National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains (2011)

Chapter: CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items

« Previous: CHAPTER SIX Bicycles
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER SEVEN Luggage, Carts, Parcels, and Other Large Items." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13634.
×
Page 59

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.

48 CHAPTER SEVEN LUGGAGE, CARTS, PARCELS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS LITERATURE REVIEW ON LUGGAGE, CARTS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS AND ACCOMMODATION POLICIES Although most transit agencies have policies on accommo- dating wheelchairs, and many have policies on accommo- dating strollers, polices on luggage, carts, and other large items are not as widespread. Existing policies range from simple and permissive to very detailed in their restrictions. Besides luggage and carts, some policies cover dogs and backpacks, as well as more unusual items such as skis and skateboards. Carts, Bags, and Backpacks Brandon Transit in Manitoba, Canada, is an example of an agency with very specific guidelines to deal with large items. Brandon Transit specifies the dimensions of grocery carts and strollers that can be boarded without folding and those items that must be folded while in the vehicle. Its brochure describes the dimensions for carts as follows: • Small/Compact Foldable Carts (Grocery/Laundry) will be permitted UNFOLDED within Transit Buses: 16 in. or less width x 14 in. or less front to back depth. • Large Foldable Carts (Grocery/Laundry) will be per- mitted FOLDED within Transit Buses: 16 in. or greater width x 12 in. or greater front to back depth. The brochure, included in Appendix D, further illustrates the priority area on different types of buses, and, after wheel- chairs, gives priority to seniors with carts/walking aids, and only then to parents with strollers (Brandon Transit 2006) (see Figure 40). Of those agencies that state policies about shopping carts, Valley Transit in Appleton, Wisconsin, has guidelines simi- lar to those of agencies with more general policies. Shop- ping/utility carts are allowed on the bus under the following conditions: • Items must not block the aisle. • Items must not restrict passenger movement. • All items must be controlled by passenger. • Passenger must be able to carry the items aboard in one trip. FIGURE 40 Portion of a post by blogger Alan Durning reviews the various shapes and sizes of modern-day “granny carts,” many of which people bring on transit vehicles (courtesy: Durning 2010). • Packages and/or bags must not occupy the bus seat if the bus is crowded. • Carry-on items are not allowed in the securement area (Valley Transit 2009). Valley Transit, however, does allow rollerblades, roller skates, and skateboards to be stowed in a bag or held on the passenger’s lap. These items are not allowed on the floor where they can roll around while the bus is in motion. Link Transit in Washington State is another agency with specific dimensions of items allowed. Riders may bring the equivalent in size to six plastic or two paper grocery bags or, one piece of luggage not exceeding 24 in. x 17 in. x 10 in. in size and 40 lb in weight in addition to a purse, computer, briefcase or small tote, or one pair of skis/snowboard/fishing

49 new express airport rail links. In these cases, large luggage and other items are stowed in a separate train car. In this 2002 report, airlines also provided remote check-in linked to express rail systems in Madrid and Kuala Lumpur. The report mentions Swiss National Railways as an example of an off-site check-in by a transit company: The largest network of baggage check-in services in operation currently is run by the Swiss National Railways, providing baggage processing from 116 separate railway stations, with full check-in (with boarding pass) at 60 rail stations in 2002. This is a service of the national railways, and no airline personnel are involved in accepting the baggage. The Swiss National Railway charges about U.S.$15.00 per bag checked for the service. It is reported that 270,000 travelers a year use this program. After September 11, 2001, off-site check-in in by air car- riers in the United States was discontinued as a security measure. When the report was issued in 2002, some airlines were attempting to seek amendments to security measures to reestablish the off-site check-in counters. However, to com- ply with regulations, the report notes it would be necessary to provide 100% positive baggage matching, and the opera- tor (or its designee) would need to install and supervise the operation of explosive detection systems equipment, which would be operated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. At the time of the report, certified explosive detection systems equipment cost more than $1 million per screening unit (Leigh Fisher Associates et al. 2002). Security does not appear to be a significant factor in agen- cies’ policies limiting luggage (or other parcels) on board vehicles. TCRP’s Transit Security Update discusses the application of random passenger security screenings but does not discuss where security issues have impacted which large items may be brought on transit. The report notes that in 2004, when Boston hosted the Democratic National Con- vention, MBTA in Boston was the first transit agency in the United States to implement passenger security inspections. According to the report, “the MBTA