Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

  • 3,802 views
Uploaded on

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,802
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
5

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users Planner Network Conference 2005 Justice By Design? Anh Phan Nguyen Master’s City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley
  • 2. Overview
    • Intro
    • What is in practice today in the U.S.?
    • Comparison of urban transit design
    • Safety issues
    • Strategies
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 3. Research Focus: Urban Bus
    • Common form of public transit
      • North America
      • UK/Europe Unions
      • Asia
      • Developing countries
    • Flexible form of transit system.
    • Safe, reliable, and affordable transportation.
    • Myriad of problems accommodating people with disabilities (PWD); especially wheelchair users.
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 4. Transit Needs
    • Public transportation is a key lifeline to independence and sustainability for many people with disabilities.
    • As U.S. population ages and number of people with disabilities (PWD) rise, the use of assistive technology is critical to maintaining functionality in society.
    • 6.8 million non-institutionalized Americans utilize mobility assist devices, including wheelchairs, scooters, walkers and canes (Kaye, 2000).
    • The number of wheelchair and walker users 2X 1980 - 1990 (LaPlante, 1996).
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 5. Mobility Device Usage in the US (in 1,000's) (Kaye, 2000) Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies 64 78 0 142 Scooter 47 90 18 155 Power W/C 864 560 79 1,503 Manual W/C 897 614 88 1,599 All Wheelchairs (W/C) 65 < 18-64 < 18 yrs All Person Device
  • 6. Transportation & Quality of Life
    • 1/3 of the 25 million people with disabilities report inadequate transportation as a significant barrier to successful integration into society (Project Action).
    • Wheelchair riders comprise < 0.3 percent of total bus passengers.
    • 82% of wheelchair users indicate difficulty in using public transportation systems (NIDRR).
    • 39% report wheelchair access problems (Kaye, 2000).
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 7. High Floor Bus
    • Unreliable
    • Mechanically Dependent
    • Significant dwell time (2-4 min)
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 8.
    • Germany early 1980s
    • Initial impetus to decrease dwell time
      • Adult w/children & strollers
      • People w/walking difficulty
      • Passenger encumbered w/luggage or shopping bags
    • Ramp access @ various doors
    • Widely adopted internationally
    Low-Floor Bus Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 9. Low-Floor Around the World
    • UK/Europe
      • 1980s
    • North America
      • U.S. 1990
      • Canada 1992
    • Asia
      • late-1990s
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 10. Van Hool - Belgium
    • 2003 ‘Bus of the Year’ Award
    • AC Transit (SF-Bay Area)
      • A330 – 40’ (#143)
      • AG300 – 60’ (#57)
    • 3 or 4 doors configuration
    • Ramp @ 2 nd door
    • 100% Low-Floor
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies A330 AG300
  • 11.
    • Wider doors
    • 100% Low-Floor
    • Utilize “Kneeling” System
    • Reduction in dwell time
    Van Hool – Improve Access Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 12. Van Hool – Combi Orientation
    • 1 st U.S. transit agency to utilize forward- and rear-facing “combi” seating positions on urban bus
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 13. Safety Issues (Source: RERC on Wheelchair Transportation Safety) Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 14. Best Securement Design
    • Wheelchair wheel clamps
    • Wheelchair tiedown
      • 4-point securement
      • Occupant Restraint System (shoulder & lap)
    • Rear-facing
      • With stanchions
      • Without stanchions
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 15. Wheelchair Wheel Clamps
    • Good dwell time
    • Simple to use
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 16. Wheelchair Tiedown & Occupant Restraint System (WTORS)
    • Safest securement design (8-10g)
    • Cumbersome
    • Increase dwell times (~2-4 minutes)
    • Ineffective if not applied correctly
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 17. Rear-facing Configurations
    • Improve mobility
      • Low-floor
      • Easy access
      • Simple design
    • No Wheelchair Tiedown & Occupant Restraint System (WTORS)
      • Hand breaks & vertical stanchion
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 18. Front-facing vs. Rear-facing (Source: TCRB 50)
    • Front-facing with ALL 4-point WTORS
    • Rear-facing, bulkhead, and stanchion
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 19. Best Design?
    • Rear-facing => Safe
    • Mix reviews from passengers
      • UK/Europe (+)
      • North America (+/-)
    • Combi design
      • U.S. does not utilize stanchion
      • Use WTORS
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 20. Strategies
    • Low-Floor Bus
      • Pro: Improved access and dwell times
      • Con: Boarding/alighting via ramp requires driver operation
    • Securement
      • Less complex & cumbersome
    • Design
      • Universal Design = Equal access = Independence
    • Participation & Stakeholders
      • Collaborate with NGOs like ADAPT, AEI, and locals advocate groups
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 21. Thank You
  • 22. Latin America
    • Curitiba, Brazil
    • Bogota, Colombia
    • 100% low-floor
    • Off-fare ticketing
    • ITS, GPS
  • 23. Japan
  • 24.
    • France Strasburg
    • ITS - AVL
    • 100% low surface
    • Urban Design façade
  • 25. Van Hool A330
    • 134 forty-foot A330
    • 100% Low-Floor
    • 3 doors configuration
    • Ramp @ 2 nd door
    • Combi-facing design
  • 26. Van Hool AG300
    • 57 sixty-foot articulated AG300
    • 4 doors configuration
    • Ramp @ 2 nd door
    • Combi-facing design
  • 27. Van Hool
  • 28.
    • Large windows with 360-degree visibility
    • Spacious Interior
    • Improved Stop Request Buttons
  • 29. Bibliography
    • Kaye, HS, Kang, T, LaPlante, MP. “Disability Statistics Report – Mobility Device Use in the United States”, June 2000. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
    • Greg Shaw & Timothy Gillispie. &quot;Appropriate protection for wheelchair riders on public transit buses&quot; 2003.
    • TCRP Synthesis 50: “Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses”.
    • RERC on Wheelchair Transportation Safety ( http://www.rercwts.pitt.edu ).
    • C.G.B. Mitchell. “Access to Transport System and Services An International Review”, January 1997. Canada Transportation Development Centre.