T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

SPONSORED BY

The Federal Transit Administration

TCRP Report 41

New Designs and Operating Experienceswith Low-Floor Buses

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council

TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECTSELECTION COMMITTEE

CHAIRROBERT G. LINGWOODBC Transit

MEMBERSGORDON AOYAGIMontgomery County GovernmentJ. BARRY BARKERTransit Authority of River CityLEE BARNESBarwood, Inc.RONALD L. BARNESCentral Ohio Transit AuthorityGERALD L. BLAIRIndiana County Transit AuthorityROD J. DIRIDONIISTPSSANDRA DRAGGOOCATACONSTANCE GARBERYork County Community Action Corp.ALAN J. GIBBSRutgers, The State Univ. of New JerseyDELON HAMPTONDelon Hampton & AssociatesKATHARINE HUNTER-ZAWORSKIOregon State UniversityJOYCE H. JOHNSONNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityALAN F. KIEPPERParsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.PAUL LARROUSSEMadison Metro Transit SystemEVA LERNER-LAMThe Palisades Consulting Group, Inc.GORDON J. LINTONFederal Transit AdministrationDON S. MONROEPierce TransitPATRICIA S. NETTLESHIPThe Nettleship Group, Inc.JAMES P. REICHERTReichert Management ServicesRICHARD J. SIMONETTAMARTAPAUL P. SKOUTELASPort Authority of Allegheny CountyPAUL TOLIVERKing County DOT/MetroMICHAEL S. TOWNESPeninsula Transportation Dist. Comm.LINDA S. WATSONCorpus Christi RTA

EX OFFICIO MEMBERSWILLIAM W. MILLARAPTAKENNETH R. WYKLEFHWAFRANCIS B. FRANCOISAASHTOROBERT E. SKINNER, JR.TRB

TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORLOUIS F. SANDERSAPTA

SECRETARYROBERT J. REILLYTRB

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1998

OFFICERS

Chairwoman: Sharon D. Banks, General Manager, AC TransitVice Chairman: Wayne Shackelford, Commissioner, Georgia Department of TransportationExecutive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

MEMBERS

THOMAS F. BARRY, JR., Secretary of Transportation, Florida Department of TransportationBRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University

of Texas at DallasSARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DCE. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of TransportationJOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, MDJOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh UniversityGORMAN GILBERT, Director, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State

UniversityDELON HAMPTON, Chair and CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, DCLESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, Civil Engineering, University of VirginiaJAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, NYTHOMAS F. LARWIN, General Manager, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development BoardBRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationJEFFREY J. MCCAIG, President and CEO, Trimac Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaJOSEPH A. MICKES, Chief Engineer, Missouri Department of TransportationMARSHALL W. MOORE, Director, North Dakota Department of TransportationANDREA RINIKER, Executive Director, Port of TacomaJOHN M. SAMUELS, VP—Operations Planning & Budget, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VALES STERMAN, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, MOJAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, CALTRANS (Past Chair, 1996)MARTIN WACHS, Director, University of California Transportation Center, University of California

at BerkeleyDAVID L. WINSTEAD, Secretary, Maryland Department of TransportationDAVID N. WORMLEY, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University (Past Chair, 1997)

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement AssociationJOE N. BALLARD, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers AssociationKELLEY S. COYNER, Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs, U.S. Department of

TransportationMORTIMER L. DOWNEY, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of TransportationFRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

OfficialsDAVID GARDINER, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJANE F. GARVEY, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of TransportationJOHN E. GRAYKOWSKI, Acting Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationROBERT A. KNISELY, Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of TransportationGORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationRICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationWALTER B. MCCORMICK, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations, Inc.WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transit AssociationJOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationKAREN BORLAUG PHILLIPS, Senior Vice President, Association of American RailroadsVALENTIN J. RIVA, President, American Concrete Pavement AssociationGEORGE D. WARRINGTON, Acting President and CEO, National Railroad Passenger CorporationKENNETH R. WYKLE, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRPSHARON D. BANKS, AC Transit (Chairwoman)LESTER A. HOEL, University of VirginiaTHOMAS F. LARWIN, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development BoardGORDON J. LINTON, U.S. Department of TransportationWILLIAM W. MILLAR, American Public Transit AdministrationROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research BoardDAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

Report 41

New Designs and Operating Experienceswith Low-Floor Buses

ROLLAND D. KINGColumbus, OH

Subject AreasPublic Transit

Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration inCooperation with the Transit Development Corporation

TRANSPORTATI ON RESEARCH BO ARDNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESSWashington, D.C. 1998

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility,environmental, and energy objectives place demands on publictransit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in needof upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency,and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research isnecessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate newtechnologies from other industries, and to introduce innovationsinto the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program(TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transitindustry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meetdemands placed on it.

The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB SpecialReport 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions,published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the UrbanMass Transportation Administration—now the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA). A report by the American Public TransitAssociation (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized theneed for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after thelongstanding and successful National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program, undertakes research and other technicalactivities in response to the needs of transit service providers. Thescope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields includingplanning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations,human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices.

TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992.Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP wasauthorized as part of the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandumagreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed bythe three cooperating organizations: FTA; the National Academy ofSciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB);and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofiteducational and research organization established by APTA. TDC isresponsible for forming the independent governing board,designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS)Committee.

Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodicallybut may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time It is theresponsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the researchprogram by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of theevaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels andexpected products.

Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel,appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panelsprepare project statements (requests for proposals), selectcontractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughoutthe life of the project. The process for developing research problemstatements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB inmanaging cooperative research programs since 1962. As in otherTRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily withoutcompensation.

Because research cannot have the desired impact if products failto reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed ondisseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of theresearch: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRBprovides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice,and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTAwill arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and otheractivities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and ruraltransit industry practitioners.

The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies cancooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRPresults support and complement other ongoing transit research andtraining programs.

TCRP REPORT 41

Project C-10C FY'96ISSN 1073-4872ISBN 0-309-06308-6Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 98-61202

© 1998 Transportation Research Board

Price $28.00

NOTICE

The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the TransitCooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation ResearchBoard with the approval of the Governing Board of the National ResearchCouncil. Such approval reflects the Governing Board's judgment that theproject concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes andresources of the National Research Council.The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this projectand to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competenceand with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to theproject. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of theresearch agency that performed the research, and while they have beenaccepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily thoseof the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, theTransit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration ofthe U.S. Department of Transportation.Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panelaccording to procedures established and monitored by the TransportationResearch Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of theNational Research Council.To save time and money in disseminating the research findings, the report isessentially the original text as submitted by the research agency. This reporthas not been edited by TRB.

Special Notice

The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, theTransit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration(sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorseproducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear hereinsolely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completenessof the project reporting.

Published reports of the

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

and can be ordered through the Internet athttp://www.nas.edu/trb/index.html

Printed in the United States of America

FOREWORDBy Staff

Transportation ResearchBoard

This report will be of interest to transit managers, policymakers, operations andmaintenance professionals, bus procurement specialists, bus manufacturers andsuppliers, and others interested in operating experience to date with low-floor transitbuses. The report provides information on the current market for low-floor buses andprovides a summary of operating experiences on the basis of discussions with transitagencies and low-floor bus manufacturers. The report includes information oncustomer satisfaction and acceptance, bus capacity and ridership impacts, bus operatingexperiences, impacts on maintenance and facilities, safety experiences, and operatorand mechanic acceptance and satisfaction. Also included is a discussion of the currentmarket and market trends for low-floor buses, an update of the status of low-floor bustechnology and technological developments, and a summary of key specifications forlow-floor buses available to the North American transit market. This report will beparticularly useful for transit agencies considering the deployment of low-floor transitbuses.

TCRP Synthesis 2, "Low-Floor Transit Buses," described the technology and issuesassociated with low-floor transit buses as of January 1994. However, much has takenplace in the marketplace since that time. Low-floor bus technology has been evolvingrapidly, new designs have been introduced, and low-floor buses have generally been inrevenue service over a longer period of time, logging well over 100 million miles ofservice to date. Accordingly, transit managers seek objective information concerningthe latest operating experiences of low-floor buses, as well as the most recent status ofthe low-floor bus market to assist them with their purchasing decisions.

Under TCRP Project C-10C, research was undertaken by Rolland D. King to gatherand synthesize information available on the low-floor bus marketplace, and to reporton the experiences of transit agencies currently operating low-floor buses.

To achieve the project objectives, the researcher made site visits to 10 transitagencies operating low-floor buses. Site visits were made to the Ann ArborTransportation Authority, Calgary Transit, Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District,Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany, NY), Chicago Transit Authority,Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Milwaukee County Transit System,Phoenix Transit System, Société de Transport de la Communauté Urbaine de Montréal,and Société de Transport de la Rive-Sud de Montréal. During the site visits,information on experience with low-floor buses was obtained through interviews withmanagement, staff, and passengers. Information from several additional transitagencies was also obtained by telephone. In a number of cases, internal reports on low-floor bus operating experiences were provided.

A survey of the six bus manufactures offering heavy-duty, standard-sized, low-floorbuses to the North American transit market was also conducted to obtain low-floor busmarket and trend information. Bus specification information was also collected,

including clearances, entrance heights, wheelbase, seating capacity, type of floor (e.g.,step, slope, flat), sizes of buses offered, empty vehicle weight, and GVWR. Busmanufacturers surveyed included Gillig, Neoplan USA, New Flyer Industries, NorthAmerican Bus Industries, Nova Bus, and Orion Bus Industries.

Finally, a review of the technical literature from the United States, Canada, and Europeconcerning low-floor bus experiences, technological developments, and practices wasconducted.

CONTENTS i Executive Summary

1 1.0 Introduction1.1 Background, 11.2 Approach, 2

4 2.0 Operating Experiences with Low-Floor Buses2.1 Customer Satisfaction and Acceptance, 42.2 Customer Comfort and Environment Issues, 132.3 Capacity and Ridership Impacts, 202.4 Impacts on Ridership, 312.5 Vehicle Operating Experiences, 332.6 Impacts on Maintenance and Facilities, 342.7 Safety Experiences, 382.8 Operator and Mechanic Acceptance and Satisfaction, 41

44 3.0 Market Status and Trends

47 4.0 Technology Status and Developments4.1 Status of Bus Manufacturers, 474.2 Developments in Technology, 47

56 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations5.1 Conclusions, 565.2 Recommendations, 63

65 References

68 Acronyms and Abbreviations

A-1 APPENDIX A Technical Description of Low-Floor Fleets

B-1 APPENDIX B Discussions of Factors Impacting Capacity

C-1 APPENDIX C Interview Guide and Survey Form

D-1 APPENDIX D Listing of Participants

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsSTEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research ProgramCHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Senior Program OfficerEILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing EditorHILARY FREER, Assistant Editor

PROJECT PANEL C-10

WINFORD L. TERRENTINE, Chagrin Falls, OH (Chair)SAMY E. G. ELIAS, University of Nebraska-LincolnROBERT L. GRAHAM, Northrop Grumman Corporation, El Segundo, CABRENDON HEMILY, Canadian Urban Transit Association, TorontoDANA LOWELL, MTA New York City TransitJAMES MCDOWELL, Nova Bus, Inc., Roswell, NMJAMES L. O'SULLIVAN, Fleet Maintenance Consultants, Houston, TXRONALD J. SHIPLEY, Pierce Transit, Tacoma, WAJERRY TROTTER, APTAFRANK W. VENEZIA, Lea & Elliott, Downers Grove, ILSHANG QUEN HSIUNG, FTA Liaison RepresentativeWILLIAM MENCZER, FTA Liaison RepresentativePETER SHAW, TRB Liaison Representative

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTSRolland King, Columbus, Ohio, was responsible for the

collection of data and preparation of the report. KyLynnSlayton provided valuable assistance in the preparation of thereport.

The author acknowledges with thanks the time and valuableassistance of many people at transit agencies and bus

manufacturers who provided information for this report.Valuable assistance was provided by panel members in thepreparation of this report. TCRP Program Officer ChristopherJenks deserves many thanks for his help and supportthroughout this project.