transit police initiated random passenger bag and luggage inspections,” which is now done on a “systemwide basis for all MBTA modes except paratransit to deter acts of terrorism and enhance passenger perception of security.” Random bag inspections are also carried out by NJ Transit, New York City MTA, WMATA, and other transit agencies (Nakanishi 2009). In Israel, often noted for its security procedures, the gov- ernment invested in “the protection of public transportation against suicide bombers” by purchasing special equipment to be used on potentially dangerous bus routes. The govern- ment’s strategy is to focus on a “combination of the close screening of entering passengers and perimeter security” at transit hubs. The government is using magnetometers, pack- age screening equipment, and barriers on vehicle doors on nearly 1,000 bus routes (State of Israel Ministry of Public Security 2010). poles (or like-sized recreational equipment). Operators may not provide assistance if the combined weight of carry-on items exceeds 25 lb. Riders boarding the vehicle with car- ry-on items exceeding the prescribed standards are required to pay twice the regular fare but cannot bring carry-ons that occupy more than one additional seat. However, riders are allowed to use a wheeled cart for transporting medical and mobility equipment at no extra charge. The policy also lists hazardous materials that may never be brought on the bus and requires articles with an offensive odor to be in a sealed container (Link Transit 2008). Sioux Area Metro in South Dakota allows only as many bags as the rider can carry on and off the bus in one trip with- out assistance. According to the policy, “a wheelchair rider is limited in the number of bags and other grocery items they can store on their chair. The bags need to be safely attached to their wheelchair and not interfere with the proper proce- dure for securing the wheelchair on the bus” (Sioux Area Metro 2008). Handi-Transit, paratransit operated by Winnipeg Transit, is more specific: Owing to space limitations, passengers are permitted only two small bags, which they must be able to carry on themselves and must hold on their laps during the ride. Passengers may be denied transportation if they have too many parcels. If the passenger brings more than the allow- able packages, the passenger is given the choice of boarding with only two bags and finding alternative transportation for the remaining packages, or declining the trip. Because backpacks and other bags attached to mobility devices can cause difficulties when securing the mobility device and during transport, if a backpack exceeds the standard length of the mobility device it is attached to, the backpack must be removed (Victoria Regional Transit Commission 2010). The Copenhagen, Denmark, transit system also addresses backpacks, which must be stored in the luggage area, along with luggage, skateboards, and roller skates. Luggage is allowed only at the driver’s discretion, when there is space and other passengers will not be bothered (Movia 2010). In Aarhus, Denmark, a passenger may pay a fare to transport luggage or other goods in a baby carriage (Midttrafik 2010). Luggage Most transit agencies’ vehicles serving local communities, unlike over-the-road coaches, have not been designed to carry bulky luggage. In attempting to address this problem, design or operational modifications are used. MTA in New York City unveiled a pilot program in 2009 to install luggage racks on 10 buses on the seven routes serving Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports (MTA 2009). In Strategies for Improv- ing Public Transportation Access to Large Airports, the authors report that at some international destinations (e.g., Hong Kong) remote check-in is being reintroduced as part of

50 Vehicle Designs for Large Items As transit agencies refurbish vehicles or design replacement vehicles, they exhibit an increasing awareness of the con- flicts between accommodating passengers and accommo- dating their possessions (see Figure 41). For example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will insert a new low-floor cen- ter section in its Super Light Rail Vehicles (SLRVs) to house luggage, wheelchairs, bicycles, and strollers. The platforms will be lowered for easier access and faster boarding by rid- ers with these wheeled objects (DART 2008). Toronto’s new Rocket subway cars will have two multipurpose areas for wheelchairs, strollers, bicycles, or large luggage items. An exterior blue light will show the best entrance doors to access these multipurpose areas (Kalinowski 2007). Golden Gate Transit District, which operates 45-foot commuter buses into San Francisco, has compartments under the bus for luggage (Golden Gate Transit 2010). Websites of bus and rail manu- facturers highlight features they have included to store large items, such as luggage and shopping bags. The literature search found mention in specific manufacturers’ marketing materials, including El Dorado National, North American Bus Industries, Van Hool, Volvo, and Bombardier. FIGURE 41 This STM (Montréal) bus with three large luggage racks is used on the route serving the airport (courtesy: Jean- Pierre Lajeunesse). Animals In addition to the typical items of carts and luggage dis- cussed, Scandinavian transit operators call out rules for han- dling animals on transit vehicles. West Zealand and South Zealand, Denmark, allow dogs to be taken in a small con- tainer on all buses. In the metropolitan area of