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.
CHAPTER V LOW-FLOOR BUSES INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FINDINGS The experience of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia were studied to evaluate the operational experience of the transit authority, He Impact on riders with disabilities, ant! the impact on general public riders. A low-floor bus is one which has a floor between the front and rear doors sufficiency low enough to remove Me need for steps In Me vicinity of the cloors or in the aisle between Me cloors. A low-floor bus with a Chinch floor and a kneeling feature allows the step up from a sit nch curb to be reduced to four or five inches. ADA standarcis allow a ramp slope of I:6 for heights In this range, so a ramp for wheelchairs would neect to be only 24 to 30 Inches long. Buses currently being purchased typically have 48-~nch ramps. By comparison, a conventional North American transit bus has a floor 30 to 35 inches above the street, with three steps inside the door, the first of which is 14 or 15 Inches high. A kneeling feature reduces the height of Me first step by three to five inches. Access for wheelchair users and others who cannot climb steps is provided by means of a lift In the front or rear door. AD of the low-floor buses which were studied are 40-foot coaches manufactured by New Flyer Industries (mode! D40LF). They are typical of low-floor currently being purchased by Norm American public transit systems. The low-floor section extends only from the front door to the rear door, which is typically located just rear of the TCRP B-1A V-1 Draft Final Report
Table V-~. Key Specifications for Low-Floor Buses New Flyer Mocte} D40LF Key Statistics Length Width Entrance height Kneeling height 40 feet 102 inches 14.4 inches 11.4 inches Seats 36 (max. without wheelchairs) Ramp length 44 inches Ramp width 30.5 inches Front door Muff 31 inches Nova Corporation Mode} [FS Key Statistics Length with Enhance height Kneeling height Seats 49 (max. without wheelchairs 40 feet 102 inches 14 inches 14 inches Front door wicket 43 inches Special Notice The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. TCRP B-lA V-2 Draft Final Report
center of Me bus. Rear of the rear door, Me aisle has a series of steps up to an elevated section over the engine and the rear axle. Full-s~ze "true low-floor" urban transit buses fin which the low floor extends Me entire length of the vehicle) are currently In use In Europe but are just recently being marketed by the Nova Bus Corporation in America. Key specifications of the New Flyer low-floor buses and the Nova Bus Corporation vehicle are provided In the following box. At all the case study sites, the buses have front-door ramps powered by a hydraulic drive located underneath the front door area. Normally, the ramp is operated by the driver using simple controls mounted on the dashboard. In the event the ramp does not operate normally, the driver can deploy the ramp manually. A leather strap is attached to the lip of the ramp which the driver can use to lift the ramp from its stowed position. Once the ramp is lifted to the vertical position, its fall to the deployed position is braked by resistance In the hydraulic mechanism. A similar procedure allows the ramp to be stowed manually. Wheelchair tie down locations are located near the front of the bus on both sides of the aisle. The first forward-fac~ng seats and the side-fac~ng seats In front of them fold up to create space for wheelchairs. The space immediately behind the driver on bow sides of Me aisle (between the driver and the first seats) is taken up by two wheel-housings. These wheel-hous~ngs look quite bulky, reaching almost as high as the seat backs, and extending almost five feet behind the front entryway. The bus width gives wheelchair users considerable room to maneuver. There Is 35.5 inches of clearance between Me wheel-hous~ngs, and a minimum of 38 inches clearance In turn past Me farebox. Me entryway is 31 inches wide. Aft of the rear door, there is a short step up to an elevated seating area. TCRP B-lA V-3 Draft Final Report
The following are key results from Me four case studies conducted for We low floor bus portion of the report . . . . . . Boarding and alighting times for non-disabled passengers are faster on low floor buses Man on conventional buses. The difference Is on the orcler of one second per passenger. Simulated boar&as and Lightings by wheelchair passengers in Champaign Urbana and at BC Trans* indicate that boarding is faster on low-floor buses than on conventional buses win lifts. The difference is one Me order of one minute. Alighting is also faster, wad a difference on the order of half a minute. Analysis of dwell times for wheelchair users at BC Transit suggests a boarding time advantage of only 17 seconds for low-floor buses in actual revenue service. However, this results depends on only five observed wheelchair boardings on low-floor buses. The dweD-dme analysis shows the average wheelchair boarding takes about two and a half minutes In revenue service. Analysis of dwell times at BC Transit shows that passengers wit h other mobility difficulties board a low-floor bus In Free to four seconds less time per passenger than they board a conventional bus. The observed differences in boarding and alighting time are undikely to result In measurable differences In operating speed. Repair frequency and maintenance cost are much lower for accessibility equipment on low-floor buses than on conventional buses. Annual maintenance costs per bus were $2,400 less In Champaign-Urbana and $300 less In Ann Arbor. TCRP B-lA Vat Draft Final Report
. . . . . . Ramps on low-floor buses have much better ~n-service reliability than lifts on conventional buses. Incidents relating to difficult operation or failure of lifts are common. Ramp failure is rare, and difficulties can be easily overcome by manual operation. No evidence of increased passenger accident rates due to the low-floor design, including the step up in the back of the bus, were found. None of the case studies provided clear evidence of whether low-floor buses win increase ridership by passengers with disabilities or divert ridership from paratrans* service. Riciers with disabilities have varied opinions about the ease of use and safety of low-floor buses comparer} to conventional buses with lifts. Many riders, especially users of electric wheelchairs, find the low-floor buses easier to use. Other riders have difficulties stemming from steep ramp angles that can occur when buses must stop where there is no curb or when the kneeling feature cannot be deployed. Despite some difficulties with ramps, riders who use wheelchairs generally prefer low-floor buses because of the greater reliability of ramps compared to lifts. Many other riders with disabilities also prefer low-floor buses because of easier boarding and alighting and other features. The overall operating cost of low-floor buses appears to be similar to that of conventional buses, with Me exception of He cost of maintaining accessibility equipment. There appears to be no measurable difference In price between low-floor and conventional buses resulting solely from the low-floor design. TCRP B-lA V-5 Draft Final Report