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since their deployment in 1991, low-floor buses have increasingly become thechoice of transit agencies in both the UnitedStates and Canada. At the close of 1997,there were over 2,800 low-floor buses inoperation, and another 2,660 on order inNorth America. Since their introduction in1991, low-floor buses in North Americahave logged well over 100-million miles inrevenue service.

The most frequent reason given bytransit agencies for choosing a low-floor buswas to provide a more user-friendly, easieraccess for all customers -- adults, children,people with disabilities, seniors, peoplecarrying infants or with strollers, and peoplewith packages. Other reasons include: tomeet the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) accessibility requirements usingramps rather than lifts, and to provide transitservice for the growing population of elderlycustomers with fixed-route service ratherthan special transportation service.

In the United States, the enactment ofthe ADA has been a major force in thegrowing interest in low-floor buses. InCanada, several provinces have encouragedthe purchase of low-floor buses in the formof policy directives and funding incentives.

The objectives of this project were tocollect and synthesize information availableon the operating experiences of transitagencies that currently operate low-floorbuses, including user acceptance, safetyconsiderations, service impacts, operatoracceptance, ridership impacts, andmaintenance impacts. In addition,information on the trends and marketoutlook for low-floor buses was to beprovided. The focus of the project was on

the experiences with the standard-size,heavy-duty, low-floor buses.

The approach used to gather thedesired information was a combination of:interviews of transit agencies at theirfacilities, telephone interviews with othertransit agencies, survey of the busmanufacturers, and a review of the technicalliterature. Ten agencies were selected forsite visits, and six bus manufacturers weresurveyed.

The overall experience with low-floor buses in the United States and Canadahas been positive, according to theinterviews. Many of the early problemsexperienced by the agencies interviewedappear to be new bus problems rather thanproblems intrinsically related to a low-floorbus design. The significant findings from theinterviews with transit agencies operatinglow-floor buses and discussions with busmanufacturers are provided below.

Customer Issues

All customers liked the ease ofboarding and alighting in the low-floor bus.Seniors and people with disabilitiesexpressed an even stronger preference. Ingeneral, ramps were preferred to lifts.

Customers also liked the improvedvisibility provided by the larger windows,the feeling of a spacious environment withthe higher ceilings, and places to putpackages.

Customers had complaints andconcerns. The most frequent complaint wasthe lack of seats. Some complained aboutcrowding, noise and vibration, foggedwindows, cold feet, and "jerky" ride. Some

ii

customers expressed concern about the stepsin the aisle. Only one agency had receivedmany strong complaints about crowding ontheir low-floor buses from their customers.

Capacity Issues

All of the current low-floor buseshave less seats than comparable high-floorbuses, 31 to 40 for low-floor busescompared to 43 to 45 for high-floor buses. Ifan agency's loading standard is to provide aseat for all expected customers, then the lossin capacity would be proportional to the lossof seats.

Eight of the transit agenciesinterviewed had not made changes in theirschedules or the number of buses used withthe introduction of low-floor buses to theirfleets. Two agencies thought that the lowercapacity of their low-floor buses wouldrequire more buses to be added to routes.One agency, in an effort to relieve thecrowding and congestion in their low-floorbuses, was evaluating a new interior designfor their buses, and believed that the newinterior design would provide them with atotal capacity for their low-floor buses equalto their current high-floor buses.

Boarding times for ambulatorypassengers were reported to be faster withlow-floor buses, from 0.2 to 0.7 of a second.The average boarding time of wheelchairpassengers was faster with the ramp thanwith a lift, 27.4 seconds versus 46.4 seconds.While these shorter boarding/alighting timeshad not resulted in increases in schedulespeed at any of the transit agenciesinterviewed, some felt that the faster rampoperations made it easier to maintainschedule, particularly when

multiple wheelchair boardings occurredduring a run.

Vehicle Operating and MaintenanceExperiences

A summary of significant operatingand maintenance experiences reported by theagencies is provided below:

• All were generally satisfied withthe road clearance capabilities ofthe low-floor buses. Occasionalgroundings were reported forsome high railroad crossings andon steep ramps.

• Operators reported that the low-floor buses were quicker (higheracceleration) and had goodhandling characteristics.

• The ramp was popular witheveryone. Road calls because oframp failures were reported asrare to none. Maintenance on aramp is much less than on a lift.

• All transit agencies were using alow profile, radial tire on theirlow-floor buses. All reported from20 to 30 percent less life with theirlow profile tires. Also, someagencies reported frequent wheeldamage from hitting the curbduring turns.

• Brakes were reported as a problemat most agencies. The majorproblems were: brake effortbalance between front and rearbrakes, timing of brakeapplication, and the short life ofbrake linings. A retrofit programhas corrected the first twoproblems. The life of brake

iii

linings is improving. Theproblems with the brakes appearto have resulted because the buswas a new bus design rather than alow-floor design.

• Changes in the maintenancefacilities have been minimal. Nochanges to pits had been made.Some agencies had fabricatedfixtures to adapt their existinghoist for the low-floor buses.Some used ladders and othersused movable platforms to workon roof mounted components.Minor adjustments to bus washbrush height were made by someagencies to accommodate thelower side skirts on low-floorbuses. As with any new bus, someadditional tooling andmaintenance equipment wasrequired.

• Overall, the operators liked theirlow-floor buses. Operators likedthe ease of customer boarding, theease of using the ramp, thequickness and handling of the bus,the improved visibility, and theeye level contact with customers.

• Mechanics were generallysatisfied with the low-floor buses.Some preferred to work on thelow-floor buses becauseeverything was cleaner andaccessible, while others expressedsome concerns about workingfrom ladders and elevatedplatforms.

Safety Experiences

All transit agencies were satisfiedwith their safety experiences with their low-floor buses. However, none had conductedan investigation to support their perceptions.At this early stage of deployment, astatistically valid comparison of passengersafety for low-floor buses versus high-floorbuses could not be made from the availabledata. A summary of reported experiences aregiven below.

• Four agencies reported that thenumber of passenger accidents perlow-floor bus was higher than thepassenger accidents per bus fortheir high-floor fleet. All agenciescautioned against making a simplecomparison of the data becausethe exposure of the low-floorbuses (more passengers and moremiles per bus) was higher than fortheir high-floor buses.

• Some agencies felt that the higherfrequency of slips and falls ofpassengers occurring in front ofthe low-floor buses could berelated to the lack of an adequatenumber of handholds from thefarebox to the first row of seats.

• All agencies reported that nosafety incidents had occurredbecause of the steps in the aisle.

With six suppliers, the growth insales of low-floor buses in the last two yearshas grown rapidly. In 1997, there were 1,185low-floor buses delivered to transit agenciesin North America. Three of themanufacturers estimated that their sales in

iv

2000 would be 50 to 90 percent low-floormodels.

Several R&D programs that holdpromise to provide improvements in low-floor bus technology in the future aresuggested. Research needs that wereidentified are: the development of levelboarding with low-floor buses, developmentof improved handholds for the front of thebus, and an investigation into methods toreduce dwell times.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Transit systems in North Americabegan to use low-floor transit buses inDecember 1991. Over 2,800 standard andlarge-size, low-floor buses were in revenueservice by the end of 1997, and another2,660 were on order. Since their introductionin 1991, low-floor buses in North Americahave logged well over 100-million miles ofrevenue service.

The most frequent reason given bytransit agencies for choosing a low-floor buswas to provide a more user-friendly, easieraccess for all customers -- adults, children,people with disabilities, seniors, peoplecarrying infants or with strollers, and peoplewith packages. The reasons for choosinglow-floor buses varied from agency toagency, but the three most frequent citedwere:

• To provide an easier more user-friendly access for all passengers,

• To meet the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA)accessibility requirements usingramp technology, and avoiding thehigh maintenance cost andunreliability of lifts, and

• To provide transit service for thegrowing population of elderlycustomers with fixed-route servicerather than special transportationservice.

As interest in the purchase of thesenew buses grew, more transit managersbegan seeking objective information ontopics such as: fewer seats, customeracceptance and satisfaction, ridershipimpacts, maintenance costs, vehicle

handling and road clearances, and safety. Aproject under the Transit CooperativeResearch Program (TCRP) was establishedto update and expand on the informationprovided in an earlier TCRP synthesis reporton low-floor buses (Reference 1). Thesynthesis report focused on low-floor bustechnology since the deployment of low-floor buses in North America had just begunand very limited operating experience datawere available at that time. In June 1997, acontract was issued to gather and synthesizeinformation available on the operatingexperiences of transit agencies that currentlyoperate low-floor buses, including useracceptance, safety considerations, serviceimpacts, operator acceptance, ridershipimpacts, and maintenance impacts. Inaddition, information on the transit agenciescurrently operating low-floor buses, as wellas information on the trends and marketoutlook for low-floor buses was to beprovided. The results of that project arecontained in this report.

What makes a bus a low-floor bus? Awidely accepted definition for a low-floorbus that was first proposed to theInternational Union of Public Transportation(UITP) in 1991 (Reference 2), and isapplicable today is as follows:

"The low-floor bus is a buswhich, between doors 1 and2, has a vehicle floorsufficiently low and levelenough to remove the needfor steps in the aisle bothbetween these doors, and inthe vicinity of the doors."

The basic issue is how to provide a low, flatfloor at entrances and over the axle areas.

2

An entrance level of 380 mm (15 inches) orless is required to provide access to the busfloor without steps at the entrance door.Either a deep drop beam or an independentaxle approach is used for the front axle toprovide a low level floor access to thepassenger area. In North America, twoapproaches are also used to clear the rearaxle and other drive train components. Oneapproach has been to use steps from the lowfront floor area to an elevated floor area inthe rear of the bus. The other approach is touse a ramp in the floor to clear a drop centerrear axle. More information on the variouslow-floor bus technologies can be found inReferences 1, 2, and 3.

1.2 Approach

The approach used to gather thedesired information was a combination of:interviews of transit agencies at theirfacilities, telephone interviews with othertransit agencies, surveys of the busmanufacturers, and review of the technicalliterature. The transit agencies identified forsite visits were diversified as to operatingenvironments, such as: climates, passengerloads, and fleet size, and low-floor bustechnologies. Site visits were made to: AnnArbor Transportation Authority, CalgaryTransit, Champaign-Urbana Mass TransitDistrict, Capital District TransportationAuthority, Chicago Transit Authority,Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid TransitAuthority, Milwaukee County TransitSystem, Phoenix Transit System, Société deTransport de la Communauté Urbaine deMontréal, and Société de Transport de laRive-Sud de Montréal.

During the site visits, informationwas obtained through interviews with

management, staff, and passengers. A copyof the interview guide used during the sitevisits is in Appendix C. Several of theseagencies also provided internal reports ontheir operating experiences. In addition,telephone interviews were held with severalother transit agencies that were identifiedduring the course of the project as havingsignificant information.

A survey was sent to the six busmanufacturers that are offering heavy-duty,standard-size, low-floor buses to the NorthAmerican transit market. The surveyrequested both technical and marketinginformation. A copy of the busmanufacturers' survey is in Appendix C.The final source of information for thisstudy was the literature from the U.S.,Canada, and Europe on low-floor busexperiences, technology developments, andpractices.

This report is divided into five majorsections, starting with this brief introduction.The second section provides detaileddiscussions of the operating experiencesreported by the transit agencies interviewed.The third section describes the status andtrends of the low-floor bus market. Thefourth section discusses the developments inlow-floor bus technologies and some of theemerging practices in Europe. Conclusionsand recommendations for future research areprovided in the last section. The Appendicescontain technical information of the low-floor fleets at the transit agenciesinterviewed, copies of the interview guideand survey forms, a discussion of vehicleand operational factors that impact capacity,and a listing of agencies and manufacturersthat provided information for this report.

Since low-floor bus developmentsand operating experiences are rapidlychanging, it is likely that some of the details

3

of what transit agencies are experiencing andbus manufacturers are doing is changing.However, it is hoped that this report willconvey some useful information about the"lessons learned," an understanding of whattechnologies are available, and be useful tothose considering the purchase of low-floorbuses.