Copenhagen, large dogs are allowed only on certain lines, subject to the driver’s assessment of whether there is room. They must be on a leash and are charged a child’s fare, but a passenger may take only one dog (Movia 2010). Furry animals must be taken to the back of the bus or tram in Norrkoping, Sweden, out of consideration for allergy sufferers. These animals are allowed only in specially marked areas of trains. A child’s fare is charged for animals that are not in a cage (Östgöta- trafiken 2010). Nevertheless, all U.S. and Scandinavian sys- tems reviewed for this literature search always allow service animals at no charge (Helsinki Region Transport 2010). SURVEY RESULTS Challenges and Concerns Figure 42 shows that many agencies (17 of 41, or 41%) deem luggage, carts, and parcels to be somewhat of an issue, and most agencies consider accommodating these items to be unimportant or not an issue. One agency determined these items to be of high importance because passengers over- looked its posted policies, and cited a few extreme cases of abuse of policy. Most respondents, however, did not com- ment on their choice. As with specific responses to strollers, all of the agen- cies that indicated they were very or somewhat concerned with luggage, grocery carts, or parcels cited blocking of aisles/egress as a major concern. Two issues (in frequency of response) echoed responses to questions about other large items on transit vehicles—that is, agencies are concerned with vehicle crowding (17 of 22 agencies, or 77%) and lim- ited vehicle capacity (15 of 22 agencies, or 68%). Figure 43 illustrates the issues of concern to the transit agencies. Only one small agency recognized as a concern having to pass up riders when luggage, carts, or parcels cannot fit in a vehicle. Additionally, one large agency noted its concern that “bag- gage can become a projectile.” FIGURE 42 Indicate whether bringing luggage, carts, and parcels on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/ challenge for your agency. Overview of Agency Policies Many passengers carry items with them onto transit vehi- cles. Depending on the destinations and services that a tran- sit line serves, passengers may bring luggage, small grocery carts, and parcels and packages onto rail vehicles and buses

51 Size Limits Fourteen of 24 respondents (58%) reported that their poli- cies limit the size or number of suitcases, grocery carts, or parcels on buses (Table 27). These policies range from general to very specific: some are akin to their stroller and bicycle policy in that they ask passengers to avoid “block- ing aisles/doors,” keep “a bag on lap or under seat only,” or restrict items to within “wheelchair bays.” Other poli- cies are more specific, whether in quantifiable restrictions or directions for passenger responsibility. Las Cruces RoadRUNNER has a very specific policy of equivalents for carry-on items: “eight plastic grocery bags, four paper bags,” and determines that “small carts are allowed, but do not change the total bag limit.” Some items, such as large backpacks, are measured as being equivalent to four paper bags. Las Cruces’ policy is described in more detail at the end of this chapter. TABLE 27 DOES THE POLICY LIMIT THE SIZE OR NUMBER OF SUITCASES, GROCERY CARTS, OR PARCELS? Yes 58% (14) No 42% (10) n = 24. Another small agency, Ottumwa Transit Authority, limits items “to the quantity and size that the passenger can man- age alone.” Honolulu’s TheBus notes that it “only allow[s] bags that fit on one’s lap or under the seat,” which “effec- tively prohibits luggage” from being brought on vehicles (see Figure 45). Almost none of the rail operators surveyed limit the size or number of items on their vehicles. Six of the 14 agencies that operate both bus and rail services report that their lug- gage, grocery cart, and parcel policy is the same for both modes. Capital Metro noted that in contrast to the policy for buses, “there are currently no restrictions for luggage or large items on rail.” SEPTA commented that its policy is (see Figure 44). Of the 40 respondents, 24 (60%) reported having a policy addressing luggage, grocery carts, and/or parcels on regular transit routes. Of these agencies, seven out of 23 (30%) did not know when that policy came to be established. However, among known policy information, the earliest establishment date was 1972. FIGURE 43 If you indicated that luggage, grocery carts and/or parcels are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency (mark all that apply)? FIGURE 44 Suitcase rests precariously inside a PAAC (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) bus that serves the airport (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Space for Luggage, Grocery Carts, and Parcels on Transit Vehicles Fourteen of 40 (35%) surveyed transit agencies reported that at least some of their vehicles have racks or storage areas for luggage, grocery carts, or parcels. A few of the agen- cies provided specific estimates of the number of vehicles that have such amenities. Amounts varied from 100% of the fleet (LeeTran), to 50% “under-floor storage” (NJ Transit), to “paratransit vans ONLY have grocery nets across the back” (Laketran). BART responded that “some cars have been modified through a grant project to have a larger seat- less area for bikes/strollers/luggage. This modification may eventually extend to the entire existing fleet, funding per- mitting.” SEPTA and Capital Metro noted that their airport services feature luggage racks.