CASE STUDY SITES Information was obtained from case studies conducted for this research In Ann Arbor, Michigan and Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; from research by a team from the University of Michigan In Ann Arbors; and from a case study of accessible buses In Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia conducted by BC Transit for the Canadian Transport Development Centre (TDC).2 Except as otherwise cited, aU the data shown In this chapter come from these sources. Ann Arbor and Champaign-Urbana were selected as case study sites for this research because they have the most extensive record of low-~Door bus transit service In the United States. Both of them also have Jift equipped accessible buses for comparison purposes. Vancouver and Victoria, both operated by BC Transit, are among the few transit systems In Canada which offer wheelchair accessible fixed-route transit service. Vancouver uses lift buses for accessibility, while Victoria uses low-~Roor buses. (BC Transit, Vancouver, acquired 298 lift-equ~ppec! buses between 1990 and 1995. lYs most recent order was for 108 low-~door buses in 1996.) Summary data about the case study sues is provided In Table V-2. Attempts to compare low-floor buses with conventional buses depend on the particular equipment being used. As indicated before, all of the case study locations use similar low-floor equipment. However, as shown In Table V-3, there are notable differences in the conventional buses in use, the accessibility equipment on those buses, and policies regarding its use. For example, BC Transit's policy of requiring wheelchair users to board backwards significantly influenced passengers' perceptions. At MID iLevine, l.C. and Torng, G. Dwell Time Effects of the Low Floor Bus Design, paper presented at the 1994 Aru~ual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 2Geehan, T. (TransVision Consultants), An Evaluation of Accessible Transit Buses in Vancouver and Victoria, Final Report, Transport Development Center, Report No. TP 12709E, Montreal, June 1995. TCRP B-lA V-6 Draft Final Report
Table V-2. Case Study Sites -- Key Statistics _ Ann-Arbor Champaign- BC Transit BC Transit Transportation Urbana Mass Vancouver Victoria Authority Transit District (AATA) (MTD) Service Area Population | 189,000 | L11,330 | 1.8 minion | 292,400 _ Total Bus Fleet 57 54b 699 buses 167 244 trolley buses Nwnber of Low-floor | lea | 15 | None | 21 Buses Date Low-Floor Buses | January 1993 | prig 1993 | n.a. | May 1992 Put in Service April 1993 Number of Lift Buses | 34 | 39 | 277 40' buses ~167 21 60' buses All fleet data pertain to die time of die case studies. Forty-foot buses only. AATA also operates eight low-floor Orion II buses in fixed-route service. bExcluding contracted campus service. TCRP B-lA V-7 Draft Final Report
Table V-3. Conventional Bus Equipment at Case Study Sites BC Transit-Vancouver MC! Classic and New Flyer with front-door Lift-U lifts. Passengers using wheelchairs or scooter are requested to board the lifts backwards. Champaign-Urbana MID FIxible, 35-foot, 96-inch wide with front-door Lift-U lifts. Grumman F[xible, 35-foot and 40-foot, 96-~nch wide with front-cloor EEC lifts. Passengers are encouraged to board the EEC lifts backwards. Ann-Arbor Transit Authority RT~06, 35-foot, 96-~nch wicle with rear-door GMC lifts. TCRP B-lA V-S D rapt Final Report
Pl~e V-[ -or Bus Operand by the In Labor Transpod~lon body f ! I "I 1 1 1 -j ~79 D~ BUZZ Reporf
Pl~e V-~ Lo~-Iloor Bus Operated by the Champal~~rb~a Mass lit Dlshld ~ Ace. ; ~ ;.. ..... IMP B-j ~V-10 D~ BUZZ Report
Figure V-3. Interior of Ann Arbor low-Floor Bus Looking Forward TCRP B-IA V-1 Draft Final Report
Dime Vat. Interior View of an Arbor Lo~Floor Bus Showing Dew Seating Pea and Interior level Change ~F Baja 712 ~- BUZZ Turf
and AATA, low-floor buses are six inches wider Wan these systems' conventional buses, which influenced ratings about maneuvering on the buses. At MTP, staff and passengers regarded the EEC lifts on older buses as much less reliable than the more recent T~ift-U lifts. This perception colored many of Me opinions offered by staff and riders about the merits of lifts compared to ramps. At AATA, comparing low-floor to conventional buses also involved a comparison of front-door and rear-door boarding. In aD of the systems, Mere were differences in tie-down equipment between low-floor and conventional buses. Attempting to design an acceptable tie-down system is the subject of much on-gong research, and is not directly related to the choice of a low-floor or conventional bus design. Therefore differences related to tie-down equipment are not evaluated In this report except as necessary to isolate their influence from the evaluation of other features. METHODOLOGY The two case studies included Interviews, analysis of records, direct observation, ant] surveys of riders. At the Ann Arbor Transportation Authoritr, He foDow~ng data sources were used: . Interviews with staff including the acting General Manager, the Manager of Service Development, the Manager of Maintenance, the Safety and Training Coordinator, a Transportation Supervisor, and a paratransit dispatcher. · Agency records including ridership by route and fare category, paratransit ridership, and maintenance records for {ow-floor and other accessible buses, showing total maintenance cost and maintenance costs for lift and ramp repairs. TCRP B-lA V-13 Draft Final Report