4

2.0 OPERATING EXPERIENCES WITH LOW-FLOOR BUSES

The operating experiences with low-floor buses reported in this report werelargely obtained from interviews of twelvetransit agencies. Some additional operatingexperiences that were found in the openliterature are also included. Operatingexperiences were obtained from low-floorfleets of different: sizes, passenger loadings,geographic locations, climate conditions,and low-floor bus technologies. Selectedoperational statistics for the twelve agenciesthat participated in the study are given inTable 2.1. Information on the twelve low-floor bus fleets is given in Table 2.2. A morecomplete technical description of the fleetscan be found in Appendix A.

Information was gathered oncustomer acceptance and satisfaction,capacity and ridership impacts, experienceswith the vehicle in revenue service,maintenance issues, safety issues, andoperator and mechanic acceptance. Theinterview findings for each of these topicsare discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Customer Satisfaction andAcceptance

All of the transit agenciesinterviewed reported that their customersliked the ease of boarding and alighting ofthe low-floor buses. This was the case for allcustomers, and was particularly true forseniors and customers with disabilities. Thisperception is supported by all of thecustomer satisfaction surveys that wereconducted by the agencies. Overall,customer satisfaction and acceptance of thelow-floor buses has been positive. All

agencies have received the occasionalcustomer complaint on issues such as: lackof seats, cold feet, noise and vibration,fogged windows (can't see out), and jerkyride. The Société de Transport de laCommunauté Urbaine de Montréal(STCUM) was the only system in this studythat experienced a high level of customercomplaints with the low-floor buses. Thereasons for customer dissatisfaction atSTCUM are complex, and appear to berelated to a combination of interior designfactors that were exacerbated by extremelyhigh loading factors. These issues arediscussed in a later section. It is interestingto note that the Société de Transport de laRive-Sud de Montréal (STRSM) has thesame low-floor bus in revenue service, andthey reported that their customers liked thebus.

2.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Surveys

Several transit agencies haveconducted satisfaction and acceptancesurveys of their customers and operatorsshortly after the introduction of low-floorbuses in their fleets (References 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, and 11). In general, the acceptance ofthe low-floor buses was found to be positive.However, there were concerns reported insome of the surveys. The significant findingsof these surveys are discussed in thefollowing paragraphs.

Table 2.1 Statistics of Bus Operations of Systems Providing Information(a)

(a) 1996 data from the National Transit Database and the Canadian Urban Transit Association Operating Statistics.(b) Unlinked Trips/Revenue Vehicle-Hours and Unlinked Trip/Revenue Vehicle-Miles.(c) Revenue Vehicle Miles/Vehicles in Active Fleet.(d) Revenue Vehicle Miles/Revenue Vehicle Hours.

6

Table 2.2 Low-Floor Fleets Included in Study

2.1.1.1 Ann Arbor TransportationAuthority. An on-board survey (Reference4) conducted in July 1994 at the Ann ArborTransportation Authority (AATA), foundthat most customers, including those whohave some difficulty with steps, found low-floor buses easier to use. As shown in Table2.3, most customers (both those with no

difficulty and those with difficulty) found thelow-floor bus easier to get on and off. Forother issues: availability of seats, ease ofgetting to a seat, seat comfort, smoothness ofride, and feeling of personal security, lessthan 50 percent of the customers had apreference for low-floor buses. However, fornone of the survey

7

Table 2.3 Percent of Riders Preferring Low-Floor Buses at AATA

Source: Reference 4

measurements did more than 15 percent ofthe customers prefer high-floor buses, andthe balance stated that they had nopreference.

2.1.1.2 Calgary Transit. InSeptember 1993, Calgary Transit (CT) beganoperating 50 New Flyer Industries D40Llow-floor buses. On a Thursday early inDecember of that year, a survey wasdistributed to riders of low-floor buses on sixroutes. The purpose of the survey was toreceive and evaluate some low-floor featuresand performance of the buses. A total of 400surveys were distributed and 351 (88%) werereturned (Reference 5).

Customers were asked to rate severalfeatures of the low-floor buses as being

either good, fair, or poor. The major findingsof the survey are shown in Table 4.2. As canbe seen in Table 2.4, most customers likedthe ease of boarding. The customer concernsabout handrails related to the location andnumber at the front of the bus. Mostcustomers thought there should be morehandrails or straps, and that they should belowered or easier to reach. This featureresulted in the second highest number ofcritical comments. A number of customerssaid that the rear doors were either too hardto open or that the doors closed too quickly.While the majority of customers rated thegeneral ride quality as good, the reviewswere mixed in that about one-third thoughtthe ride was rough. Some customers did notlike the elevated rear

8

Table 2.4 Customer Responses to Calgary Transit Survey of Low-Floor Buses

Source: Reference 5

seating area; either they did not like having toclimb steps, they felt the steps were abottleneck, or they perceived that the areawas reserved for younger passengers. Theneed for better heat distribution, particularlyonto the side windows, was mentioned bysome customers. The feature that receivedthe most criticism was seating capacity. Over25 percent of the respondents said that thelow-floor buses did not have enough seats.There also were comments that the bus didnot have sufficient capacity for rush hourservice.

2.1.1.3 Chicago Transit Authority.In July 1992, a low-floor bus (New Flyer,D40L) was made available to the ChicagoTransit Authority (CTA) for in-servicetesting. The bus was operated in revenueservice on two routes (79 and 22) and wasmade available for inspection displays at

several locations. Customer response surveyswere conducted of passengers riding alongthe routes and at the on-display locations.Surveys were also conducted of passengersalong the same routes riding the CTA'scurrent high-floor buses (Flxible and TMClift equipped buses that were purchasedin 1990-91). There were 832 surveyresponses of the low-floor bus, 644 surveyresponses of the TMC buses, and 613survey responses of the Flxible buses(Reference 6).

There were 99 respondents that usedsome type of mobility aid (i.e., cane, walker,crutches, or wheelchair). There were 194respondents who used or "tried-out" the rampor used a lift to get on the bus. Therespondents who used a mobility aid wereasked to rate the ease of using a ramp or lift.In response to the questions, "If you used theramp (lift), please indicate how easy it was,"

9

the responses shown in Table 2.5 were given.Approximately 96 percent found the rampeasy to very easy to use and only about onepercent said that it was hard or very hard touse. In comparison, 70 percent said that thelift was easy to very easy to use andapproximately 13 percent reported lift use ashard to very hard.

The survey contained a number ofstatements relating to attributes of a bus. Therespondents were asked their degree ofagreement or disagreement with thestatements. Table 2.6 provides the customerresponses to statements relating to quality ofservice for low-floor and high-floor buses. Itcan be seen from the responses in Table 2.6that the low-floor bus was preferred over thehigh-floor buses for all of these statements ofservice quality.

2.1.1.4 Metropolitan AtlantaRapid Transit Authority. In the Fall of1994, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid

Transit Authority (MARTA) purchased 51New Flyer D40L low-floor buses. InFebruary 1995, MARTA conducted acustomer survey to evaluate theirsatisfaction with the new low-floor buses.The survey was conducted on-board byMARTA staff. To assure a random sample,every fifth customer was asked to respond toseveral survey statements. A total of 712surveys were completed. Twenty-eightidentified themselves as physically disabled,and three were using wheelchairs. Overthree-fourths (78 percent) were daily riders.The trip purpose was divided as: over one-half (57 percent) was commute to work,about 15 percent were students, and theremainder were on personal businessjourneys. About one-third (31 percent) of therespondents had ridden low-floor buses morethan 15 times, and about five percent werefirst time riders of the low-floor bus(Reference 7).

Table 2.5 CTA Survey Findings on Ease of Using Ramp/Lift to Board Bus

Source: Reference 6

(*) Numbers in parentheses are in percent of total responses.

10

Table 2.6 Customer Responses to CTA Survey Statements Related to Quality of Service

(*) The New Flyer bus was a low-floor bus, all others were high-floor buses.

Source: Reference 6

Customers were asked theirpreferences on several attributes of the low-floor bus versus the conventional MARTAhigh-floor buses. The major findings were:

• A large majority of the customersfound the low-floor buses easier toboard and alight (84 percent and81 percent, respectively), and onlyabout 2 percent said that

boarding and alighting was moredifficult.

• Slightly over one-half of thecustomers found it easier to get toa seat on the low-floor bus (55percent), while 10 percent found itmore difficult.

• Less than one-half of thecustomers said that it was easier toget a seat (44 percent), and

11

about one-fifth (20 percent) saidthat it was more difficult.

• Most customers (92 percent) ratedthe low-floor buses as havinggood or excellent visibility whileonly two-thirds of the customersrated the conventional MARTAbuses as having good or excellentvisibility.

• Most customers (91 percent) gavethe low-floor buses a good orexcellent overall rating while only60 percent gave the conventionalMARTA buses a good orexcellent rating.

• Most customers (76 percent) saidthat low-floor buses providedgood or excellent packagehandling. While slightly less thanone-half (48 percent) rated theconventional MARTA buses asproviding good or excellentpackage handling aspects. Overone-fourth of the respondents hadat least one package at the time ofthe survey.

• A large majority (94 percent)rated the low-floor buses good orexcellent in regards to being safeto board while just over one-half(56 percent) gave the same ratingto the conventional MARTAbuses.

2.1.1.5 Metropolitan TransitAuthority of Harris County. In July 1997,the Metropolitan Transit Authority of HarrisCounty (MTA) conducted a customersatisfaction survey of their new low-floorbuses (Reference 8). Surveys weredistributed to riders on-board the low-floorbuses on one route. Of the 450 surveys

given out, 144 completed surveys werereturned for a response rate of 32 percent. Asummary of the major findings follows.

• Overall satisfaction with the low-floor bus was 72 percent, and only7 percent of the respondents werenot satisfied.

• About one-half (47 percent) of therespondents felt that the low-floorbuses were better compared toother metro buses, while 19percent thought that theconventional metro buses werebetter.

• Over three-fourths (76 percent) ofthe respondents said that theoverall quality of ride was betteron the low-floor buses, and 10percent were dissatisfied.

• Most (88 percent) of the surveyrespondents were satisfied withthe ease of boarding the low-floorbuses.

• Over three-fourths (76 percent) ofthe respondents were satisfiedwith the ease of exiting the reardoor of the low-floor buses.

• Most (82 percent) of the surveyrespondents were satisfied withthe steps up to the back seats.

• Over three-fourths (78 percent) ofthe survey respondents weresatisfied with width of the aisle.

• Most (80 percent) of therespondents were satisfied withthe visibility from inside the low-floor buses.

• About three-fourths (72 percent)were satisfied with the interiornoise level of the low-floor buses.

12

• About three-fourths (71 percent) ofthe survey respondents weresatisfied with the number ofseats.

• The respondents stronglypreferred forward-facing seats.They were willing to tradealmost four side-facing seats toget one additional forward-facingseat.

2.1.1.6 MTA New York CityTransit. The New York City Transit(NYCT) conducted three studies of customerattitudes toward low-floor buses prior to theirpurchasing low-floor buses (References 9,10, and 11). A summary of the findings ofeach of the studies are given in the followingparagraphs.

The objectives of the first study wereto obtain customer and bus operator feedbackon a low-floor design, perceptions of an idealbus design, and preferences on features suchas seat orientation, hand grips, andhandicapped access. Nine focus groups ofeight to ten people were used in the study,and included the following:

• Two groups of rush hourcustomers,

• Two groups of senior citizencustomers,

• One group of off-peak non-seniorcustomers,

• One group of wheelchair usercustomers,

• One group of visually impairedcustomers, and

• Two groups of bus operators.

The customer groups were conductedon a "walk-through" of a low-floor bus and acurrent bus used at NYCT. The low-floor

bus was a New Flyer Industries D40L with37 seats (21 forward-facing and 16 side-facing). The current bus was an RTS buswith 40 seats (22 forward-facing and 18 side-facing).

Following each "walk-through," theparticipants were asked to provide writtenevaluations and comments on specificfeatures of the buses. Then, they were askedto provide written preferences/comments onentry, flow through the bus, seating,windows, exit door features, ramp, and theoverall satisfaction with the bus. Eachsession ended with a group discussion oftheir overall reactions to the features of thelow-floor bus, their bus experiences, andsuggestions for improvements.