52 generally the same on all modes; however, “commuter rail routes make connections with long-distance rail and inter- national flights” and thus, “conductors have discretion” to allow more items (see Figure 46). FIGURE 45 Child, led by a woman with a large backpack, squeezes by a grocery cart on a subway train (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). FIGURE 46 Passenger with a suitcase prepares to board a Capital Metro (Austin) bus (courtesy: Capital Metro). Vehicle Locations for Luggage, Carts, and Parcels Seventeen of 24 agencies (71%) have a policy that requires luggage, grocery carts, or parcels to be stored in a specific location on a vehicle, and all of these are agencies that oper- ate buses (Table 28). Four of the agencies that operate rail commented that parcels must be kept out of the aisle. A large agency that operates both buses and rail cars implores pas- sengers to make sure their items are placed “not to the exclu- sion of a fare-paying customer.” Eleven of the agencies’ policies require that passengers with items keep them close to their person, and specifically require keeping items out of the aisle. Two agencies note that luggage, grocery carts, or parcels can be kept “on lap or under seat.” Metro Transit in Madison posted its “Passenger Rule #9,” “Do not block the aisle or restrict passenger movement with large articles, packages, baggage, non-collapsible strollers, and baby buggies.” TABLE 28 DOES THE POLICY REQUIRE THAT SUITCASES, GROCERY CARTS, OR PARCELS BE STORED IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION ON VEHICLES? Yes 71% (17) No 29% (7) n = 24. Only three of 24 respondents (13%) specifically limit lug- gage, grocery carts, or parcels on a bus when wheelchairs are secured in the vehicle. Similarly, only one agency limits the number of passengers with luggage, grocery carts, or par- cels allowed on a vehicle at one time. This agency explained that a passenger with luggage or carts that would block the aisles or doors, given general or wheelchair capacity limits, would not be permitted onto the vehicle. Limitations by Time of Day or Route Type Only two agencies have policies regarding luggage, grocery carts, or parcels on vehicles during certain hours. MAX “rec- ommends” that passengers with these items “don’t ride dur- ing peak PM travel times (2:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.).” Montreal’s STM similarly restricts these items during “peak hours.” A large proportion of responding agencies (21 of 24, or 88%) have a policy that is applicable to all routes and all vehicle types, although some offer caveats that the policy may be applied differently depending on size and capacity of vehicles. One agency noted that if the vehicle is full, pas- sengers are requested to “keep large items on your lap.” Only two agencies noted that certain routes have different luggage and parcel restrictions from most of the others. One

53 agency’s “tourism/commuter routes allow for more bag- gage/skis,” and another notes that vehicles with “under-floor storage can accommodate more.” NJ Transit’s routes with a designated luggage rack allow passengers to bring larger items on their vehicles that serve airports. Driver Assistance Figure 47 shows that many agencies have policies in place enabling driver flexibility in assisting passengers with lug- gage. The only agency that requires its drivers to provide assistance is NJ Transit. Miami–Dade commented that the “operator has flexibility to provide any requested assistance if he/she deems it safe and not against policy.” Of the 11 agen- cies enabling drivers to provide assistance when requested, eight (73%) allow drivers to extend the ramp or use the bus lift, eight (73%) allow drivers to get out of their seat and help carry luggage and other items on or off the bus, and six (55%) allow drivers to get out of their seat and provide assis- tance with storing luggage on the bus (Figure 48). FIGURE 47 Luggage, grocery carts, and parcels: Which of the following is true about bus drivers (n = 23)? FIGURE 48 Luggage, grocery carts, and parcels: Which of the following types of assistance may operators provide (buses) (n = 12)? Luggage, Grocery Carts, and Parcels Policy Effectiveness Figure 49 shows 11 of 18 agencies (61%) rated their lug- gage, grocery cart, and parcel policy as “effective” or “very effective” (4 or 5). The one agency that gave itself a low score noted that its “drivers are inconsistent with enforce- ment.” One agency provided an explanation of its moderate score—an apparent disconnect between policy and practice: “The service provide[s] transport to grocery stores and other major retailer[s] but the service does not allow bulk items on board.” Another acknowledged the difficulties surrounding