Evaluating Transit Operations for Individuals with Disabilities Final Report (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
CHAPTER V LOW-FLOOR BUSES
CHAPTER V LOW-FLOOR BUSES
Pages 157-200
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 157... ...
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!
|
From page 158... ...
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.
|
From page 159... ...
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.
|
From page 160... ...
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.
|
From page 161... ...
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.
|
From page 162... ...
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.
|
From page 163... ...
(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.
|
From page 164... ...
Classic and New Flyer with front-door Lift-U lifts. Passengers using wheelchairs or scooter are requested to board the lifts backwards.
|
From page 165... ...
Pl~e V-[ -or Bus Operand by the In Labor Transpod~lon body f ! I "I 1 1 1 -j ~79 D~ BUZZ Reporf
|
From page 166... ...
Pl~e V-~ Lo~-Iloor Bus Operated by the Champal~~rb~a Mass lit Dlshld ~ Ace.
|
From page 167... ...
Figure V-3. Interior of Ann Arbor low-Floor Bus Looking Forward TCRP B-IA V-1 Draft Final Report
|
From page 168... ...
Dime Vat. Interior View of an Arbor Lo~Floor Bus Showing Dew Seating Pea and Interior level Change ~F Baja 712 ~- BUZZ Turf
|
From page 169... ...
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.
|
From page 170... ...
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.
|
From page 171... ...
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.
|
From page 172... ...
. 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 !
|
From page 173... ...
. 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.
|
From page 174... ...
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.
|
From page 175... ...
Conventional Bus (Seconds) Difference (Seconds)
|
From page 176... ...
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)
|
From page 177... ...
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.
|
From page 178... ...
DweZ! Time Analysis Results The Ann Arbor dweD time analysis incluclec3 too few observations of mobility limited passengers to produce statistically significant results.
|
From page 179... ...
Passenger Type l Vancouver Victoria | Victoria Conventional Conventional I Low-Floor Bus Bus with Lift Bus (No Lift) __ Wheelchair Users | 150 secs.
|
From page 180... ...
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)
|
From page 181... ...
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
|
From page 182... ...
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.
|
From page 183... ...
_ . 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 .
|
From page 184... ...
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.
|
From page 185... ...
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.
|
From page 186... ...
(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.
|
From page 187... ...
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
|
From page 188... ...
. Electric wheelchair users and one scooter user found the low-floor buses much easier to board and alight.
|
From page 189... ...
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.
|
From page 190... ...
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.
|
From page 191... ...
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.
|
From page 192... ...
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.
|
From page 193... ...
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.
|
From page 194... ...
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.
|
From page 195... ...
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.
|
From page 196... ...
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
|
From page 197... ...
Lowfloor 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.
|
From page 198... ...
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.
|
From page 199... ...
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.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.