The most frequently mentionedconcern with respect to riding experience forall groups was crowded conditions (i.e., noseat, no room to stand, etc.). The satisfactionwith the low-floor bus was divided. Theseniors, young mothers, and people withdisabilities generally liked the low-floor bus.Their desire for an easier access outweighedany perceived negatives. However, the rushhour customers preferred the current bus overthe low-floor bus. They perceived the low-floor bus to have less room (i.e., less seatsand no room to stand) for the rush hourconditions which they face. All groupsexpressed concerns with the steps up to therear portion of the low-floor bus.

In the second study, three low-floorbuses and a current bus were evaluated bycustomer groups. The low-floor busesincluded a New Flyer Industries D40L (39seats), an Orion Bus Industries Orion VI (28seats with 21 forward facing and the exitdoor behind the rear axle), and a hybridelectric bus (33 seats). The customer groupswere equally divided between rush hourcustomers and off-peak customers.

13

The customer groups were given a 20minute ride on each of the buses, then askedto fill out a questionnaire. During the testride, the bus simulated operational serviceand the wheelchair lift or ramp wasdemonstrated.

In general, customers were favorabletoward the low-floor buses because of thegreater ease of entering and exiting the bus.The acceptability of the low-floor buses wasconditioned on an acceptable seatingcapacity and interior configuration. If therewere too few seats and a sense ofinsufficient space to flow through the bus,the current bus was preferred over the low-floor bus.

In the third study, a New FlyerIndustries D40L bus (37 seats with 21forward facing) was tested in revenue servicefrom January to May 1997. A total of 685customer surveys were distributed,completed, and collected on the bus overthree days (March 6 and 13 and May 9).Overall customer reaction was very positive.The customer ratings of the bus features aregiven in Table 2.7.

2.2 Customer Comfort andEnvironment Issues

Overall, the transit agencies reportedthat their customers were pleased with theease of boarding and were generally satisfiedwith the comfort and environment of theirlow-floor buses. The transit agencies alsoreported that occasional customer complaintshave been received on the comfort andenvironment of their low-floor buses. Someof these complaints result from featuresinherent in the design of a low-floor bus,such as windows fogging ("can't see out").Other complaints are more a result

that the low-floor bus is a "new bus model,"and refinements in its design anddevelopment are needed. The most frequentareas cited are discussed in the followingsections.

2.2.1 Visibility

Low-floor buses, with their highceilings, generally have larger windows. Thelarge windows and high ceilings provide thecustomer with a feeling of spaciousness,which contributes to the comfort ofpassengers. Also, police officers and transitinspectors like the large windows since theyhave increased visibility of the inside of thebus.

When the windows are clear, thecustomers like the larger windows andimproved visibility of the low-floor buses.However, road spray and window fogging (inwinter) problems can reduce the visibilityoffered by the larger windows. When theroad is wet, slushy, or wet with snow mixedwith salt and sand, the road spray canobscure all of the lower portion of thepassenger windows from the back of thefront wheels to the rear of the bus.

The road spray from the front tiresseems to be drawn back to the side of the buscausing the windows (the lower half) to becovered by spray and road grime. Since thewindows on a low-floor bus are lower thanon a high-floor bus, they are impacted more.The sides of high-floor buses are alsocovered by road spray, but since the windowsare higher from the pavement, the windowsare less affected.

Several of the transit agencies haveinstalled an air dam in front of the front axle.The air dam is essentially a "mud flap" thatextends the entire width of the bus which

14

Table 2.7 NYCT Survey Customer Ratings of Features of Low-Floor Buses

Source: Reference 11

modifies the air flow under the bus. A photoof a low-floor bus equipped with an air damis shown in Figure 2.1.

The transit agencies reported that theair dam was effective in reducing the roadspray on passenger windows. The AATA andCT have replaced the rubber fenders on theirfront tires with a brush system similar towhat is seen on many of the UPS trucks.

The CT has both front and rear tiresequipped with these brush systems. Bothtransit agencies reported that the brushesreduced the road spray that wouldaccumulate on the side passenger window. Aphoto of a front tire of a CT low-floor busequipped with the brush system is shown inFigure 2.2.

15

Figure 2.1 Low-Floor Bus Equipped with an Air Dam

Figure 2.2 Calgary Transit Bus with Brush System

16

Passenger visibility may also bereduced by condensation of water vapor onthe windows. CT said that this has been acontinuing problem for them with their low-floor buses. Winter in Calgary can be quitevariable, cold, snow, sunshine, and warm allin the same day. A lot of salt and sand is usedon the streets to keep them safe. As a result,CT buses can become very dirty with slushand road grime during the day. CT buses arewashed at the end of the day and stored in aheated garage. When the buses pull out in theearly morning, it can be quite cold, and thewindows quickly become completely fogged.This problem is compounded by the lack ofeffective air flow across the windows in low-floor buses.

In high-floor buses, the air vents arebelow the passenger windows and warm airis directed up across the window. In low-floor buses, the air vents are above thepassenger windows, and the warm air isdirected down across the windows. This airflow design results in the condensation at thetop of the window being removed first,however, that area is generally above aseated passenger's line of sight. Also, it ismore difficult to direct an effective stream ofwarm air down compared with directing aflow of warm air up. In Canada, there aredevelopments underway to achieve a "warmwall" system which will have air vents underthe passenger windows. The "warm wall"systems used in their high-floor buses haveproven to be effective for their cold climates,but they add to the weight and cost of thebus.

2.2.2 Heating and Ventilation

The heating and ventilation system ona high-floor bus is a hot-water, forced air

design which provides a positive air pressurewith recirculating fresh and return air. Aheater box is mounted under the floor aboutin the middle of the bus. Duct work runningalong the walls of the bus at floor leveldistributes the heated air. In a "warm wall"design, about 20 percent of this heated air isdirected up inside the bus wall to vents underthe windows which direct warm air acrossthe windows to reduce fogging.

Since the heater box cannot beplaced under the floor of a low-floor bus,heating of a low-floor bus is more difficult.The heating and ventilation systems for alow-floor bus are located on the roof or inthe rear of the bus above the engine. Thewarm air is distributed by duct work in theceiling and directed down across thewindows in the passenger compartment.The initial designs of low-floor buses onlyhad the warm air distributed by the ceilingvents. Transit agencies with this type ofheating for their low-floor buses receivedfrequent complaints of cold feet from theircustomers.

In response to these complaints, busmanufacturers added floor area auxiliaryheaters which provide forced warm air onboth sides of the bus in the floor area. Theauxiliary heaters are supplied by hot enginecoolant that is pumped through a heatexchanger. In some cases, a booster heater isused to increase the temperatures of theengine coolant. Other designs use a radiantbaseboard type system using circulating hotwater that is heated by an exchanger whichhas a heater core with circulating enginecoolant. The new heating systems of low-floor buses have resolved the initialproblems, and the transit agencies that wereinterviewed were generally satisfied with thecomfort of their buses in winter conditions.However, some transit agencies located in

17

very cold climates are still requesting a"warm wall" design.

2.2.2.1 Urban Bus Ventilation andClimate Control Study. As a part of a studyon bus ventilation and climate control by theCanadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA)and Transport Canada, a series of tests wereconducted to measure the performance of theventilation and heating systems on urbanbuses (References 24 and 25). The testmeasurements included airflows in thepassenger and operator areas, temperaturemeasurements in the passenger and operatorareas, and air patterns. Tests were conductedon all three low-floor buses made byCanadian bus manufacturers. Tests were alsoconducted on conventional high-floor modelsfor comparison purposes. The key findings ofthese tests are discussed in the followingparagraphs.

The ASHRAE Standard for"Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor AirQuality" recommends a minimum make upair (MUA) for transportation vehicles of 15cubic feet per minute (cfm) per occupant(Reference 19). Only one low-floor bus metthe ASHRAE Standard when using only thepassenger system on high-speed setting. Allbut one met the ASHRAE Standard whenboth the operator and passenger systems wereon high-speed settings. None of the high-floor buses tested met the ASHRAE Standardwhen using both the passenger and theoperator systems on high-speed settings.

The temperature measurementsfound rather large temperature differentialsin the buses tested indicating someshortcomings of the air distribution withinthe buses. The measured horizontaltemperature differentials for the head zonelevel ranged from 8°F to 17°F, and for thefoot zone level ranged from 10°F to 23°F.

The vertical temperature differentials rangedfrom 6°F to 20°F.

The ASHRAE Standard for"Thermal Environmental Conditions forHuman Occupancy" recommends anoptimum temperature of 71 °F and atemperature range of 68°F to 75°F forpeople dressed in typical indoor winterclothing (Reference 20). None of the low-floor buses tested met this temperaturerange. The observed temperature range forthe head zone level was 63°F to 88°F. TheASHRAE Standard 55-1992 alsorecommends a head to foot temperaturedifferential of no greater than 5°F. None ofthe low-floor buses tested met therecommended vertical temperaturedifferentials for all areas of the bus. A newventilation and climate control systemspecification is being developed by CUTA toaddress these issues.

2.2.3 Dust Intrusion

Several of the transit agenciesreported higher levels of dust intrusion intheir low-floor buses compared with theirconventional buses. The Phoenix TransitSystem (PTS) said that an investigationconducted for them suggested that the dustwas entering through the doors. Once inside,the dust would be sucked into the airrecirculation system and distributedthroughout the bus.

The MTA had problems with dustintrusion in their low-floor buses. The MTAdevised a smoke bomb test to identify howthe dust entered the buses. A smoke bombwas placed on a bracket in the right uppercorner of the rear mounted air-conditioning(AC) unit. The bracket was the normalstorage place for their wheel shocks. The

18

smoke bomb was set off with the busstationary. No intrusion of smoke into thepassenger compartment was observed. TheMTA test personnel decided to drive thebus. No smoke inside the bus was observeduntil the speed was about 20 mph. Then, somuch smoke had entered the interior of thebus that the test driver could not see andstopped the bus. Smoke passed through therear bulkhead and entered the plenum areabetween the roof and ceiling, and thenentered the passenger compartment. Therear bulkhead has several electrical andtubing penetrations. Also, the multiplexcontroller with many wires is in the samegeneral area. The MTA staff were uncertainas to the paths for the smoke penetrationto the bus interior, but hypothesized that thepassenger compartment built up a negativepressure as the bus moved, and at 20 mph,the negative pressure was high enough tocause the smoke to enter through the plenumarea into the interior of the bus. Theperception of the MTA staff was that dustenters the bus in a similar manner, and isdistributed throughout the bus by the airrecirculation system. The pressure inside thebus was not measured during the tests.Therefore, no direct confirmation of theirhypothesis was made. However, the MTAstaff also noted that buses operating in thecentral business district (CBD) whereexhaust fumes are relatively high, frequentlyreport entry of exhaust fumes inside theirbuses. These observations tend to supporttheir hypothesis that their low-floor busesdevelop negative pressures in the interior ofthe bus as they move. The MTA low-floorbuses do not have a separate fresh air intakein their climate control system. The MTAfeels that sufficient outside air will enterthrough the doorways at the frequent stopsalong the route.

The Capital District TransportationAuthority (CDTA) also reported excessivedust in the rear third of their low-floor buses.The exit door on the CDTA low-floor busesis behind the rear axle. The CDTA staffthought that dust enters their bus when therear door is opened at stops. The CDTA low-floor buses do not have a separate fresh airintake in their climate control system. Freshair enters the bus when the doors are openedat the stops.

2.2.4 Noise and Vibration

Several of the transit agencies saidthat they have received some customercomplaints related to the noise andvibrations of low-floor buses. Occasionalcomplaints were received about vibration onthe low-floor buses powered with a fourcylinder engine. These complaints usuallycome from customers seated in the rear ofthe bus.

CT conducted interior and exteriornoise tests of their low-floor and high-floorbuses. The results of these tests are given inTable 2.8. As can be seen in Table 2.8, thetests found that the low-floor busesgenerally had higher interior noise levels forboth the passenger and operator areas.However, the test measurements of theexterior noise levels resulted in mixedfindings relative to low-floor busescompared to high-floor buses. It is ofinterest to note that the newer low-floor bus(1995) with the 50 Series engine had lowerexterior noise level measurements than anyof the high-floor buses tested.

Table 2.8 Interior and Exterior Noise Levels of Calgary Transit Buses, Accelerating From 0 to 35 mph

Source: Calgary Transit

TEST procedures are based on SAE J366b.