luggage restrictions in large urban systems: the policy “gen- erally works well although luggage is sometimes a problem at peak hours. However, implementing restrictions would be very, very difficult and also counterproductive in a system which serves two airports.” FIGURE 49 How effective do you think the agency’s policy regarding luggage, grocery carts, and parcels is (n =18)? Only one agency out of 40 respondents reported that it had considered amending its luggage, grocery cart, and par- cel policy. It offered a thorough explanation of the process: it attempted to “limit the number of bags on paratransit vehi- cles; [the] problem is some grocery bags are so flimsy, it’s hard to limit them—you penalize the rider when the grocery only puts one or two things in the bags—and it costs the agency more to transport a person twice.” ONE AGENCY’S EXPERIENCE: ROADRUNNER TRANSIT, LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO—A DIFFERENT WAY TO DEFINE LARGE ITEMS Many of the agencies surveyed have limits on the number of items that may be brought on board trains and buses, but one agency described a policy that quantifies and compares allowable items, defining them in terms of paper grocery bags, of which passengers are allowed to carry four on regu- lar buses or paratransit vehicles. Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit implemented the policy systemwide based on the policy it originally developed for its paratransit vehicles. According to the transit administrator (M. Bartholomew, Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, Apr. 12, 2010), before 2005 RoadRUNNER Transit “never had any specific state- ments with regard to what was allowed on buses” and now that it does, the “policy works pretty well.” Bartholomew said, “Originally, it was unlimited with regard to what peo- ple could bring on buses. We had people bringing 25 bags of groceries, 60-lb bags of dog food, lawnmowers—all kinds of things.” Because of concerns about safety and delays, as well as passenger expectations for driver assistance, RoadRUN- NER Transit did an initial survey to see what other agencies were doing, and discovered “most of them required that you keep your belongings on your lap or on your seat.” The agency first implemented its policy on paratransit, because most of the problems it faced with regard to large num- bers of items were on its paratransit service. The problem was not as widespread on the fixed route buses, though the transit

54 administrator admits that “on the fixed routes people brought lots of groceries, and they would tip over and roll into the aisle.” The city’s ADA coordinator then advised the transit operation that the same policies that apply to users of the paratransit sys- tem might apply to the general public on the fixed routes. As a result, the transit system worked with its Transit Advisory Board and recommended a detailed set of policy guidelines in 2005, which the city adopted. The RoadRUNNER Tran- sit Bag Limit Policy essentially measures the volume of items that people may bring aboard the system’s buses. Riders are limited to eight plastic grocery bags or four paper bags. Four paper bags are equivalent to two suitcases, two duffel bags, or one large backpack. Other items are measured in terms of how they compare to the size of a standard paper grocery bag. The RoadRUNNER Transit Bag Limit Policy is as follows: 1. Transit customers will be limited to four paper gro- cery bags or two plastic grocery bags substituted for every paper bag (up to eight plastic grocery bags). 2. Single pre-bagged items that are designed to be carried separately will be the equivalent of one paper grocery bag. (Examples of such pre-bagged items include bulk items such as food, pet food, and lawn care items.) 3. A daypack, briefcase, or package no larger than a gro- cery sack will be the equivalent of one paper grocery sack [see Figure 50]. 4. Single portable containers such as packages exceed- ing the size of a paper grocery bag, suitcases, duffel bags, and hiking backpacks and pet carriers will be the equivalent of two paper grocery bags (a maxi- mum of two items). 5. A single standard purse or handbag is not considered a “bag” under this policy. 6. Passengers or their aides are responsible for handling their own carry-on items. If a passenger is unable to carry these items, it is recommended that the pas- senger travel with an aide. Dial-a-Ride only: If the passenger requests, Dial-a-Ride drivers will assist in loading and unloading packages between the bus and the curb only. For the safety of our drivers, they will not be required to lift any item over 20 pounds. 7. No carry-on item can create a health or safety risk for other riders. 8. Carry-on items cannot be placed in the aisles of the vehicles. 