. . A passenger survey conducted on-board low-floor buses, and a focus group with passengers recruiter! from riders on low-floor buses. Telephone interviews with five riders with disabilities who ride the fixed route buses, including three members of AATA's advisory committee. Data on general public boarding Ones on AATA's low-floor anc! other buses was available from the previously-cited study carried out by researchers from the University of Michigan with funding provided by New Flyer Industries. At Champaign-Urbana MID, the foDow~ng data sources were used: . . . . . . Interviews wad the Managing Director and his assistant, the Director of Operations, and the Director of Maintenance. A group interview with four drivers comprising MTD's Safety and Training Committee. The incident log maintained by dispatch, ridership records, and maintenance work orders. Timed boardings and alightings with four disabled volunteers who use wheelchairs. A focus group of disabled riders arranged by PACE, ~c., the local center for independent living. Participants included eight riders with disabilities: two users of manual wheelchairs, two users of standard electric wheelchairs, one ~ree-wheeled scooter user, two riders with visual impairments, and one person with vertigo. A survey of disabled riders, also conducted by PACE, using an instrument designed by the researchers. PACE mailed 26 questionnaires and received back I] completed questionnaires, of which eight were from people with TCRP B-lA V-14 Draft Final Report
experience with Me accessibility features of the low-floor and conventional buses, two were from disabled riders who do not use lifts or ramps, and one was from a person who had never used a low-floor bus. Information on accessible buses operated by BC Transit In Vancouver and Victoria comes entirely from the previously-cited TDC study. Analyses cited from that stud include timed simulations of boarding and alighting by disabled riders a large , O scale survey of dweB t imes for accessible buses In fixec3-route, revenue service, and surveys of paratrans* riders who also ride f~xed-route buses. FINDINGS The case studies examined the impact of low-floor buses on transit operations and on passengers, including passengers with disabilities and the general public. The research has focused primarily on Me accessibility features of the low-floor buses. More extensive treatment of other aspects can be found In a prior TCRP reports and In the fun TDC report. Boarding and Alighting T~me~General Public Results from AATA (Levine and Torng) and BC Transit (Geehan) show that boarding Ones on low-floor buses are si~ruficantiv shorter Man on conventional hu.se.s In both cases, researchers measured dweD Ones along with the number of nas.sen~ser.s of various types boarding and alighting at each stop. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the average contribution to dwell time of each passenger boarder or rib 0 ~ _ ~ __ alighting. As shown in Tables Vet and V-5, boarding and alighting for passengers 3King, Roliand D., Low-Floor Transit Buses, Synthesis of Transit Practice 2, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington OC, 1994. TCRP B-lA V-15 Draft Final Report
Table V4. Boarding Times of Non-Disabled Passengers (Seconds) . Low-Floor Bus Conventional Difference Bus AATA- Cash Fare 3.09 3.57 0.48 AATA- No Fare 1.93 2.76 0.83a BC Transit - Victoria 3.02 3.78 0.76b ! BC Transit-Vancouver Not applicable 3.78 Not Applicable TCRP B-lA V-16 Draft Final Report
Table V-5. Ali~ting Times of Non-Disablec3 Passengers (Seconds) . Low-Floor Bus Conventional Difference Bus AATA - Front Door 1.32 2.55 1.23a AATA - Rear Door 2.17 2.67 0.50 Victoria - Front Door 1.87 3.61 1 74b l Victoria - Rear Door 2.13 1.84 0.29b Vancouver - Front Door Not Appl. 2.62 Not Appl. Vancouver-Rear Door Not Appl. 1.43 Not AppL | Notes to Tables 4 and 5: AATA results are based on observations of about 900 stops. BC Transit results are based on observations of 4,197 and 14,279 stops in Victoria and Vancouver respectively. aS~tistically significant at the 95% confidence level. bSignificance level not reported. TCRP B-lA V-17 Draft Final Report
without disabilities was consistently faster Man on conventional buses, except In the case of alighting from the rear door in Victoria. The extra alighting time on Victoria's low-floor buses appears to stem from use of a touch bar to activate the door. The figures given In Tables Vet and V-5 are the Incremental dweD times for each additional passenger. There is also a certain minimum, fixed dweD time associated with each stop for passengers, primarily for door opening and closing. The fixed dweH time is represented by the intercept of We regression equations estimated in the dwell time analyses. The estimated values, Even in Table V-6, indicate that the fixed dweB tune per stop is actuaBy about two seconds longer for low-floor buses than the conventional buses used by BC Transit and MTD. Boarding and Alighting T~me~Passengers with Disabilities Information on boarding and Nighing time for passengers with disabilities is available from simulations and the dweD time analyses. SimuZabon Results Simulations of boarding ancI alighting by passengers using wheelchairs were conducted in Champaign-Urbana, Vancouver, and Victoria. The simulations involved small groups of volunteers and were conducted In ideal conclitions out of revenue service. The results, as given In Table V-7 are consistent in showing a clear advantage , c-, ~ for the low-floor buses for the process of deploying the accessibility equipment and entering the bus, but no significant difference for Me process of maneuvering and Tony ~ <I , O down. Clearly Me process of lowering the ramp and roping across it into the bus is much faster than the process of deploying, robing onto, and then raising a lift. TCRP B-IA VOWS Draft Final Report
Table V-6. Fixed Dwell Time per Stop Transit System Low-floor Bus (Seconds) Conventional Bus (Seconds) Difference (Seconds) AATA BC Transit - Victoria BC Transit - Vancouver . 6.33 4.94 Not appl. aSigniRcant at the 95% confidence level. Significance not reported. 5.32 2.76 2.85 -2.11a -2.18b Not appl. TCRP B-lA V-19 Draft Final Report
Table V-7. Simulation Results (All Times in Seconds) | Transit System: | Champaign-Urbana MT | BC Transit ll . . 1 | Bus Type: Low-floor Conventional Low-Floor with Ramp with Lift wit h Ramp (Victoria) Boarding l l l Deploy lift or ramp 11 22 10 Board passenger 10 32 6 Maneuvering/ tie-down 25 24 107 ~ Stow lift or ramp 17 20 l Close door 3 5 Total 1 67 1 103 1 123 Range 39 - 97 90 -131 No. of Dials 6 6 8 , Alighting Deploy lift or ramp 11 24 Maneuver to exit 17 26 11 De-board passenger 6 15 7 Stow lift or ramp 11 12 Close door 2 6 Total 48 83 18 Range 27- 63 75 -110 l No.ofirials 1 5 l 6 1 8 1 I Conventional with Lift (Vancouver) 21 50 117 - 188 10 26 - 36 6 Note: Entries win "-" indicate values not reported for BC Transit. TCRP B-lA V-20 Draft Final Report
