Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses (2003)

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.

5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 ush- ered in a new era for enhancing the lives of persons with disabilities, in particular by facilitating improved integra- tion and access to facilities and services, including public transportation. To enact provisions mandated by the ADA, the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board has issued guidelines, which have been imple- mented through U.S.DOT regulations (1). One of the pro- visions covered by these guidelines and regulations con- cerns the securement of wheelchairs on board transit buses. The ADA securement standard was developed based on experience with smaller vehicles (e.g., van conversions) and school buses, and has resulted in a complex system in- volving typically four separate securement straps plus oc- cupant restraint belts. Although secure in design when properly used, this system has raised a number of chal- lenges for transit systems, as well as for wheelchair pas- sengers riding transit buses, including the need for assis- tance; adaptability to the wide variety of wheelchairs in use; the demands, both in time and physically, on the op- erator; and safety issues involving either improper use or the total lack of securement (2,3). During the last decade, efforts have been undertaken to address some of the challenges encountered when develop- ing universal securement systems (4–6). However, these designs can introduce new concerns; therefore, solutions remain largely elusive given the number of wheelchair de- sign types and stakeholders, the diversity of interests, the lack of standards for wheelchairs and docking securement systems (7), and the need to modify the wheelchairs or scooters to adapt to these systems. An alternative approach, using a rear-facing position, was initially deployed in the early 1990s in Germany and the United Kingdom. It is currently widely deployed across Europe, in several transit systems in Canada, and most re- cently in Australia. The rear-facing approach enables per- sons using mobility aids to independently position them- selves within an accessible urban transit bus, with their back and head near a load-bearing panel. This approach uses the vehicle’s mass and operating dynamics to protect passengers who use wheelchairs in instances of severe braking or collisions. In addition, it provides a high degree of independence to the wheelchair passenger, adapts to most wheelchair and scooter sizes and types, does not gen- erally require the assistance of the operator, and requires shorter dwell times. In the United States, a rear-facing position for wheel- chairs had not until recently been deployed in any transit bus, as a result of the historical development in bus designs and past interpretations of the ADA, although rear-facing positions are common in rail transit. The ADA does allow a rear-facing position for wheelchairs on buses under certain conditions [see Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 38.23, “Mobility and Accessibility”], although this is not in current practice on buses, nor widely recog- nized. The need to address the issues raised by current wheel- chair securement practice in transit buses has become all the more important as a result of the widespread develop- ment of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in a number of regions in the United States. The FTA has been actively encouraging transit systems to consider implementation of BRT systems as an alternative to light rail. However, BRT systems involve high-frequency, large-capacity vehicles operating in tight corridors; expectations of high levels of service reliability; and short dwell times. Current secure- ment practice using the complex four-strap system is likely to be a source of disruption to BRT systems. In a recent survey of transit systems in Florida about wheelchair se- curement issues (2), 56% of respondents indicated that se- curement of wheelchairs requires more than 3 min. The rear-facing position may offer an attractive alternative that may be well suited for BRT systems. The objectives of this synthesis were to • Survey current practice with respect to the use of the rear-facing position for wheelchairs on transit buses and • Identify pertinent issues related to the transferability to the U.S. context, particularly with respect to the ADA and to its use in BRT systems. SCOPE This study synthesizes experience and research related to the use of the rear-facing position for accommodating “common wheelchairs” on urban transit buses that are more than 13 636 kg (30,000 lb) GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating).

6 • The limitation to buses of more than 13 636 kg (30,000 lb) GVWR corresponds to the distinction made in the ADA (49 CFR Part 38). This scope en- compasses most buses that are 18 m (60 ft), 12 m (40 ft), 10.8 m (35 ft), and 9 m (30 ft) in length, where the rear-facing position has been primarily used. • Under the ADA, a common wheelchair is defined as a mobility aid belonging to any class of three- or four-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed for and used by persons with mobility impairments, which do not exceed 0.75 m (30 in.) in width and 1.2 m (48 in.) in length, measured (2 in.) above the ground, and which do not weigh more than 270 kg (600 lb) when occupied. APPROACH The approach used for this synthesis includes the following elements: • Literature review—A search was undertaken for per- tinent literature in the form of research, reports, and legislation in Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United States. • Survey—A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to Canadian transit operators that use the rear-facing approach. The questionnaire was trans- lated into French for the benefit of those transit sys- tems in Québec (see Appendix A). The survey ex- plored various aspects of transit experience including rear-facing system design planning, operations, cus- tomer acceptance, and safety. • Supplier contacts—Discussions were held with the three Canadian bus manufacturers whose vehicles have been used to deploy the rear-facing position, as well as with a seat supplier that now provides a kit for a rear-facing position. These discussions sought the manufacturers’ perspectives on this design and the issues it raises. • Case studies—Case studies, based on on-site visits, were conducted at BC Transit in Victoria, British Co- lumbia, and at Mississauga Transit in Mississauga, Ontario. In addition, extensive discussions were con- ducted with AC Transit in Oakland, California, the first U.S. transit system to design a rear-facing posi- tion in its 2002 order of transit buses to be used in a planned BRT deployment. • Expert contacts—In addition, interviews were con- ducted with key experts in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Sweden, and communication was undertaken with Australian experts. Those ex- perts represent a range of perspectives: transit sys- tems, transit system associations, wheelchair user groups, government agencies, and research organiza- tions. The contacts have been extremely useful to- ward gaining a better insight into the experience, legislative framework, and issues related to the rear- facing approach. As a whole, these activities have helped to provide a broad picture of the experience and issues related to the rear-facing design in large transit buses. The report con- tains four additional chapters and two appendixes. Chapter two describes the rear-facing position design and discusses the important steps that have led to its development and deployment, first in Europe, and then in Canada. Chapter three describes current practice based on the results of a survey of Canadian transit systems, a presentation of some important new developments, and a review of regulations and standards. Chapter four synthesizes key aspects of the experience with the rear-facing position and discusses a number of the issues identified. Chapter five presents the conclusions of the study. Appendix A contains the survey forms (in English and French) and Appendix B a list of the contacts.