9. No carry-on item can take up seating space if needed by another passenger for seating. 10. No carry-on item can interfere with the safe operation of a transit vehicle (RoadRUNNER Transit Advisory Board 2005). FIGURE 50 A passenger with a daypack boards a RoadRUNNER bus. For carry-on purposes, a daypack is equivalent to one paper grocery bag (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). The transit administrator said that the system has received few complaints, mostly from fixed route riders. The agency had wanted to be “stricter and limit items to laps or under seats initially.” He said drivers enforce the policy uniformly and that disagreements or problems with the policy are “few and far between.” Although drivers may assist passengers with their belongings on paratransit, fixed route drivers are instructed not to provide assistance with groceries, carts, and parcels. Small grocery carts are allowed but do not change the total bag limit, and they must be kept out of the aisle. GENERAL LARGE ITEMS AND TRANSPORT AIDS (STROLLERS, BICYCLES, LUGGAGE, ETC.) ON PARATRANSIT General Policies/Expectations Agencies that operate paratransit were surveyed about all of their policies regarding the accommodation of large items, including bicycles and strollers. Two small agencies noted that their policies for large items and transport aids on para- transit vehicles are identical to those for fixed route buses; and one noted that it does not have a “written policy for para- transit vehicles.” Others, however, have specific regulations and limitations for their paratransit services. Although the survey did not pose questions about specific paratransit vehi- cles or equipment, it is important to note that agency policies may be different owing to the size and capacity of paratransit vehicles (e.g., vans vs. small buses).

55 Several agencies’ policies delineate the roles of passengers and paratransit drivers, and generally these policies place the responsibility on passengers. One small agency, Pullman Transit, noted that it “do[es] not allow items that require the driver to load or unload, like TVs, [furniture], large boxes, or anything [weighing] over 20 lbs.” Another small agency, MAX, has a policy that specifies “all items must be capable of being carried and handled by the passenger.” Additionally, “passengers with items that require multiple entering/exiting of [the] bus to load are considered excessive and not allowed.” This is the same policy that BART’s paratransit provider, East Bay Paratransit, which also provides paratransit services for Oakland-based AC Transit, uses: “The driver and the rider need to be able to off load the stuff in one trip.” LeeTran’s policy is that the “driver cannot assist with per- sonal items,” although Capital Metro notes “the customer must be able to maintain control of [their] items during transport and carry items to the door.” Many agencies expect a paratransit passenger to have a personal care assistant or attendant if the passenger needs assistance with carrying items on or off a vehicle. Restrictions on Large Items Figure 51 illustrates that most agencies have no policies in place that prohibit large items from being brought on board paratransit vehicles, with the exception of bicycles. Sixteen of the 24 respondents to this question (67%) indicated that bicycles are prohibited inside paratransit vehicles, a similar share to those that do not allow bicycles aboard regular fixed transit buses (66%, n = 38). Seven of the 24 (29%) responded that all items—including bicycles, strollers, and luggage and grocery carts—are allowed inside paratransit vehicles. FIGURE 51 Does the agency have a policy in place that restricts or prohibits any of the following from being brought inside paratransit vehicles (n = 24)? The size of portable items to be brought aboard para- transit vehicles is an issue. A medium-sized agency noted that “personal shopping carts are fine, but not a grocery cart.” LeeTran’s policy for paratransit limits “personal items to four parcels” and specifies that the “driver cannot assist with personal items.” SEPTA’s paratransit policy is that “parcels are limited to two, weighing no more than 50 lbs. each.” SEPTA also has specifications for strollers on paratransit: “Wheelchair strollers are permitted,” but “reg- ular strollers are not permitted, as a car seat is required.” Although all but one of the other 24 agencies allow stroll- ers, many of the other agencies also define wheelchair strollers as equivalent to a wheelchair or mobility device that can be secured and therefore may be brought aboard paratransit vehicles. OTHER LARGE ITEMS In addition to policies regarding luggage, grocery carts, and parcels, agencies were asked if they had