(*) Low-floor buses, all other buses are high-floor.

20

Two of the tests conducted on busesat the Altoona Bus Testing Center (ABTC)are exterior noise and interior noise. Table2.9 gives the test results of seven low-floorand four high-floor buses that have beentested by the ABTC. As can be seen in Table2.9, the passenger, operator, or exterior noiselevel measurements indicate mixed findingsbetween low-floor buses and high-floorbuses. These tests appear to indicate thatthere are no consistent and significantdifferences in the noise levels of low-floorand high-floor buses.

2.2.5 Ride Quality

Several of the transit agencies saidthat customers had complained about thesmoothness of the ride and the harshness ofthe brakes on their low-floor buses. Neitherof these issues appear to be inherent to a low-floor bus design, but seem to be more anissue of improving the control andcoordination of the power train and brakingsystems during acceleration and deceleration.Adjustments in brake balance and retardercontrol and operator training and experiencewere reported by some transit agencies asimproving the ride quality and reducing thenumber of customer complaints. Some transitagencies are working with their busmanufacturer to improve the control andcoordination of the transmission, engine, andretarder systems.

2.3 Capacity and Ridership Impacts

A major concern about low-floorbuses is vehicle capacity, and the possibleimpacts concerning the number of busesrequired for a given route. The maximum

number of passengers that can be serviced bya bus route is a function of the capacity of thebuses operating on the line and the averageheadway between the buses on the line. Ageneral discussion of the factors impactingthe number of passengers that can be carriedon a line is given in Appendix B. If theloading standard calls for a seat for everyexpected customer, then the number of seatson a bus is the capacity of that bus. If theloading standard permits standees, then thecapacity of the bus is a function of thecombination of seats and the number ofstandees that the bus can carry. Thecapacities of the low-floor buses that were inoperation at the transit agencies interviewedare discussed in a following section onVehicle Capacity.

The number of buses needed to beassigned to a route, for a given headway, isinversely proportional to the average speedthat can be maintained along the route.Therefore, to be able to carry morepassengers on a route for a given buscapacity, and not increase the number ofbuses assigned to the route, the averagespeed along the route must be increased. Themethods to increase speed along a routecould include: use of an exclusive bus lane,bus priority at intersections, and decrease indwell times.

Low-floor buses offer the potential toreduce dwell times through faster boardingand alighting times. However, only a fractionof the dwell time is consumed by boardingsand alightings. A larger portion of dwell timeis composed of fare collection, re-entry ofbus from a stop zone into the traffic lane, andthe operator answering passenger questions.The boarding and alighting times forambulatory and disabled passengers for bothlow-floor and high-floor buses are given inthe following section.

Table 2.9 Noise Levels of Transit Buses Measured at Altoona, Accelerating from 0 to 35 mph

Source: Altoona Bus Test Reports

TEST procedures are based on SAE J366b for the exterior noise measurements and White Book for the interior noise measurements.

(*)Low-floor bus, all other buses are high-floor.

22

2.3.1 Boarding and Alighting Times

There is some thought that more rapidboarding and alighting times of a low-floorbus might lead to shorter dwell times andfaster schedule speeds. No original data onboarding and alighting times were collectedduring this study. However, there were fourreferences found in the literature that didcontain information on boarding andalighting times (References 1, 13, 26, and27). None of these references provideinformation on any changes in running times.The boarding and alighting times forambulatory passengers from five transitagencies are given in Table 2.10. The datafor Vancouver and Victoria were obtainedfrom the observations of a large number ofboarding and alighting in revenue service(over 14,000 and 4,000 respectively). Theboarding times given for Ann Arbor were fortwo types of service, revenue and shuttle.The revenue service times were meanboarding times for cash and no cash (pass orprepaid media) transactions. The shuttleservice times were observed during aSummer Art Fair, where fares were collectedprior to boarding and all doors were used.The times for Kitchner Transit and St. AlbertTransit were boarding and alighting timesmeasured during revenue service.

In August of 1996, the Paralympicswere held in Atlanta. The U.S. Department ofTransportation's Volpe NationalTransportation Systems Center (VNTSC)conducted a limited operational assessmentof the specialized transportation service thatwas provided for the athletes participating inthe event (Reference 27). A specific focus ofthe assessment was the bus accesstechnologies that enabled boarding andalighting of the athletes using mobility aids.As a part of this assessment, a number of

measurements of the boarding and alightingtimes were made. The results of ramp and liftboarding and alighting time measurementsare given in Table 2.11. The ramps wereNew Flyer Industries and the lifts were Lift-UTM. A caution needs to be made thatbecause of possible differences in thetransportation services provided and thecapabilities of the athletes, the observedboarding and alighting times may not berealized in typical transit operations. Thesedata were the only statistical data found onthe boarding and alighting times forpassengers using wheelchairs.

It should be pointed out that the totaldwell time of a bus in revenue service wouldinclude: time to maneuver to a securementlocation and time to secure the mobility aid.These times were not reported. Many of theathletes did not use the securements. Also, itneeds to be pointed out that many of thewheelchairs were the long tri-wheeledcompetition type, and this could haveimpacted the times.

The report cited three advantages oflow-floor buses equipped with ramps. First,boarding and alighting are not disrupted by afailure of the ramp. Second, non-disabledpersons could more easily access the bus.Third, only one deployment/stowage cycle ofa ramp is required, irrespective of the numberof boarding or alighting persons withmobility aids.

2.3.2 Vehicle Capacity

In general, all of the low-floor busescurrently offered to transit agencies will havefewer seats than a same-size high-floormodel. This is because of the loss of usablefloor area to mount seats because of the

23

Table 2.10 Average Boarding and Alighting Times for Ambulatory Passengers

Sources: References 1, 13 and 26

(a) Front door.(b) Rear door.

intrusion of the wheel wells, and sometimesthe engine compartment, into the passengercabin. The loss per wheel well has beenestimated to be three seats (Reference 13).

In Europe, seats mounted onplatforms and rear-facing seats are accepted,so the number of seats lost on their low-floorbuses is less. These practices are generallynot used in North America. Seats that face tothe rear, and in particular, those that cause apassenger to have a close proximity toanother passenger looking at them are not

popular with North American passengers.The PTS had such a situation with their firstorder of low-floor buses. A row of rear-facing seats was placed on the rear side ofthe front wheel wells. The next row of seatswas front-facing. The spacing between thefront edges of the seats was about seventeeninches. The PTS received many customercomplaint concerning these seats, both thatthey were rear-facing and too close. In thesecond order of low-floor bus, the row ofrear-facing seats was replaced with a single

24

Table 2.11 Measurements of the Deploy/Stow and Boarding/Alighting TimesFor Ramp and Lift Operations During the Paralympics

Sources: Reference 27

(a) Number of observations in sample.(b) Times not reported.

aisle-facing seat on each side. The originalorder of low-floor buses was retrofitted withthe same seating arrangement. The MTA'scustomer survey found a similar customerpreference (Reference 8). Also, the MTAsurvey revealed that their customers stronglypreferred front-facing seats. They werewilling to give up almost four aisle-facingseats to get one additional front-facing seat.

The number of seats lost depends onthe usable floor space in the bus and theseating arrangement chosen by the transitagency. Some transit agencies try to

maximize the number of seats in their buses,and others try to maximize the number ofpassengers that their buses can carry. Eachhave valid reasons for their decision becauseof the different types of service that they areproviding to their customers. Examples ofthis difference in choice of seatingarrangements by transit agencies are shownin Table 2.12. Also, as shown in Table 2.12,the maximum number of seats (assuming theuse of only front-facing or aisle facing seats)for 40-foot, low-floor buses ranges from 31to 40. Table 2.13 provides the same

25

Table 2.12 Passenger Capacities of 40-Foot, Low-Floor Buseswith Two Wheelchair Positions

(a) Maximum number of seats, as advertised in manufacturers promotional material.(b) Capacity estimate by formula, (GVWR-CW) 150.(c) Manufacturer used number of standees as 50% of number of seats.(d) Seating arrangement has rear-facing seats and only one wheelchair position.

Table 2.13 Passenger Capacities of 40-Foot, High-Floor Buseswith Two Wheelchair Positions

Source: Bus Manufacturers

(a) All seats are forward or aisle facing.

26

information for 40-foot, high-floor buses,where the maximum number of seats rangesfrom 43 to 45. It should be noted that insome cases, spacing between seats may beaffected in order to achieve high seatcapacity.

If a transit agency's loading standardis to provide a seat for each expectedcustomer, then the loss of passenger capacityon a route would be directly proportional tothe reduction in the number of seats on thebus, assuming no changes in the schedulespeed or headway. Assuming no changes infrequency of service (headway) or schedulespeed, the transit agency would have to addbuses (with operators) to provide the samenumber of seats for their customers. In arecent bus procurement by King CountyDepartment of Transportation/Metro(Seattle), the authority decided to purchasehigh-floor buses rather than low-floor buses.The main reason given was because of theloss of seats with the low-floor model, andthe cost implications that it would have.

2.3.3 Experiences of Interviewed TransitAgencies

In the interviews with transitagencies, two of the transit agencies saidthat the lower capacity of their low-floorbuses would probably require adding morebuses on routes to maintain their servicestandards, and one was evaluating theirsituation. Table 2.14 shows the responsesthat were given by the transit agencies. Ascan be seen in Table 2.14, for most of theinterviewed agencies their low-floor fleetrepresents 25 percent or less of their activefleet. Three agencies have low-floor fleetsthat are approximately one-half of theiractive fleet. Therefore, none could report onexperience of an all low-floor fleet for peak

period operations. Several had routes with alllow-floor buses for off-peak periods.However, capacity is not an issue duringthose periods.

For the cases of Calgary Transit (CT)and Victoria Regional Transit System(VRTS), their ridership has been increasingrapidly, and they have had to add buses toroutes to accommodate the increase inridership. Both agencies thought that some ofthe requirements for more buses might havebeen caused by the lower capacity of theirlow-floor buses. Neither had conducted ananalysis of their data to determine whether ornot their perceptions were correct. Theexperiences of the CTA and the STCUM arediscussed more completely in the followingsections.

2.3.3.1 Chicago Transit Authority.The CTA has established Service Standardsfor both bus and rail operations which definethe loading standards that apply for varioustypes of service such as "crosstown" and"downtown" (Reference 11). In rush hours,the objective is to serve all passengers, whileminimizing the use of buses and operators.During the "peak of the peak," rapid transitfeeder and downtown routes are scheduledfor about 70 passengers per standard 40-footbus. Crosstown routes are scheduled for upto 65 passengers per standard 40-footbus. At other times of the day buses arescheduled to provide seats for all passengersto improve service marketability and sincethe cost of using buses and labor is lessrelative to peak hour service. For example,during weekday midday periods and forweekends, loads of up to 45 passengers perstandard 40-foot bus are permitted. Duringthe "evening" and "owl" periods, the loadingstandard is relaxed even more to maintainreasonable wait times for passengers.

Table 2.14 Capacity Impacts with Low-Floor Buses

(a) With two wheelchair positions, except where noted.(b) The Victoria Regional Transit System does not use a specific capacity number for their buses.(c) Calgary Transit and STCUM high-floor buses do not carry passengers in wheelchairs.(d) STCUM is testing new seating configuration that would keep low-floor bus "natural" capacity the same as conventional STUCM buses.(e) STCUM low-floor buses have one wheelchair position.

28

An appendix to the ServiceStandards entitled, "Frequency GuidelinesWorking Paper" provides guidelines fordetermining frequency of service based onpassenger volumes observed at a route'smaximum load point, or points. Checks aretaken at these points approximately eighttimes in a year. Using the maximum loadpoint data ensures that adequate service isscheduled to accommodate all expectedpassengers by adjusting the headway and thenumber of buses scheduled. The highestrequired capacity for a 40-foot bus is 70passengers as discussed in the previousparagraph. The CTA believes that their low-floor buses with the seating arrangement thatwas chosen meet that requirement. Theseating arrangement for the CTA low-floorbuses is shown in Figure 2.3.

