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.

This synthesis explored the use of higher capacity (HC) buses in the transit industry. For the purposes of this study, HC buses included articulated, double-deck, 45-ft coaches, and buses that have a significant increase in passenger capacity compared with the conventional 40-ft bus. The study involved several tasks, in- cluding a survey of transit agencies in North America using HC buses; a survey of bus manufacturers; reviews of documents and websites; follow-up communications with transit man- agers, staff, and experts; and three case studies. Conclusions drawn from the research are briefly outlined here. • Approximately 19% of the transit agencies that are members of APTA and the Canadian Urban Transit As- sociation and operate five or more motorbuses have HC buses in their fleets. • HC buses represent on average 18% of the fleet of those agencies that operate HC buses. • The significance of HC buses, as a percentage of the fleet, does not show any particular pattern according to agency size. HC buses represent on average 20% of the fleet for the largest transit agencies, those with more than 1,000 buses; 11% to 13% for transit agencies with fleets between 101 and 1,000 buses; and an average of 38% for the smallest transit agencies with fleets of fewer than 100 buses. The high percentage for small transit agencies is partially explained by a number of small commuter operations with fleets composed en- tirely of 45-ft intercity coaches. • As of March 2007, there were only eight bus manufac- turers identified as potential HC bus suppliers to the North American market. Some of the eight manufactur- ers offer different types of HC buses; three offer articu- lated buses, one offers double-deck buses, and five offer 45-ft buses. Of the eight North American HC bus man- ufacturers, three meet the testing requirements of both the Altoona Bus Testing Center and Buy America that are needed for transit agencies planning to use U.S. fed- eral capital grants to purchase HC buses. • The most predominant rationale (94% of respondents) for purchasing HC buses (all types) was to provide in- creased seating capacity. Other important rationales were to reduce peak vehicle requirements (72%) or to increase bus operator productivity (69%). All HC bus types were similar in the ranking of purchasing reasons; however, marketing image was frequently cited as an important reason for 45-ft coach and double-deck buses (71% and 67%, respectively). 56 • Various other reasons were also cited for deploying HC buses including to address overload situations, reduce downtown street congestion caused by large numbers of buses, and to build ridership along a future rail corri- dor. In the case of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or major new service initiatives for which the vehicle becomes an integral component of the product line, HC buses may serve to improve the image and recognition of the service. • HC buses are used in a variety of applications; however, certain patterns are apparent depending on the type of HC bus being considered. – Articulated buses are predominantly deployed in all- day heavy-demand trunk (or BRT) services, but are also used to a lesser extent in various other types of services, including peak-only service on trunk routes, commuter express services to park-and-ride lots, trip- pers that experience overloads, replacement service for rail shut-downs, and high-demand special events. Articulated buses were the most frequent HC type used for BRT. – Double-deck buses are being used not only in long- distance commuter express services, but also on heavy- demand trunk routes (e.g., Las Vegas and Victoria). – Forty-five foot intercity coaches are the most focused in their application because they are overwhelmingly used in long-distance express commuter services. However, one respondent uses its 45-ft coaches for transportation service to the airport from park & ride lots and terminals for both airport employees and passengers. The storage bays provide ample and easy transport of luggage. The agency also extended one route to a ski lodge during the winter season using its 45-ft coaches with storage bays for transport of sports equipment and luggage. • The history of HC bus deployment varies considerably by type of HC bus: – Of the respondents with articulated buses, 50% deployed them more than two decades ago. – Forty-five-foot coaches were made legal in 1991, but did not really become deployed in transit until after 2000 (78% of respondents). – Double-deck buses have been deployed only in the last decade. • Overwhelmingly (94%), respondents reported that their HC buses met their expectations. Dissatisfaction with the slowness of wheelchair boarding and an under- CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS

57 performing engine were given as the reasons for the HC vehicles not meeting original expectations. • Overall experience with HC buses has generally been positive, with some variation by type of vehicle. Agency-reported customer and operator acceptance of HC buses is high. The articulated fleets received slightly lower ratings than those for the double-deck and 45-ft fleets. • The most common area of concern for all transit sys- tems with HC buses was the capital cost of the vehicle. It ranked as the most, or second most, significant con- cern by approximately one-third of survey respondents; there was no other single issue that was significant across all HC buses. • However, when comparisons of capital costs are made on a per-seat basis, all types of HC buses are much more attractive and some are even less expensive than their 40-ft equivalents (standard floor articulated, hybrid articulated, and double-deck diesel buses). • Because of their length, height, or door locations, HC buses may require modifications to infrastructure or maintenance facilities. However, the cost of modifica- tions was not identified by respondents as a significant area of concern and appeared relatively modest in com- parison with the capital cost of the vehicles themselves. • In many cases, deployment of the articulated buses had been contemplated well in advance of actual acquisition of the buses and had been incorporated into the design requirements of new garage facilities. Long-term plan- ning for HC buses greatly reduces the requirement for retrofits to maintenance and storage facilities. • Some frustrations appear to exist with the performance and maintenance cost of specific bus models, in particu- lar for articulated buses. Issues cited include accelera- tion performance, reliability, and maintenance cost. The design of articulated buses however includes more com- ponents than 40-ft buses and therefore entails higher maintenance costs. Their fuel economy and acceleration performance are also lower largely because of their greater weight. However, when an analysis was per- formed on data on a seat-mile basis, the articulated buses proved to be less costly than the 40-ft fleets in both maintenance and fuel costs. • Preliminary findings from the operation of hybrid ar- ticulated buses appear positive in terms of improving acceleration and fuel economy compared with diesel articulated buses. • The operation of HC buses does not appear to create significant safety concerns. • Survey respondents did not identify regulatory limita- tions as a significant issue. However, operation of artic- ulated and double-deck buses may require obtaining exemptions in many jurisdictions. • There were no labor issues of significance related to the operation of HC buses. The survey found that 97% of transit agencies do not pay operators of HC buses a different wage rate. • Scheduling routes that are dedicated to HC buses (i.e., scheduling at the “block” level) is relatively straightforward. However, to target the deployment of HC buses to address specific overload situations through interlining requires a more sophisticated approach to scheduling, including working at the “trip” (rather then block) level, the use of optimization modules, as well as detailed data on passenger demand and running and deadhead times. It also requires managerial oversight to ensure that planned assignments of HC buses are prop- erly carried out. • Reducing dwell time to take full advantage of HC buses remains a significant challenge. For articulated buses in particular, the ability to use all doors for simultaneous boarding and exiting is key to shorter dwell times. Be- cause more and wider doors facilitate quick passenger flow, Las Vegas will install a second stairway in the double-deck buses to facilitate passenger flow from the upper deck and reduce dwell times. Several respondents are also encouraging more customers to use pre-paid fare media (e.g., day passes, university passes, and smart cards), and one respondent installed off-board ticketing machines. However, the most comprehensive approach is to move to a fare control system based on Proof of Payment (POP) with random inspection, simi- lar to that used on light rail systems. This is being more actively considered for bus transit, and the synthesis found that POP with off-board fare collection has been deployed on recent BRT systems. • Accommodating wheelchairs on HC buses represents another challenge, especially with respect to the impli- cations on dwell time. The time and effort required to accommodate wheelchairs represents the most common complaint from transit agencies with 45-ft intercity coaches. Some transit agencies with double-deck or articulated buses have implemented mid-door access and/or rear-facing wheelchair positions as a method for reducing the dwell time of HC buses. • Agencies reported that passengers’ most-liked feature of HC buses varied depending on type. Passengers appreciated the increase in the number of seats and less crowding of articulated buses. They liked the upper level’s quiet, ride quality, and view of the double-deck buses, and sometimes would let another bus pass if they saw a double-deck bus coming. The most liked features of the 45-ft coaches were the comfort of the ride and the quality of the passenger compartment with all the amenities and image. Four areas for future research have been identified. • The impact of vehicle amenities (e.g., seat quality, ride comfort, reading lights, reduced interior noise, writing tables, and Wi-Fi access) on ridership is poorly under- stood. “Passenger comfort” is not included as a variable in demand forecast models, was not identified as a factor in the TCRP Traveler Response research, and is rarely

assessed. A better understanding of this issue would help to identify which features and amenities of HC buses are likely to increase transit ridership. • According to survey respondents, one of the main objec- tives in deploying HC buses was to address “overload” and “pass-up” situations. Considerable research has been carried out over the years concerning service reliability as a determinant of mode choice. However, little under- standing exists on the potential benefits from addressing overloads and pass-ups on potential transit ridership retention rates. • Some transit agencies are using POP fare control for HC buses and the concept is becoming increasingly important 58 for new BRT systems. Research would be valuable to document existing experience and to develop best prac- tice guidelines related to the application of POP-based fare control, with or without off-board fare collection equipment. • Europeans use a wider range of HC buses including 15-m three-axle transit buses, in particular in Germany, as well as bi-articulated buses. The 15-m bus was implemented to compensate for seating capacity that was lost by the move to low-floor buses. It would be useful to explore European experience with the 15-m and bi-articulated buses, and assess the potential issues affecting the transferability of such HC buses to the North American context.