There are some differences in me maneuvering process on BC Transit's low-floor and conventional buses, and differences In clearances, but these do not result in significant time differences. BC Transit recommends that lift passengers using wheelchairs or scooters back onto the bus, and then back down the aisle, placing them in the proper position to tie down. On BC Transit's low-floor buses, and on aD MTD buses, passengers entered facing forward, and then made a 180 degree turn to tie down. The aisle width between the side facing seats over the wheel weds on the conventional buses is wider than the width between the larger wheel housings on the low floor buses. The difference is about 12 inches for BC Transit and about six inches for MTD. Further, the tie-down locations on the low-floor buses are about two feet furler back than on the conventional buses. Overall, these differences do not appear to translate into any significant difference In maneuvering time. Note also that when buses are In revenue service, the feet of passengers In side facing seats would reduce clearance with both bus designs. Securement arrangements on MTD's low-floor and conventional buses both use a fixed clamp. The clamp is often not used, since it does not fit the wheels on scooters or on many wheelchairs. BC Transit's buses use multiple securement devices, which differ on the two bus designs. Application of the securement devices appears to be more consistent at BC Trans*. As a result, securement takes considerably longer at BC Transit than at MTD. However, in both systems there is no significant difference between the low-floor bus and conventional bus. In any event, a transit system's choice of securement device is not related to whether the bus is low-floor or high-floor. TCRP B-lA V-21 Draft Final Report
All phases of the alighting process were faster on low-floor buses at MID. TiLe Transport Canada study did not report components of We alighting process, but did report much faster tote alighting times on low-floor buses compared to lift buses. DweZ! Time Analysis Results The Ann Arbor dweD time analysis incluclec3 too few observations of mobility limited passengers to produce statistically significant results. No wheelchair boardings were observed. The BC Transit dweD time analysis inclucled much larger numbers of passengers with disabilities, and produced ambiguous results, as shown in Table V-~. The escorted time per~wheelcha~r boarding was actuary shorter than the simulation times on the Vancouver lift bus and longer than the s~mulabon times on the Victoria low-floor buses. As a result, Me estimated advantage on the low-floor bus shrinks to only 17 seconds. Note, however, that the Victoria estimate is based on only five wheelchair boardings, so it is likely to have considerable uncertainty. The results show that the wheelchair boarding process on average takes between two ant! Free minutes on both bus types. The result showing that passengers who use other mobility aids take longer to board on low-floor buses Is contrary to expectation. The TDC report hypothesizes that the low-floor bus sample In Victoria could ~nclucle a large number of passengers using walkers. Mobility-limited passengers who do not use aids, also referred to as "slow movers," board a low-floor bus In only 4.1 seconds, about three to four seconds less Man to board a conventional bus, depending on whether the comparison is to Victoria or Vancouver. TCRP B-1A V-222 Draft Final Report
Table V-~. Dwell Time Analysis for Riders with Disabilities . Passenger Type l Vancouver Victoria | Victoria Conventional Conventional I Low-Floor Bus Bus with Lift Bus (No Lift) __ Wheelchair Users | 150 secs. Not applicable | 133 secs. | (29 boardings) | I (5 boardings) ther Mobility Aids | 6.6 sees. | .6secs. | 16.1 secs. | (305 boardings) | 174 boardings) 1 (66 boardings) . ther Mobility | 6.9 sees. | .4secs. 1 4.1 sees. 1 | Jifficulties | (1,187 boardings) 1 (163 boardings) 1 (lOOboardings) TCRP B-1A V-23 Draft FinaZ Report
Increase in Operating Speed Low-floor buses could allow for an increase In overall bus operating speed for several reasons: Faster boarding of non-disabled passengers. Faster boarding of riders win ambulatory disabilities. Faster and more reliable boarding and alighting of passengers In wheelchairs. Other differences In vehicle characteristics, for instance acceleration and maneuverability. Faster Boarding of Non-disabled Passengers. This win account for most of the increase In speed, since non-disabled riders account for the great majority of boardings In most systems (94% of Me Vancouver dwell time survey sample, 91% of the Victoria sample, and roughly 93% of the Ann Arbor sample). A precise calculation of expected operating time savings wouIct clepenct on knowing We actual my of passengers paying a cash fare or using a pass, and the mix of passengers alighting via the front and rear doors. However, the range of results in Table V-7 makes it clear that Me total time savings, including boarding and alighting, is on Me order of one to two seconds per passenger. At typical patronage levels In Norm America, Me total time savings per hour is likely to be at most one or two minutes. Faster Boarding of MobiZity-fimited Passengers. The measured time-sav~ngs of three to four seconds per mobilibr-limited passenger would amount to about 30 seconds per hour for a system that boards 40 passengers per hour, 10% of whom have mobility limitations. TCRP B-1A V-24 Draft Final Report
Faster and more reliable boarding and aZighNng of passengers in wheelchairs. The simulation results show low-floor buses providing a time savings on the order of one minute for boarding and alighting of a passenger In a wheelchair. Actual savings In revenue service may be much less, as suggested by the BC Transit dweD-~ne study. Wheelchair boardings accounted for 0.S per i,000 total boarc3~ngs on Victoria's low-floor buses, I.0 per 1,000 total boardings on Vancouver's lift buses, and I.4 per 1,000 total boar<lings on D's fu~y-accessible system. If these figures are typical, then most transit systems can expect less than one minute of time savings In an average vehicle's entire daily run. A more significant advantage of {ow-floor buses is likely to be more reliable runrung time due to near-elimination of the occasional extremely long boarding times which occur on lifts. Evidence for enhanced reliability is described later In this chapter. Differences in Vehicle Charactenstics. Staff of the case study transit systems indicate Mat me New Flyer low-floor buses accelerate faster than most conventional coaches. The TDC study assumes a slight acceleration advantage In calculating an overall operating speed advantage for low- floor buses. Me time savings is less than one second for each time the bus has to accelerate from a stop. By comparison, based on the analysis shown In Table V-6 earlier, low-floor buses appear to take about two seconds longer at each stop for other reasons. Talcing ah the elements of dwell time into account, it appears that there is no practical difference in the operating speeds of low floor and conventional buses. TCRP B-1A V-25 Draft Final Report