concerns regarding passengers bringing other large items (e.g., backpacks, skis, surfboards, pet carriers) on transit (Figure 52). FIGURE 52 Indicate whether bringing other large items on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/challenge for your agency. Only one agency said other large items are very much of concern, but it offered no explanation of its choice. Most agencies noted that other large items are unimportant or not an issue for them. Some agencies located in coastal locations and winter recreation areas noted that surf- boards, boogie boards, and skis are accommodated in spe- cific ways. The specific issue surrounding accommodation of special large items that garnered the highest number of responses for agencies that considered the issue somewhat or very much a concern was that of concern for the safety of other passen- gers (100%) (see Figure 53). Previously common concerns of blocking of aisles/egress and crowding followed, with both at nine of 12 agencies (75%). Most responses to this question came from small and large agencies; no agencies were concerned that a vehicle must pass up a rider if their other large items could not fit in the vehicle.

56 FIGURE 53 If you indicated that other large items are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency? Agency Policies Regarding Other Large Items The survey asked whether transit agencies have policies governing bringing other large items on transit vehicles, such as recreational equipment (e.g., skis and surfboards), pet carriers, or backpacks. Fourteen of 38 agencies (37%) have policies of varying degrees with regard to any one of several of these miscel- laneous large items (Table 29). Some agencies noted that their large item policies were very broad, ranging from sim- ply using the term “large items only” in the agency’s overall policy (Brandon) to prohibiting “any item that is dangerous” (Lee County). A few respondents spoke to safety, both storage on the vehicle (unwieldiness) and potential for harm, as being a major consideration in their general “large item” policy (see Figure 54). LeeTran listed specific safety hazards: “Large objects that cannot be safely stowed, explosive devices, car rims, tires, [or] any item that is dangerous.” UTA added other items to the prohibited list: “No car batteries, no gas powered motors, no gasoline containers, no bags of dripping recycle products (aluminum cans).” MARTA summarized the gen- eral concern: “Our policy speaks to oversized items carried by patrons…that can pose a risk of injury to themselves and others, and create a hazard or potential obstruction and risk of injury posed by such items.” MARTA added that it “prohibits non-luggage oversized items” on its system. TABLE 29 DOES YOUR AGENCY HAVE ANY POLICIES IN PLACE REGARDING BRINGING ANY OTHER LARGE ITEMS ABOARD TRANSIT VEHICLES? Yes 37% (14) No 63% (24) n = 38. FIGURE 54 Although some agencies have policies that may seem unnecessary regarding bringing large items on transit, agencies report that passengers transport many things they would not have expected, such as this lawnmower photographed on BART (courtesy: Patrick Tufts http://www. flickr.com/photos/zippy/17426020/). Some agencies in coastal areas (NCTD and SCAT) have policies that appropriately address recreational items. SCAT’s policy prohibits “full size surfboards.” NCTD’s pol- icy “allows skis, surfboards, [and] pet carriers,” but speci- fies that the recreational items are “allowed if standing and under 6 feet in length.” Likewise, Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD), serving ski resorts in Vermont, has policies in place that cover skis and snowboards. UTA operates vehicles that include ski storage areas, such as the one shown in Figure 55. Several agencies responded that their large item policy covers pet carriers. A few agencies noted that although there are no specific policies, pets are allowed at all times in carri- ers. Most of these agencies do not have any specific restric- tions on the size of pet carriers. Only NJ Transit commented that it requires that “pet carriers must be on the lap of the customer.” Generally, most agencies that have policies in place concerning various large items require that they be stowed out of the way of others, placing the responsibility on the passenger. One medium-sized agency (MAX) specifically noted, however, that its drivers “consider the safety of all items being brought on the bus,” in addition to requiring that items be “secured in some fashion or held/under the con- trol of the passenger.” Items that are widely considered to be dangerous (explosives) or too large to properly stow either on a passenger’s lap, under seats, or on racks are generally prohibited from surveyed agencies’ vehicles.