One of the CTA routes that has low-floor buses assigned to it is the "Number151 Sheridan Route." The Sheridan Routehas high passenger loads with frequentstops, and is an example of operatingexperience with a mix of low-floor and high-floor buses on a route. Only accessiblebuses are scheduled on the route. The mixof low- and high-floor buses varies on theavailability of buses for pullout. Adescription of the route follows.

The Sheridan Route is one of theolder routes in Chicago. It was begun inMarch 1917 by the Chicago Motor BusCompany. The route follows along the lakeshore, and provides 24-hour accessibleservice between the Devon/Clark terminalsin the North and the Union Station in thedowntown area. The route providesaccessible service to residents living in theapartments and homes along the lake shore.

The route is 10.5 miles long withfrequent stops (about every block), and has aweekday ridership of over 22,000. Theminimum headway is approximately twominutes during the peak periods, and dropsoff to about a six minute headway during thebase period. The schedule speed during thepeak periods is about 8 mph. The route has49 buses assigned for the weekday peakperiods, and 21 buses for the weekday baseperiods. The one hour passenger volume atthe maximum load point is 1,583 whichoccurs during the AM peak period. Theaverage bus loading during this one-hourperiod is 45 passengers. The CTA staffreported that no changes in the number ofbuses assigned or changes in the serviceschedule have been made with the use oflow-floor buses on the route.

Figure 2.3 Seating Arrangement for the CTA Low-Floor Bus

29

2.3.3.2 Société de Transport de laCommunauté Urbaine de Montréal. Thereasons for the initial customerdissatisfaction at the STCUM appear to stemfrom difficulties in passenger flow andcongestion within the bus, and a change inthe exit door activation. The major concernscentered on passenger flow and congestion inthe area of the front wheelhouses andbetween the two doors, the exit door, and inaccessing the seats to the extreme rear of thebus. It needs to be pointed out that STCUMhad much heavier passenger loads (anaverage of 54.58 passengers per vehicle-hour) than any of the other agenciesinterviewed (see Table 2.1). The congestionexperienced at STCUM may not occur atlower passenger loads.

A plan view of the interior design isgiven in Figure 2.4. A two-one seatingarrangement was selected between the doorsto provide both seating and total capacitiescomparable to their regular high-floor bus.One of the goals of the design was tomaximize the number of seats in spite of theroom taken up inside the bus by thewheelhouses. A photo of the interior of thebus is shown in Figure 2.5.

During rush hour, crowding,particularly in the front of the bus, wouldoccur, obstructing passengers from movingto seats in the rear of the bus. Several factorsseem to contribute to the restricted flow. Thearea around the front wheelhouses is anattractive place to stop, put bags and parcelson and to lean on, thus, constricting the aislefor flow of passengers to the rear of the bus.Occasionally, passengers would sit on top ofthe wheel wells with feet in the aisle, furtherobstructing it. As can be seen in Figures 2.5and 2.6, there are three areas with aislefacing seats. Customers have their feet in theaisle, and occasionally have packages in theaisle. Also, shown in Figure 2.5 is a safetystanchion for the compartment forwheelchair customers which is located in theaisle directly in front of the center exit door.This stanchion attracts standing passengersrestricting easy passenger flow to the back ofthe bus and access to the exit door. All ofthese factors tended to impede the flow ofpassengers to the rear of the bus.

Figure 2.4 Original Interior Design of Low-Floor Buses for STCUMSource: STCUM

30

Figure 2.5 Photo of the Interior Designof Low-Floor Buses for STCUM

Source: STCUM

In addition, there was a tendency forpassengers to attempt to exit from the frontdoor rather than the rear door, whichcompounded the problem. The reasons forthis behavior are not fully understood. Onefactor may be the change in how a passengerwould activate the center exit door. For thelast twenty years, passengers had becomefamiliar with "McKay" push gates andtreadles to activate the center exit door. Thelow-floor buses have a motion detectormounted above the door to sense thepresence of an exiting passenger. In addition,the maximum speed safety standard beforeopening a door has been reduced from 3 mphto 1 mph. Passenger unfamiliarity with thedoor control and the new safety standardresulted in door opening delay, occasionallyresulting in a customer complaint to thedriver. As a result, many passengers wouldtry to exit from the front door.

The crowding of passengers in thefront of the bus gives the impression that thebus is full, and customers are left at the curbwhen there is still room in the rear of the bus.While most passengers appreciate the ease ofboarding and the modern looks, they are nothappy with the crowded interior.

The STCUM uses a computersimulation for analyzing schedulingrequirements. The model determines thenumber of buses required to meet expectedcustomer ons and offs along a route forvarious service frequencies and buspassenger capacities. The original interiordesign of the STCUM low-floor bus had 39seats and a single wheelchair position. The"natural" capacity (normal standee load, notcrush load) of this bus was 65 passengers.Their current high-floor buses with nowheelchair positions have a "natural"capacity of 80 passengers. This reduction inpassenger capacity would have resulted in asignificant increase in the number of busesrequired for a given route if all buses werelow-floor. However, the STCUM isevaluating two new interior designs, eachwith only 31 seats that have a "natural"capacity of 80, which is the same as theircurrent buses. While the new interior designprovides an equivalent vehicle capacity astheir current high-floor buses, there are 24percent fewer seats (31 versus 41). Twentylow-floor buses with these new interiordesigns are currently under evaluation inrevenue service.

The STCUM and their busmanufacturer are jointly working to test anumber of seating options and modificationsto improve passenger acceptance. A signalwas added and new operating instructionsposted to provide an exiting passenger apositive indication of how and when the doormay be opened. To facilitate passenger

31

flow, seven seats have been removed to openup the interior of the bus. Two new interiordesigns are under consideration. The seatingarrangement is the same for both; refer toFigure 2.6 for the new seating arrangement.The difference between the two designs is inthe access to the rear seats. One has a slopein the aisle to clear the rear axle, and theother uses steps in the aisle. The new interiordesign opens up the aisle for easiermovement within the bus and also increasesthe area for standees. Twenty low-floor buseswith these new interior designs are currentlyunder evaluation in revenue service.

2.4 Impacts on Ridership

Most of the transit agencies reportthat overall their customers liked the low-floor buses, and several agencies believedthat the introduction of low-floor buses hashad a positive impact on their ridership.Only three of the transit agenciesinterviewed have low-floor fleets that are

nearly one-half of their active fleet (SeeTable 2.14). All three said that they feel thatthe low-floor buses have contributed to anincrease in riders, but none had analysis tosupport their perceptions. The other transitagencies interviewed had low-floor fleetsthat were twenty-five percent or less of theiractive fleet, and it would be difficult toevaluate the impacts on ridership at this stageof deployment.

A manager at the Champaign-UrbanaMass Transit District (MTD) said that"...from a passenger standpoint it (referringto low-floor bus) is all win." The MTD saidthat they were experiencing an increase intheir "community" riders since theintroduction of low-floor buses. These arethe riders that are other than the universityriders. During the off-peak periods, the MTDcommunity service routes have nearly alllow-floor buses assigned. The MTD staff feltthat some of the increase was due to the useof low-floor buses, but had not done ananalysis to support their perception. TheMTD low-floor fleet is about 55 percent oftheir active fleet.

Figure 2.6 New Interior Design of the STCUM Low-Floor BusSource: STCUM

32

Several of the transit agencies feltthat they could attract more use of fixed-route service by senior and disabledcustomers with the low-floor service. CTreported a large increase in ridership withthe introduction of accessible service ontheir system (rail and bus). They firstintroduced accessible service in the Fall of1993 with low-floor buses and accessiblerail stations. The number of wheelchaircustomers for the next ten months averagedabout 162 trips per month. Ridership countsin 1997 show an increase in the averageweekly wheelchair trips to approximately2,900 trips per week. The CT has also seenan increase of persons with canes andwalkers using their system. The CTexperienced about a six percent growth intotal system ridership during the past year,and they anticipate a total of 64.4 millionlinked trips in 1997.

A separate service for people withdisabilities is provided by the City ofCalgary called the "Handi-Bus." A surveyof ambulatory Handi-Bus customers inMarch 1997 found about 75 percent wereaware of the CT low-floor bus service, and35 percent of the respondents said that therewas a low-floor bus route near their home(22 percent answered that there was noservice). Twenty-seven percent of therespondents said that they had used the low-floor or C-Train (Calgary rail) service in thepast six months. Forty percent had made tenor more trips, and sixty percent had madefive or less trips using the low-floor buses.

A survey of non-ambulatory Handi-Bus customers during the same time foundthat 76 percent were aware of the low-floorbus service, and 37 percent of therespondents said that a low-floor bus routewas near their home (21 percent answeredthat there was no service). Of the 12 percent

of the respondents that had used the low-floor bus or C-Train service in the past sixmonths, 50 percent of the low-floor bus usershad made five or less trips, and 25 percenthad made ten or more trips.

CT could not specifically quantify theincrease of ridership with the introduction oflow-floor buses to their fleet, but they didfeel that it had contributed. Certainly, theincreases in ridership of people withdisabilities are directly related to theintroduction of accessible service with low-floor buses, and making the C-Trainaccessible.

The AATA offers a number ofaccessible services for customers that use awheelchair or scooter, have trouble walking,have trouble with climbing stairs, have avisual impairment, or some other qualifyingdisability. In an attempt to attract thosecustomers to the AATA accessible fixed-route service, a test with free fares forpassengers with disabilities for a month wasconducted during August 1995 followed by areturn to charging fares. The hope was thatsome customers would continue to use thefixed-route service. There was an increase of183 percent in rides during the test month,and 30 percent increase in riders for thefollowing six months after fares were againcharged.

A decision was made to return to freefares for persons with disabilities using thefixed-route service in April 1996. Thenumber of rides on the fixed-route service bycustomers with disabilities increased over thefollowing 15 months to an average of 13,437compared to the average of 3,734 before thefree fare experiment was conducted (anincrease of 260 percent). An AATA analysisindicated that the free fares generated about64,000 new fixed-route rides per year bypersons with disabilities.

33

The AATA estimated the annual cost savingsdue to this shift to be slightly over $192,000(Reference 28).

While the experiment at the AATAcannot be totally attributed to the use of low-floor buses, the shift of customers from theirspecialized service to their fixed-routeservice was likely aided by the use of low-floor buses. The AATA active fixed-routefleet is about 60 percent low-floor. For theoff-peak periods, the AATA fixed-routeservice is essentially all low-floor.

2.5 Vehicle Operating Experiences

All of the transit agencies weresatisfied with the road clearance attributes oftheir low-floor buses. The MARTA staffindicated that there were a couple routeswith high at-grade railroad crossings onwhich they did not schedule their low-floorbuses. Several of the agencies operating low-floor buses also said that the rampmechanism protective skid wouldoccasionally ground at steep entrancedriveways. The side skirts of all of the low-floor buses that were observed at the transitagencies were approximately 4 to 5 inchescloser to the street level than high-floor busesat those agencies. As can be seen in Table4.1, the breakover angle claimed by most busmanufacturers for their low-floor models is9.5 to 10°. The NFIL D40L has a breakoverangle of 8.3°.

In general, the operators liked thehandling qualities of their low-floor bus.The low-floor bus was quicker and had goodsteering and handling characteristics.Several of the agencies reported a highnumber of wheels hitting a curb during aright turn. A part of this problem was due todifferences in how the low-floor bus would

track in making a right turn. At somesystems, this problem was corrected byproviding additional training for theoperators in the proper procedure for makingright turns with the new low-floor buses.The CTA corrected this problem by cuttingback the curbs or by adding spacers toprevent the wheels from coming in contactwith the high curbs. The Milwaukee CountyTransit System (MCTS) also experienced ahigh number of wheel hits with their low-floor buses. Their solution, in addition tooperator training, was to replace the275/70R tires with larger 305/70R tires. TheMCTS said that with the change in tires, theproblem was solved.

The CDTA reported some steeringproblems during an early heavy, wet snowwith their low-floor buses. Some of themoving steering linkages pass through theunderfloor structure on the CDTA buses.These linkages were exposed to the weather.During the storm, snow and ice collectedand became packed around the steeringlinkages and in the frame membersrestricting the operator's ability to steer thebus. The CDTA removed the buses fromservice for the remainder of the snow storm.The manufacturer developed a fix for theproblem consisting of two flaps (similar tomud flaps) that protect the structure in thearea of the wheel wells from snow and slushspraying from the tire. The steering linkagespass through cuts in the flap. The CDTAhas had several heavy, wet snows since theflaps have been installed, and they reportedthat the problem appears to be fixed.