Maintenance equipment on low-floor buses than on conventional buses. Evidence for this comes Repair frequency and maintenance cost are much lower for accessibility ~ from maintenance data pronded by AATA and MTD as summarized in Table V-9. The MTD is spending about $2,400 less per bus per year to maintain ramps compared to lifts, while AATA is spending about $300 less per year. The main difference between the two systems is that AATA is spending much less to maintain its lifts than MTD is, possibly because AATA has rear-cloor lifts while MTD has front-door life;. AATA also compiled data on total maintenance cost for a separate TCRP synthesis study of low-floor buses (King, 1994~. That analysis showed a total cost of $0.321 per mile for the ten low-floor buses compared to $.339 per mile for three 1987 mocle} RT~06 buses. These costs included repairs (including repairs covered by warranty), fuel, and oil. The TDC report estimates Mat lift-equ~pped anct low-floor buses win have nearly identical maintenance costs for aD systems over than accessibility equipment. It is possible Mat Me low frequency of work and lower maintenance cost of the accessibility equipment on the low-floor buses could be clue In part to the relative newness of these vehicles. There can be no assurance Mat me ramps win not require more maintenance as Hey age and experience more use and wear. Reliability Perceptions of Riders and Dnvers Evidence on ~n-service reliability of ramps compared to lifts is available from Interviews with disabled riders at AATA and MTD, from data on boarding success rates TCRP B-lA V-26 Draft Final Report
Table V-9. Repairs for Lifts and Ramps .. _ . Transit System Champaign-Urbana MTD Ann Arbor Transportation Authority [ Bus Type New Flyer Flyable Metro New Flyer D40LF 1984 D40LF 1993 1993 Period Analyzed 12 months ending June 1996 42 months ending July 1994 Number of Buses 15 25 10 Typical Total Mileage 85,000 400,000 60,000 Total Work Orders 15 262 39 Parts Cost I $54 1 $46 279 1 $191 Labor Cost $583 $15,070 $2,100 . Total Cost $637 $61,349 $2,291 Work Orders per Bus 1.0 10.5 2.6 per Year CosllBu~Year ~ $42 1 $2, 54 1 $153 RTS~6 1987- 1990 17 220,000 to 400,000 400 $14,712 $12,701 $27,413 6.7 $461 TCRP B-IA V-27 Draft Final Report
at AATA, and analysis of incident logs at MTD. AD of these sources confirm that ramps on low-floor buses are far more reliable that lifts on conventional buses. Riders with disabilities interviewed at AATA and MTD believe Mat ramps on low-floor buses do not fad] as frequently as lifts on conventional buses. They appreciated the fact that ramp problems do not cause as much delay for them or for over passengers as lift problems. Lift problems often require calling a supervisor, while ramp problems can be solved by the driver manually deploying the ramp. Cold weather seems to cause more reliability problems, especially for lifts. One disabled rider at MTD regards the lifts as "iffy" below 15 degrees; he recalled a single occasion In winter when a ramp would not unfold. Drivers at MTD estimated that even MTD's more recent, relatively reliable lifts have some kind of problem on 30% to 50% of boarding attempts. By this estimate, the strivers ctid not mean that the boarding was unsuccessful this often, but that some element of the lift operation had to be repeated or did not perform properly. The most common difficulties have to do with the barriers not raising or lowering. As the lifts get older, each one develops idiosyncrasies. On the low-floor buses, difficulties wad the ramps occur "not very often" according to drivers. In their view, the most frequent problem is dirt accumulating in a track within the ramp drive mechanism preventing the ramp from stowing. According to maintenance staff at AATA, the clearance between Me ramp and the sides of the front door is very narrow, so it is not unusual for Me ramp to stick In the process of stowing. A non-disabled focus group participant reported seeing this TCRP B-lA V-28 Draft Final Report
problem many times. The ramp mechanism can become twisted and jam. However, these problems are easily overcome during service by the driver manually operating the ramp. Analysis of Dispatch Records MID dispatchers keep an incident log which includes lift and ramp problems. This log is not complete, since minor problems are likely to go unrecorded, especially on busy days. However, it does provide a basis for comparing incidents involving low- floor and conventional buses. The logs for the six months from January to June 1996 were reviewed. They contained 95 incidents involving lift operation and only Tree incidents involving ramp operation. Typical lift incidents were "lift won't stow" and "lift trouble." By comparison only one of the incidents involving ramps indicated mechanical trouble. The other two were "wheelchair overload" and "late/wheelchairs." At AATA, dispatchers keep a record of wheelchair boardings called in by drivers. In the period October 1993 to July 1994, connivers caned In a total of 859 attempted wheelchair boardings, of which approximately 500 took place on conventional buses and the remainder on low-floor buses. A total of 31 unsuccessful boardings were reported, aD of them on conventional buses. These ciata imply a successor boarding rate of 94% on conventional buses and 100% on low-floor buses. Ease of Manual Operation Part of the reliability of the ramp derives from the ease with which it can be manually operated. At MTD most of the drivers interviewed only had to operate the ramp manually once or twice. Some of the drivers indicated that operating the ramp manually is just as fast as operating it automatically. One driver found manual TCRP B-lA V-29 Draft Final Report
operation difficult; this driver noted that the strap for pulling up the ramp is located in a position that makes it awkward to handle. The same driver had to step on the ramp In order to get it to stow (this situation occurred In cold weather). The TDC study measured the forces on body joints creates! by lining the ramp and found that they were within the capabilities of 95% of potential bus drivers, both male and female. Accident Rates and General Passenger Safety It is possible that the step up In the back of the low-floor buses could result In passenger accidents. None of the case study sites had accident data to confirm or deny this possibility. Staff at MTD were unaware of any passenger accidents related to the low-floor design. According AATA's Safety and Training Coordinator, there has been no increase in passenger injuries or incidents as a result of low-floor buses. She did note some Injuries resulting from bus operator negligence, including braking too hard or cornering too fast. (The New Flyer buses accelerate faster than AATA's RTS conventional buses.) She believes that eliTninadng We steps In the doorways has resulted in a 30% reduction in passenger accidents, so Nat overall Me low-floor buses are much safer than conventional buses. The interior layout of AATA's low-floor buses includes numerous vertical stanchions, to Me point where some staff referred to Me buses as "jungle arms." The Safety and Trairung Coordinator believes these stanchions are essential to make the buses safe for passengers. An analysis of accidents at BC Transit provides some confirmation of the dangers of bus steps. In a 20-month period, 23 incidents were reported in which passengers, most of them elderly, slipped, tripped, or fen while using bus stairs in TCRP B-1A V-30 Draft Final Report
