1 (4%) 11 (48%) 11 (48%) 0 Other Source: Transit agency survey responses. aOne transit agency had multiple fleets of articulated buses and reported different acceleration and grade climbing experiences with their different sub-fleets. TABLE 25 VEHICLE OPERATING EXPERIENCES REPORTED FOR ARTICULATED BUSES Operating Experience Compared with Standard 40-ft Bus Performance Measure Better Same Poorer Unknown Acceleration 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Grade Climbing 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Road Clearance 3 (100%) Turning Maneuverability 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Fuel Economy 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Range 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Reliability 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Availability 1 (33%) 2 (67%) Road Calls 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) Other Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 26 VEHICLE OPERATING EXPERIENCES REPORTED FOR DOUBLE-DECK BUSES wheelchair passenger, before boarding the second one, and then re-board the first one. The repercussion of 45-ft bus dwell time on other buses sharing the same bus bay or curbside stop is all the more sig- nificant if a wheelchair user needs to board or exit the bus at the shared stop. OPERATING EXPERIENCES WITH HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES Respondents were asked to compare the performance of their HC vehicles with that of their standard 40-ft buses for several performance measures. The transit agency responses to the survey questions for each of the three types of HC vehicles are presented in Tables 25–27. The operation and maintenance of articulated buses was an area where a number of respondents reported poorer per- formance in comparison with standard buses. Approximately one-half of the transit agencies reported poorer acceleration (50%) and grade climbing (54%) capability with their artic- ulated buses compared with their 40-ft buses. A little more than one-half (52%) of the transit agencies reported better maneuverability, and a large majority (83%) reported poorer fuel economy with their articulated fleets. Most transit agen- cies (87%) reported the same experience with road clearance with their articulated fleets. The reported experiences with reliability, availability, and road calls were evenly divided between “the same” and “poorer.” However, these responses need to be put in perspective. Some respondents reported that fleet age and manufacturer re- sulted in the differences in rating these performance measures. One maintenance manager observed that in comparison with standard 40-ft buses, “articulated buses had one or two more doors, one additional axle, two more brakes, four more tires, and an articulated joint; one would expect the maintenance to be proportionally higher.” The same manager suggested that operating costs such as fuel and maintenance costs should be measured on a passenger capacity basis (e.g., number of seats). SPARE RATIOS FOR HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES All except two of the respondents provided information on the spare ratios for their HC fleets. The agencies were asked to compare the spare ratio for their HC buses with that of their 40-ft buses. Table 28 provides a summary of the responses. Although there are a few exceptions and despite some of the maintenance problems mentioned by respondents with their

22 Operating Experience Compared with Standard 40-ft Bus Performance Measure Better Same Poorer Unknown Acceleration 6 (46%) 7 (54%) Grade Climbing 7 (54%) 5 (38%) 1 (7%) Road Clearance 3 (23%) 7 (54%) 3 (23%) Turning Maneuverability 2 (15%) 3 (23%) 8 (62%) Fuel Economy 4 (31%) 6 (46%) 2 (15%) 1 (7%) Range 7 (54%) 4 (31%) 2 (15%) Reliability 6 (46%) 4 (31%) 1 (7%) 2 (15%) Availability 6 (46%) 6 (46%) 1 (7%) Road Calls 8 (62%) 3 (23%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) Other Source: Transit agency survey responses. Based on 13 fleets, because one transit agency did not have standard 40-ft buses for comparison. TABLE 27 VEHICLE OPERATING EXPERIENCES REPORTED FOR 45-FT BUSES Spare Ratio Type of HC Bus Higher Sam e Lower Articulated 19% 54% 27% Double-Deck 67% 33% 45-ft 8% 50% 42% Source: Transit agency survey responses. TABLE 28 SPARE RATIOS FOR HIGHER CAPACITY BUS FLEETS Have Plans Type of HC Vehicle Expansion/Deployment Yes No Unknown Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft More of the Same Type of HC Bus 19 7 5 10 a 2 8 Plans to Add a New Type of HC Bus 11 14 6 6 a 3 1 Source: Transit agency survey responses. aOne transit agency has plans for using articulated trolleybuses. TABLE 29 PLANS FOR FUTURE HIGHER CAPACITY OPERATIONS articulated buses, there has not been a widespread need to have a larger spare ratio than the norm. The six agencies reporting a higher spare ratio for their HC buses provided the following reasons: • Three were for BRT applications and a small number of vehicles in the fleet, and • Three were for reliability and maintenance needs of their particular HC sub-fleet. The agencies reporting a lower spare ratio for their double-deck and 45-ft buses also reported better mainte- nance and reliability experiences with their HC buses. Those agencies reporting a lower spare ratio for their ar- ticulated fleets generally report the same maintenance and reliability experiences with their articulated fleets. One agency indicated that the spare ratio depended on the par- ticular sub-fleet. FUTURE PLANS FOR HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES The transit agencies provided some insight into their plans for future operations with HC buses, which are summarized in Table 29. Overall, it is clear that respondents valued the contribution of HC buses: 61% planned to expand their existing HC fleets with more of the same type of vehicle, and 35% had plans to deploy a new type of HC bus to their over- all fleet.