34

2.6 Impacts on Maintenance andFacilities

2.6.1 Maintenance Experiences

Overall, the maintenance experienceswith low-floor buses at the transit agenciesinterviewed have been positive. Many of theearly problems experienced by the agenciesappear to be problems related to theintroduction of a "new" bus, rather thanproblems intrinsically related to a low-floordesign. The causes for these initial problemsappear to have been mostly related toproduction and design issues.

Three low-floor maintenance issueswere consistently reported by the transitagencies as being significantly different(better or worse) in comparison to theircurrent high-floor buses. These were: serviceinterruption experiences (road calls) withramps and lifts, tire life, and brake life.

2.6.1.1 Experiences with Ramps.Probably the most distinguishing featurebetween a low-floor bus and a high-floor busis the difference in boarding/alighting, inthat there are no steps for ambulatorypassengers, and a ramp rather than a lift isused for passengers in wheelchairs. Theoperating experiences with the ramp versus alift has been universally positive. TheCanadian transit agencies interviewed didnot operate lift equipped, high-floor, 40-footbuses. The U.S. transit agencies that hadexperiences with lift equipped busesreported that service interruptions because oframp failures either had not occurred orwere rare. The PTS said that the road callsfor lifts were five to six times more frequentthan road calls due to ramp failures. ThePTS reported that miles-between-road callsfor lifts were 43,500 miles compared to

250,000 miles-between-road calls for ramps.The VRTS reported that 600,000 miles-between-road calls for ramps had been theirexperience. Other agencies that did not trackroad calls by these categories reported theirexperiences with road calls because of rampsas none or very rare.

Lift failure is a major cause of roadcalls for many U.S. transit agencies. Thesignificance of lift failures can beappreciated from the experience reported bythe New York City Transit (NYCT)Department of Buses. The NYCT reportedover a 19 percent increase in passengersusing wheelchairs boarding from October1996 to October 1997. For October 1997,the number of wheelchair boardings was42,641 (Reference 19). The NYCT reportedthat lift failures were their most frequentcauses of road calls, and represented about12 percent of all road calls in 1997(Reference 20). The system-wide meandistance between road calls due to liftfailures was reported to be 19,101 miles for1997.

In the study, "An Evaluation ofAccessible Transit Buses in Vancouver andVictoria," a comprehensive evaluation wasmade between low-floor ramp equippedbuses in Victoria and high-floor liftequipped buses in Vancouver (Reference10). One of the findings of the study wasthat the cost of maintaining lifts wassignificantly higher ($1,500 per year perbus) than the cost of maintaining ramps ($50per year per bus).

A recent study on "Evaluating TransitOperations for Individuals with Disabilities,"reported a clear savings in maintenance costbetween ramp maintenance at the AATA andlift maintenance at the MTD, with nomeasurable difference in other maintenance

35

costs. The annual maintenance cost for rampswas $300 compared to an annualmaintenance cost for lifts of $2,400(Reference 4).

2.6.1.2 Experiences with RadialTires. All of the low-floor buses at thetransit agencies that were interviewed used alow-profile radial tire, either a 275/70R 22.5or a 305/70R 22.5. Two bus manufacturers(Gillig Corporation and North AmericanBus Industries) have a standard transit tire asan option. All of the experience at the timethis report was written has been with lowprofile radial tires. The loaded radius of alow-profile tire is less than that of thestandard tire resulting in more revolutionsper mile as can be seen in Table 2.15. Sincemore revolutions are required to travel thesame distance, it is reasonable to anticipatetire life to be proportional to the difference inthe number of rotations.

All transit agencies indicated that thelow profile tire was providing from 20 to 30percent less life. The AATA reported theaverage life for their low profile tires was56,228 miles. The VRTS reported anaverage life of 71,961 miles for new lowprofile tires, and an average of 31,639 milesfor retread low profile tires. The retreadtires are only used on the rear axle. TheMTD said that their low profile tire lifeaveraged about 50,000 miles, and the PTSwas obtaining an average life of about43,900 miles.

Other transit agencies reported theirtire experience as a percentage compared totheir experience with the standard tires usedon their high-floor buses. The CTA said thatthey were experiencing about 20 percentshorter life with the low profile tire. TheMARTA said that they were not seeing anysignificant change in fleet tire costs since the

introduction of low-floor buses with lowprofile tires in their fleet. The CDTA has alease agreement for their tires. For the firstyear of low-floor bus operations, the leasecost was about 35 percent higher for the lowprofile tires. Under a new 5-year leaseagreement, the lease cost differential issignificantly lower, about 19 percent morefor the low profile tires during the first yearof the new lease, and declining to about 12percent more for the fifth year of the lease.The CDTA low-floor buses use the 305/70R22.5 tire.

Other experiences that were reportedby transit agencies were more abrasion ofthe side walls of the low profile radial tiresand wheel damage. The dimensions of thelow profile tire are such that the wheel rimsare more likely to be damaged by hittingcurbs than with a standard size tire. TheMCTS changed from 275/70R 22.5 tires to305/70R 22.5 tires to reduce the wheel rimdamage from curb hits. The MCTS reportedthat the change in tires had corrected theproblem.

The STCUM said that it was too earlyto evaluate their experiences of tire life.However, they did report to have observed ahigher wear rate on the curb-side dual tirescompared to the street-side dual tires (3/32wear on street side tires to 7/32 wear on thecurb side tires). The wear rate difference wasthought to have been caused by the right sidetires slipping. During tests of the bus at theAltoona Bus Testing Center, a weightdifference between the right and left dualtires of 2,200 pounds was measured(Reference 16).

36

Table 2.15 Comparison of Low-Profileand Standard Transit Tires

Source: Information from Tire Manufacturers

2.6.1.3 Experiences with Brakeson Low-Floor Buses. The changes in thebrake systems of a low-floor bus from abrake system of a high-floor bus are thelocation of components and different routingof the tubing. The functional design of thebrake system is essentially the same, and thefoundation brakes are the same size.Therefore, one would expect the performanceof the brake system in the low-floor buses tobe similar to that obtained on the high-floorbuses. However, the experience has beendifferent. The problems discussed in thefollowing paragraphs appear to have resultedfrom new bus design rather than low-floorbus design.

Initially with the CTA low-floorbuses, there were problems with the brakeeffort balance between front and rear brakes,the timing of brake application, and the shortlife of the brake linings. The busmanufacturer conducted field tests at theCTA to determine the causes of theproblems. A field retrofit program(consisting of rerouting of the brake airline

and changes in the valving) was thenconducted to correct the imbalance andtiming problems. The bus manufacturerindicated that it was important that propercutting of the brake block to match the drumbe done to obtain satisfactory lining life andbrake performance.

The CTA reported that initially theywere experiencing 16,000 to 18,000 milesbetween rear brake relines, but now they areobtaining 35,000 to 40,000 miles betweenrear brake relines. The CTA rear brake relineinterval goal is 60,000 miles, and it isexpected to be reached. Other brake systemchanges at the CTA included changing thecontrol of the retarder (from a brake pedalonly control to a combination of both brakeand accelerator control) and the removal ofthe heat shields on the rear brakes.

The MTD reported obtaining 37,000to 41,000 miles between relines for the rearbrakes of their low-floor buses, and over100,000 miles for the front brakes. The MTDcontrols the retarder by the accelerator pedalonly to obtain the maximum braking

37

effort from the retarder. The reline intervalfor the rear brakes of their comparable high-floor buses was over 50,000 miles, which isabout a 20 percent longer interval. However,the reline interval for the high-floor frontbrakes was about 45,000 miles compared to afront brake reline interval of over 100,000miles for their low-floor buses.

The VRTS reported an average rearbrake reline interval of over 46,500 miles fortheir low-floor buses, and an average relineinterval for the front brakes of over 133,000miles. The retarder control is by the brakepedal at the VRTS.

The PTS reported longer brake lifefor their low-floor buses over their high-floorbuses. The PTS brake reline intervals fortheir low-floor buses were approximately50,000 miles for the rear brakes and 100,000miles for the front brakes. In comparison, thereline intervals for their high-floor buseswere 25,000 to 30,000 miles for the rear andabout 40,000 miles for the front.

The low-floor buses at the CDTA, theSTCUM, and the STRSM have only been inoperation a short time. The STCUM and theSTRSM did not have sufficient mileage ontheir low-floor buses to have experiencedenough brake relines to report on anydifferences in brake life between their high-floor and low-floor buses. The earlyexperience at CDTA indicates about 20,000less miles for the reline intervals of their low-floor buses compared to their high-floorbuses.

The CT found that the initial drum tolining contact was one of the primary factorsaffecting performance and life of brakes ontheir buses (including low-floor). Drum tolining contact is sensitive to cam size andtolerances and to machining practices.Factors unique to low-floor buses wereproper balancing of the brake effort to both

axles, and the correct supply of shoes andlinings.

2.6.2 Maintenance Facilities Impacts

The changes needed in themaintenance facilities with the addition oflow-floor buses to a fleet have beenminimal. All of the transit agenciesinterviewed were using a combination ofhoists and pits for the inspections,preventive maintenance, and repair of theirlow-floor buses. In the case of hoists,several transit agencies had fabricatedsimple fixtures to adapt their existing hoiststo the undercarriage of their low-floor buses.No changes had been made to the pits. Withthe low-floor bus, the mechanic has less headroom because the low-floor bus does nothave the 12 to 15 inches of space under thefloor that the high-floor buses have.However, because most, if not all, of thecomponents that were located under the floorof a high-floor bus are now located in theroof or engine compartment areas, there isless need for a mechanic to work under thelow-floor bus.

To reach the components now locatedin the roof area, some transit agencies usestep ladders, while other have movable workplatforms. The CTA has a powered scissorsplatform that they use at their North ParkGarage. A photo of the platform is shown inFigure 2.7.

All transit agencies have purchasedsome special tools and adaptors that wereneeded for repair and maintenance of theirnew low-floor buses. In part, these new toolsand adaptors were required because theirlow-floor buses used axles, brakes,suspensions, and transmissions that were notused in their current fleets. These additional

38

Figure 2.7 A Powered Work Platformfor Maintenance of Components Located

in the Roof Area

tools and fixtures are more a result of achange in bus rather than because the buswas low-floor.

Several of the transit agencies saidthat they had made some adjustments of thebrushes in the bus washing system. Theseadjustments were necessary because the sideskirts of a low-floor bus are 4 to 6 incheslower than those on a high-floor bus. TheCTA fabricated a shim for their tire guide inthe bus washer at their North Park Garage. Aphoto of the shim is shown in Figure 2.8. Theshim was fabricated so that the low-floor buswheel would not contact the curb as the bustravels through the washer.

Figure 2.8 The Bus Washer at CTANorth Park Garage

2.7 Safety Experiences

When asked about the safetyexperiences with their low-floor buses, alltransit agencies were satisfied with theirexperiences to date. However, none hadavailable reports or data that would directlysupport their perceptions, such as acomparison of low-floor bus safety incidentswith high-floor bus safety incidents on acomparable exposure basis. The low-floorbuses were, in all cases, the newest bus in thefleets, and it was a general practice tomaximize the use of the low-floor buses. Asa result, the low-floor buses wouldaccumulate more miles and hours per busthan other buses in the fleet. Also, there wasa tendency to deploy the low-floor buses onthe routes with high ridership. As a result ofthese practices, the exposure to passengeraccidents of the low-floor buses wasgenerally higher than the exposure of thehigh-floor buses.

An example of such a situation wasfound at the Phoenix Transit System (PTS).The PTS provided the accident data given in

39

Table 2.16. The PTS cautioned that the factthat the low-floor bus accidents are a littlehigher could be attributed to the fact that thelow-floor buses are on routes having moreexposure. The routes with low-floor busesare heavier and busier in terms of bothvehicles on the road and passengers onboard. The low-floor buses were alsoexposed to a higher frequency of trips thanthe high-floor buses.