Vancouver or Victoria. Another 39 operator claims were filed in a nine-month period for slips, trips, or falls using bus stairs. Non-ctisabled AATA riders who participated In a focus group raised concerns about the safety of the low-floor buses. They described feeling less secure In moving to the rear of the bus or standing in the front part of the bus, mostly because there are no seat backs to lean against In the front one-i of the bus. The vertical stanchions actuary make it more difficult to grasp the seat backs while walking toward the back of the bus. Ridership . . It is possible that Me advantages of low-floor buses, especially for passengers with disabilities, would result in increased ridership or diversion of riclership from paratransit service to fixect-route service. None of the case studies provides conclusive evidence for or against these possibilities. For a variety of different reasons, none of We transit systems made a concerted effort to use the availability of low-rdoor buses to build riclership by people with clisabilities or to encourage switching from paratransit. In the case of AATA and MTD, low-floor buses accounted for less than half of the fleet. Although an effort was made to concentrate low-floor buses on certain routes, neither system had guaranteed low-floor bus service on any route. Ease and Safety of Boarding for Passengers with Disabilities Wheelchair Users The case studies provide conflicting evidence about the preferences of wheelchair users regarding ease and safety of boarding. In the focus group at MTD, TCRP B-1A V-31 Draft Final Report
most wheelchair users found the low floor buses easier to board and alight than conventional buses with lifts. However, this opinion was not unanunous and came with significant reservations: . . Electric wheelchair users and one scooter user found the low-floor buses much easier to board and alight. · Manual wheelchair users had difficulty propelling themselves up the ramp into the bus using the grab bars in doorway. They have particular difficulty if the ramp angle is steep, as when the bus is stopped at a low curb or where there is no curb, a very common situation in Champaign-Urbana. In these situations they have to ask for help from the driver, which they prefer not to do. They noted that most drivers are happy to help, although a few don't like to assist passengers. The steep angle also creates fear when exiting the bus. The angle can be even steeper if the bus is stopped on a street with a high crown. fin addition, we were informed by drivers that the kneeling feature is not used when temperatures are below freezing.) A steep ramp can also create a fear of tipping backward while boarding. Manual wheelchair users fount! a lift easier to use provided it is stable like MTD's Lift-U lifts which have a one-piece platform. However, the manual wheelchair users would clearly prefer a ramp over MTD's older EEC lifts which have steps that unfold into a platform. When conditions cause He ramp of tibe low-ffoor bus to have a steep angle, electric wheelchair users can have difficulty as wed. This is especially true TCRP B-lA V-32 Draft Final Report
when Me surface of Me ramp is wet, causing poor traction. In winter this combination of conditions is not unusual. These impressions are consistent win answers from eight disabled bus riders in Champaign-Urbana who responded to a survey. Manual wheelchair riders found little difference In ease of boarding and alighting between conventional arid low-floor buses, while users of electric wheelchairs and scooters' on average, found the low-floor buses easier. MID bus drivers who were ~nterv~ewec3 as a group agreed that it can be hard for some passengers to get up the ramp, especially when the kneeler cannot be used (below 32 degrees) and In the many places where there is no curb or Me curb is low. ~ these circumstances, some people are also afraid to go down Me ramp, and the footrest can sometimes hit the ground at the end of the ramp. Normally the drivers have to help riders in manual chairs up and down the ramps. Evidence from BC Transit consists of small-sample surveys of riders who participated in boarding simulations. Since BC Transit's lift-buses are in Vancouver and its low-~Door buses are In Victoria, no riders have had the opportunity to compare the two bus types; instead the results are based on identical surveys given to riders at each location. Eight wheelchair users In Vancouver and six In Victoria participated In Me simulations and completed evaluation surveys. The ratings for low-floor buses were generally poorer than those for lift-buses with respect to features related to the actual boarding and alighting process, including: The ease of moving forward on Me ramp/lift The ease of getting onto the bus from the Jift/ramp TCRP B-lA V-33 D rap Final Report
Your feeling of safetr on the lift/ramp The ease of moving down the bus aisle The ease of orienting the chair/scooter to move into position The ease of maneuvering into the securement position The time it takes to get out of the bus Your feeling of safety on Me lift/ramp during exiting Ratings were more favorable for low-floor buses for Amount oftzmefor ramp/lift to descend, The ease of turning around when you boar~forward, and for most procedures related to the securement process. However, the securement mechanism is not part of the low-floor design. Even though participants' ratings were higher for the lift-buses than the low-floor buses on most items, their ratings on Overall satisfaction with the design of [he vehicle were higher for low-floor buses than lift-buses. This result could reflect participants' perceptions of the likely reliability of the ramps, an issue that was not nclucled on the surveys and therefore was not actuaBy tested. Differences in aisle clearances that affect maneuvering were described In Me section on boarding anc! alighting lime, which found no significant difference maneuvering tone between low-floor and conventional buses. The focus group participants at MID agreed that maneuvering to and from the tie down area is easier on MTD's low-floor buses. It is easier partly because Me low-floor buses are 102 inches wide, while MTD's lift buses are 96 inches wicle. However, it is also the case that, because of Me large wheel-weD covers In the front of Me low-floor buses, there are no passenger seats between the front door and the tie down area. By comparison, in a TCRP B-IA V-34 Draft Final Report