57 FIGURE 55 Racks on a UTA (Utah) bus are designed to hold skis and snowboards (courtesy: UTA). ONE AGENCY’S EXPERIENCE: MARBLE VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT, RUTLAND, VERMONT— ACCOMMODATING SKIS AND SNOWBOARDS, SUITCASES AND PETS MVRTD has been providing public transportation ser- vices in the Rutland, Vermont, area since 1976, when it operated as a private nonprofit transportation provider. In 1982, it became the first regional transit district in Vermont. MVRTD currently provides public transit services to all of Rutland County, except for the town of Pittsfield. MVRTD also operates commuter services that extend into adjacent counties, including Addison, Bennington, and Windsor. MVRTD operates three seasonal services designed to serve the Killington ski area. These include commuter service between Rutland and the ski area; daytime shuttles between the ski area base lodge and resort facilities; and night services that link hotels and ski resorts. The buses that serve the ski areas are equipped with ski racks on the exterior—and have been for nearly 15 years—but accord- ing to the agency’s community outreach manager, “skis have changed shape and snowboards weren’t very popular 15 years ago” (Coyle 4/9/2010). Although most of the skis transported by riders used to easily fit into the spaces on the ski racks, today’s skis are longer, wider, or curved, and can- not be carried on the exterior of the bus. Although the agency has continued to replace vehicles and exterior ski racks, the new racks still cannot accommodate the new skis. The agency has adapted to modern skiing and snowboard- ing by allowing passengers whose skis cannot be placed on the racks to bring them inside the vehicle. No interior racks are available, so according to MVRTD staff, skis are typi- cally kept with passengers at their seat, on their lap, or on the floor. Snowboards, which can be especially large, are typi- cally carried by riders to the right rear wheelchair entrance on the bus, where, as long as a wheelchair is not secured, extra space exists for passengers to stow their snowboards. According to staff, the same bus trips are also usually filled with backpacks, and about 50% of the passengers transport a ski bag—a large fabric bag with a strap inside of which skis, poles, and boots are stored. The community outreach manager said that sometimes space on the routes gets tight, but “because most people are on vacation, they’re tolerant” of the crowded environment inside the bus. She added that some people even wear their ski boots directly on the bus, and that the agency has no pro- hibitions against bringing any of these various snow gear- related items on the vehicles. Also noted is that overcrowding occurs typically at the end of a ski day, and the agency has up to three buses leaving within 15 min of one another to accommodate large numbers of people transporting their gear. The agency’s procedure is for drivers to assess the available space and notify people who are unable to board that another bus will arrive shortly. The driver then notifies the other drivers by radio about how many people are waiting with their gear for the next pickup. The agency’s policies are different on the routes that serve the ski areas than they are on the city routes, because rarely are skis carried on the city routes, or grocery carts brought on the buses that serve the ski area. According to staff, “several riders have fold-up wire carts and they bring them on the buses. If the buses don’t have someone in a wheelchair or mobility cart on board, riders store their carts in the lift area and [parents] tie strollers in the wheelchair securement area. Drivers sometimes use the lift for the stroller.” Drivers will assist with grocery bags and suitcases. The agency’s official policy on city routes is to allow only one suitcase or one grocery cart per rider. The policy was developed in response to the high volume of riders who began making connections between the bus and Amtrak service, which was reinstated in Rutland in 1995. One of the challenges for riders on MVRTD is that some of its policies differ from the policies of neighboring agen- cies to which it makes connections. For example, MVRTD allows pets in carriers, while neighboring ACTR in Addi- son County, a service that provides connections to MVRTD, allows dogs not to be caged. According to MVRTD’s com- munity outreach manager, over time riders become accus- tomed to the different policies, and “if someone is making a connection, then they may need to learn to bring a pet carrier with them.”

Next: CHAPTER EIGHT Vehicle Design »
Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 88: Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains documents the state of the practice of transit agencies managing capacity on vehicles carrying customers with large items. The synthesis also includes a discussion of vehicle designs to accommodate these various large items.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!