Also, at the MCTS and the CT, thenumber of slips and falls incidents reportedfor their low-floor buses was higher than fortheir high-floor fleet; however, the safetystaff again cautioned that direct comparisonswould not be appropriate since the low-floorbuses were being used more hours of the day,and were assigned routes with heavyridership.

Typically, the available safetystatistics that are recorded by transit agenciesare by type and number of incidents alongwith factors such as: date, bus number, andoperator identification. Some also includedata on factors such as: location, drivingconditions, time of day, route, and trafficconditions. The safety databases generally donot include data on factors such as: numberof passengers transported by the bus,ambulatory capabilities of the passengerinvolved, vehicle hours or vehicle miles.Also, some transit agencies will not maketheir accident reports available to the public.As a result, a statistically valid safetycomparison of low-floor buses versus high-floor buses in a fleet for passenger accidents,many times cannot be made from theavailable data.

The CDTA low-floor fleet is 21buses, which is approximately nine percentof their total fleet of standard size buses. In1997, the CDTA had a total of 30 boardingaccidents with 8 (26 percent) occurring on

the low-floor buses. The CDTA said that thehigher than expected number might beattributed to the original kneeling sequencefor their low-floor buses. Their buses wouldkneel after the door was fully open.Occasionally, passengers would try to boardas the buses started to kneel, and sometimesthey would fall. The kneeling sequence wasmodified during the Fall of 1997 to besimultaneous with the opening of the door,and only one boarding incident has occurredon their low-floor buses since themodification. The CDTA had 50 onboardincidents for 1997, and 7 (14 percent) wereon their low-floor buses. Most of theincidents occurred in the front of the low-floor bus, between the farebox and the firstrow of seats. The CDTA experienced 65alighting incidents during 1997, and only 3(5 percent) occurred on the low-floor buses.The CDTA viewed this encouragingexperience as hope for future reduction inalighting incidents.

The higher frequency of slips andfalls in the interior of the low-floor busesalso could be related to the lack of anadequate number of handholds in the frontportion of a low-floor bus. The MTD saidthat people tend to lose their balance at thefront of the bus because there are not enoughhandholds. The MTD, CT, and others havereceived complaints from seniors about thelack of handholds. In a recent report(Reference 13), it was recommended that astanchion should always be within reachwhen a passenger is passing through the bus,so that the aisles can be negotiated when thebus is in motion. The report further pointsout that for low-floor buses with twowheelchair positions in the front, it isparticularly difficult to provide an adequatenumber of stanchions and handrails in thefront of the bus. Some transit agencies have

40

Table 2.16 High and Low-Floor Bus Accident Experience(*)

Source: Phoenix Transit System

(*) For the period of 10/1/96 through 9/30/97.

placed straps on the horizontal rails mountedfrom the ceiling to provide something forthe customer to grasp. However, thesestraps are not reachable by some customers.The harsh braking of low-floor busesreported at some transit agencies may havealso contributed to the number of slips andfalls in the interior of the low-floor buses. Itneeds to be pointed out that no data thatsupports either of these conjectures werefound during this study.

During the initial months ofoperation before the problems with the brakesystem had been resolved, some transitagencies reported incidences of sliding,skidding, and fish-tailing with their low-floor buses during slippery road conditions.These issues appear to be resolved with thechanges made to the braking system.Although, the CTA did comment that theiroperators continue to complain that the"backend breaks out" with wet pavements.The CTA pointed out that the surfaces oftheir streets were quite smooth, and perhapscontributed to the problem. The CTA is

conducting tests with the tire companies toevaluate different tread patterns. Theoperators can turn off the retarder when roadconditions are slippery.

One safety issue that could beevaluated was the safety experiences relatedto the interior steps in the aisle leading to therear of some of the low-floor buses. Whenasked whether or not any safety incidents hadoccurred because of the steps, all transitagencies that were operating low-floor buseswith steps reported that they have not hadany safety incident caused by the steps. Thesteps in the aisle have been perceived as asafety hazard by both transit customers andtransit staff. Concerns about the steps werereported in previous studies (References 1and 3), and in many of the customer surveysthat were discussed earlier in the section onCustomer Satisfaction and Acceptance(References 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11). However,the operating experiences to date do notindicate that the steps represent a safetyhazard. There may be a bias involved inthese experiences, since customers that have

41

difficulty with steps or do not like steps aremore likely to avoid using steps whenpossible.

2.8 Operator and MechanicAcceptance and Satisfaction

2.8.1 Operators

At all of the transit agenciesinterviewed, the operators were satisfied withthe low-floor buses. The most frequentlymentioned comments from operators aboutwhat they liked were: the ease of boarding,the handling and quickness of the bus, theeye contact with the customers, and the easeof manual operation of the ramp. The mostfrequent operator comments about what theydo not like about the bus were: lack of seatsand room for standees and the steps in theaisle to the rear of the bus.

One of the most frequent commentsoperators make about how they feel abouttheir low-floor buses is the eye level contactthat they now have with customers as theyboard. Some add that it is helpful to be ableto look down on some of their more livelyschool customers.

The MARTA and the NYCTconducted surveys of their operators on theiropinions about the low-floor bus. The surveyat MARTA was made about six months afterplacing the low-floor buses in revenueservice. A low-floor demonstrator bus wasoperated by the NYCT for January to May1997. Surveys were conducted of busoperators to learn their opinions about thebus. The findings of these surveys are givenin the following paragraphs.

The MARTA operators were given alist of features on the low-floor buses, andasked to rate on a four point scale theirevaluation. The results of the survey arelisted below.

• "Visibility" was rated positively byover 95 percent of the respondents.Less than 4 percent gave it anunfavorable rating.

• "Noise Level" was given a positiverating by approximately 90 percentof the operators.

• "Handling" was liked by about 95percent of the operators. The 5percent that gave the bus anegative rating commented that"the lift on the low-floor busesscrapes the roads and the buses areoften difficult to handle whenturning."

• "Smoothness of Ride" was given apositive rating by about 89 percentof the operators. Comments fromoperators that gave negativeratings were: "some low-floorbuses are slow accelerating" and"the buses ride rough, and scrapethe road."

• "Interior Design" was given apositive rating by about 82 percentof the operators.

• "Passenger Safety When UsingRear Steps" was a concern of someoperators, particularly when thebus was moving. About 70 percentof the operators thought that thesteps were safe, but 30 percentgave this feature a negative rating.

• On "Overall Performance," about94 percent gave the low-floorbuses a positive rating.

42

During the demonstration of the low-floor bus at the NYCT, the operators that haddriven the bus were asked six questionsabout features of the bus and what theythought of the bus overall. The responses ofthe NYCT operators are given below.

• The operators overwhelmingly likehow the bus handled, the comfortof the Operator's seat, the view outof the bus, and the low-flooraspect.

• The largest concern of theoperators was with the outsidemirrors. They felt that the frontright side mirror was too low,and posed a hazard to passengers.The left side mirror had a blindspot.

• Some of the operators wereconcerned about the two steps inthe aisle and inadequate interiorspace for rush hour loads.

An operator with seventeen years ofexperience at Calgary Transit provided awritten list of operator comments andconcerns about their low-floor bus. Asummary of the main comments follows:

• "Exit Door" - There is a longerdelay in the activation of the exitdoor after the bus has stopped thanwith other buses in their fleet,which has resulted in customercomplaints to the operator to openthe door.

• "Ride Quality" - A large number ofoperators complain of the jerkyride quality of the bus.

• "Flow of Passengers" - Becausethe front area (adjacent to thewheel wells) of the bus is open,

passengers like to stop and holdconversations with others. Thisis particularly true with studentswho tend to gather there. Thisimpedes the free movement ofother passengers to the rear of thebus. Once gathered there, it isvery difficult to get them to moveback, especially when there is afull standing load. It issometimes difficult to getpassengers to climb the steps to therear of the bus.

• "Brakes" - A number ofoperators feel that excessiveforce is needed to activate thebrakes. When there is a needfor a "panic brake," the bus isdifficult to steer. The operatorsprefer the retarder to be activatedby the accelerator rather than thebrake pedal.

• "Heating" - Some operators feelthat the heater does not provideenough heat in extreme coldweather.

• "Vibration" - Some operatorscomplain about higher vibrationwith the four cylinder engine.

• "Front Door" - The width of theframe of the front door panels istoo wide and creates a blind spotwhen trying to see to the right atintersections.

2.8.2 Mechanics

The majority of the transit agenciesreported that their mechanics were satisfiedwith their low-floor buses. There are someconcerns because of the changes of the low-floor buses at some agencies. For example,

43

some did not like to work on the roof of thebus, but others found this not to be aproblem. Some mechanics said that theypreferred working on the low-floor buseswith the components located in the roof areabecause everything was cleaner.

A MARTA maintenance supervisor saidthat the maintenance accessibility is a littleless on their low-floor buses, but not aserious problem. One item that had been aproblem was access to make a valveadjustment on their diesel engines on theirlow-floor buses. An access panel from theinside of the bus was provided for their CNGlow-floor buses, and the problem isconsidered solved.

The STCUM said that their mechanics hadproblems in accepting the new low-floorbuses. The STCUM mechanics have hadessentially one bus design for the last twentyyears, so part of their concern was because ofthe many changes with the new bus, such as:location of components, tooling, procedures,and different engine, transmission, and axles.

The only comments received concerningthe cleaning maintenance of the low-floorbuses were related to the cleaning of thehigher ceiling. Most agencies felt that therewas no significant difference in the cleaningand servicing of a low-floor bus compared toa high-floor bus.

44

3.0 MARKET STATUS AND TRENDS

From 1991 to 1995, only two busmanufacturers were delivering heavy-duty,standard-size, low-floor buses to the NorthAmerican market. During that time, over 96percent of low-floor buses delivered werefrom one manufacturer. In 1996 and 1997,two more bus manufacturers began todeliver low-floor buses, and by 1998 twomore bus manufacturers will be deliveringlow-floor buses. As of December 1997, thetotal number of standard and large-size low-floor buses delivered by all busmanufacturers was reported as 2,812, andanother 2,657 were on order. A breakdownby manufacturer is given in Table 3.1.

The growth of the low-floor busmarket has increased rapidly in the last twoyears with the entry of all manufacturers ofheavy-duty buses into the market. Table 3.2and Figure 3.1 show the growth by year ofthe low-floor bus market.

At the end of 1996, the size of thenational heavy-duty bus (35- to 60-foot)fleets in the U.S. and Canada were 50,344and 10,391 respectively (References 29 and30). Assuming buses are replaced after 15years of service in the U.S., and after 18years of service in Canada, the annualmarkets for these types of buses should beabout 3,350 for the U.S., and 570 forCanada. However, historically the marketshave been smaller than this: averaging only3,290 buses per year for the combinedmarkets. Table 3.3 gives the number ofbuses purchased in the U.S. and Canada forthe years of 1991 to 1996.

The low-floor bus purchases in 1997are estimated to be between 30 to 40 percentof all heavy-duty buses purchased by transitagencies in North America. In response to a

Figure 3.1 Growth in the Deliveryof Low-Floor Buses(a)

Source: Bus Manufacturers

(a) Includes 35, 40, and 60-foot buses.

survey question, three of the busmanufacturers projected that by the year2000 that 50 to 90 percent of their saleswould be low-floor models.

In 1997, APTA Transit Vehicle Data Bookreports the orders of buses, as of January1997, for all sizes of buses not includingthose used in a demand responsive mode as5,144. The data were collected from onehundred one transit agencies, including all ofthe largest thirty agencies in the U.S. TheAPTA Vehicle Data Book also stated that1,044 of these orders were for busesequipped with ramps. This would mean thatslightly over 20 percent of all orders are forlow-floor buses.

45

Table 3.1 Low-Floor Bus Market Status(a)

Source: Bus Manufacturers

(a) Includes 35, 40, and 60-foot buses, through 1997.(b) Includes all options.

Table 3.2 Low-Floor Buses Delivered During 1991 to 1997(a)

Source: Bus Manufacturers

(a) Includes 35, 40, and 60-foot buses.

46

Table 3.3 Number of Heavy-Duty Transit BusesPurchased by Year

Sources: References 26 and 27

(a) Includes buses of 32.5 to 60-foot in length.(b) Includes 35, 40 and 60-foot buses.