conventional bus, it is easy for a passenger boarding In a wheelchair to rod over or run into the feet of passengers seated In the side-fac~ng seats mounted over the wheel weds. Four manual wheelchair users who responded to Me MID clisabled rider survey found no difference In ease of getting from the door area to the seat or tie-down area, while three users of electric wheeTchans or scooters found the low-floor buses easier. Presumably the wider aisles on the low-floor buses make a greater difference for the electric wheelchair and scooter users. MID drivers generally confirmed the observations of the focus group participants. Boarding can be delayed because other passengers, especially children, won't get out of the way. There are fewer passengers in the way on the low-floor buses. The wider aisles on these buses also help. One aspect of boarding that requires a little extra effort and tune by the striver on a low floor bus Is that three seats must be lifted instead of one as on the conventional buses. Most of the MTD riders with disabilities who participated in Me boarding simulations or responded to a survey found ramps safer than life;. Reasons given included Dislike of lifts, including a fear of heights, mistrust of mechanical devices, and a prior accident on a lift. ~ the case of manual wheelchair users' Me advantages of ramps appear to be tempered by concerns related to negotiating an inclined ramp, with possibilities of tipping backward, losing traction, losing control on the way down, or even roping off the side of Me ramp. Other Riders with Disabilities Evidence on the -preferences of riders win disabilities, other than wheelchair users, comes from surveys of BC Transit paratransit users, a survey of low-floor bus TCRP B-lA V-35 Draft Final Report
passengers in Ann Arbor, and focus groups and individual rider interviews In an four cities. Non-wheelcha~r users who were interviewed included, In Ann Arbor, a blind woman who had also broken her ankle and a person with arthritis who walks with a cane, and In Champaign-Urbana, two blink! riders and one rider with vertigo. Me Ann Arbor riders found the low-floor buses easier to get on and off. They cited factors such as the lack of steps, wider doors, and the ability to take a shopping cart on the bus. One woman stated that the low-floor buses are easier to kneel, a feature she always requests. The blind woman wad a broken ankle noted that she can lose her balance on the steps of a conventional bus, a problem which does not exist on low-floor buses. She also observed that her guide dog is able to lie under the first seat on the low-floor buses because there is no wheel weD under the seat. She felt that it is a little easier to get to a seat on a low-floor bus, even though the distance to the first seat is longer than on a conventional bus. According to a blind rider in Champaign-Urbana, boarding with a guide dog is easier on a low-floor bus. In particular, if there are several people boarding at once, so that boarding passengers have to wait In line as fares are paid, dogs find it hard to pause on We steps of a conventional bus. Over non-wheelcha~r users In Champaign- Urbana had no strong preference for either type of bus. The on-board survey In Ann Arbor included responses from 56 riders who reported some difficulty going up and down steps. As reported In He section on perceptions of general public riders, they generally preferred low-floor buses by a slightly wider margin Pan other riders. TCRP B-lA V-36 Draft Final Report
The surveys of BC Transit paratransit users Included results from 35 lift-bus riders In Vancouver ant! 42 low-floor bus riders in Victoria. These samples included both wheelchair users and non-wheelchair users. The low-floor bus riders gave higher satisfaction ratings than the lift-bus riders on 20 out of 21 features, typically by a spread of about half a point on a five-point scale. Some of the features rated do not appear to have any connection to the bus design, including Ease of access to the bus stop, Suitability of the bus stop, Operator's willingness and athhude, and Ability to find i?lformahon. Since Victoria riders also rated these features better than Vancouver riders, it is possible that the differences stem from the composition of the samples, or a different overall approach to accessible bus service in We two cities. Driver Perceptions Information about drivers' perceptions is available from a group interview of four drivers on MTD's safety and tra~rung committee. In addition to items already noted, the drivers made the following observations: . . . The drivers were of the belief that no wheelchair riders prefer the lift buses over me low-floor buses. It is the drivers' impression that the reliability of the ramps compensates for Me ramp angle for the passengers. In cold weather, Me bottom of Me ramp can pick up snow and ice which the driver has to scrape off. The drivers suggested a heating element for melting ice on the ramp. When Me ramp is wet, its longitudinal ribs can cause sliding. The drivers prefer the low-floor buses in general. They have better seats, a better ride, a more adjustable steering wheel, and are faster than MTD's older buses. Passenger boarding goes faster, and the driver has better visibility TCRP B-lA V-37 Draft Final Report
around the passengers. The only negative from He drivers' perspective is that there is no place for Hem to stow their gear. · The drivers hear no complaints about Here being fewer seats on the low-floor buses. However, passengers win longer legs do complain about lack of knee room. Preferences of Non-Disabled Riders An on-boarc3 survey In Ann Arbor founct that most riders, including riders who have some difficulty going up and down steps, find low-floor buses easier to use. As shown in Table V-10, 89% of riders with difficulty going up and down steps and 82% of other riders, stated that low-floor buses are easier to board than conventional buses with steps. Seventy-five percent of riders with difficulty going up and clown steps and 72% of other riders fire! low-floor buses better with respect to ease of leaving the bus. Smaller majorities found low-floor buses better with respect to the feeling of roominess and the ability to see out. For the other issues, less than half of riders had a preference for low-floor buses. However, in no case did more Han 15% of riders actually prefer conventional buses with steps; He balance stated Hey had no preference. Economic Evaluation The relative cost of providing accessible bus service win lift buses or low-floor buses will depend on He following factors: Purchase cost. Number of buses required for service to provide desired capacity and headways. Maintenance cost. . TCRP B-lA V-38 Draft Final Report
. Purchase Cost Cost of complementary paratransit service for riders with disabilities who cannot use accessible fixed route buses. Prices for 40-foot conventional and low-floor buses appear to be comparable. AATA paid $19S,000 per bus for the ten low-floor buses delivered in January 1993, compared to $185,000 per bus for an order of conventional buses purchased four years earlier. A second order by AATA for delivery of 15 low-floor buses in the spring of 1995 cost $225,000 per 40-foot bus. Bid prices were obtained from four other systems in the United States which purchased low-floor buses during 1994. For these four systems, plus AATA, the average bid price for a 40-foot, diesel powered, low-floor bus was $227,000. The total spread of bid prices was only from $220,000 to $234,000. There was no clear relationship to order size which ranged from 15 to 150. AD of the buses were manufactured by New Flyer. By comparison, staff of Santa Clara County Transit surveyed 11 transit systems In the United States which had made recent purchases of conventional buses, and found an average bid price of $236,000. By subtracting out costs for extras, including natural gas propulsion or extended warranties, a "base price" for a standard 40-foot coach was calculated, which averaged $228,000 for the 11 orders. Based on tenders received by BC Transit In May 1995, the capital cost for bow a lift-equipped bus and a low-floor bus was $324,500 Canadian ($243,000 U.S.). These results appear to confirm that there is no measurable difference In price resulting solely from the low-floor design. TCRP B-lA V-39 Draft Final Report
Table V-IO. Percent of Riders Preferring Low-Floor Buses No Difficult with Some Difficultly with Steps (n=256) Steps (n=56) ~_ _ _ | Ease of getting on the bus 82% 89% | Ease of getting to a seat 41% 48% | Ease of leaving the bus 72% 75% | Availabilitr of seats 34% 44% . Seated comfort 39% 38% 1 | Feeling ofroonuness 63% 59% | Smoothness of the ride 47% 46% | Feeling of personal security 25% 29% Ability to see out l 60% | 63' Source: Survey of riders on-board low-floor buses, July 1994. TCRP B-1A VITO Draft Final Report
Number of Buses Requiredfor Service There could be a difference in the number of buses required for service if bus operating speeds were significantly different or if passenger-carry~ng capacity were significantly different. The analysis indicates that operating speeds are not significantly different at the patronage levels typical of most North American transit systems. Low- floor buses do have less seating capacity than conventional buses, but they have somewhat more standing room. None of the case study operators has actually added buses to make up for lost seating capacity. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that the number of buses required for service win not change as a result of using low- floor buses. Maintenance Cost The analysis shows a clear savings In maintenance cost resulting from the lower cost of maintaining ramps instead of lifts: $300 per bus per year In Ann Arbor and $2,400 per bus per year In Champaign-Urbana, with no measurable difference in other maintenance costs. Most of the difference between the two systems stems from differences In the cost of maintaining different lift designs rather than differences in the cost of maintaining ramps. Cost of Complementary Paratransit Low-floor buses will permit some individuals to use fixed-route transit service who would be prevented from using it with conventional buses. Under a system of ADA eligibility certification, it is possible Mat the number of people eligible for complementary paratrans~t could be reduced. It is also possible, Even a program of travel training and publicity, Mat people who can use fixed-route buses some of the TCRP B-lA V~1 Draft Final Report
time would choose to rely on paratransit for fewer trips if the fixed-route service used low-floor buses. It was not possible to quantify these effects In the case studies. In ah likelihood, a significant Impact win only occur when a transit system has a fleet which is preclominantly low-floor buses, and the system makes a concerted effort to encourage a shift In ridership. Summary of Economic Evaluation On the basis of the available evidence, low-floor buses win result in no change In capital costs, and a reduction of $300 to $2,400 per bus per year In operating cost as a result of reduced maintenance costs compared to conventional buses with lifts. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES--LESSONS LEARNED The case studies provide very limited information about implementation issues. Both AATA and MTD used a demonstration bus provicled by New Flyer ~clushies to test whether clearances would be problem on any routes (they were not), ant] to gain acceptance from the disabled community and operations staff. Both systems placed the low-floor buses on more heavily-used routes, a decision which appears to have been popular with disabled riders and the general public. AATA used the buses on all routes at first to let people in all parts of the service area see them before placing them predominantly on specific routes. Neither system guarantees low-floor bus service on particular routes or runs. Neither system promoted low-floor buses to riders with disabilities, or made special efforts to encourage paratransit riders to shift hips. APPLICABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY The lessons learned in Ann Arbor and Champaign-Urbana should apply well to other small to medium-s~zed transit systems. Both systems provided a test of operation TCRP B-1A V-42 Draft Final Report
in hot and cold weather and in snowy conditions. Champaign-Urbana is flat, but Ann Arbor includes some hilly terrain. However, the case studies do not provide any evidence about operations in a large-city environment with heavy passenger loadings. Both of Me case study systems, as wed as BC Transit In Victoria, use low-floor buses with front-door ramps. The results of the case studies would not necessarily apply to low-floor buses who rear-door ramps. TCRP B-lA V-43 Draft Final Report
