• Save
Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

on

  • 6,123 views

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,123
Views on SlideShare
6,042
Embed Views
81

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
0
Comments
0

8 Embeds 81

http://motoricosinfo.blogspot.com 32
http://motoricosinfo.blogspot.com.es 28
http://www.slideshare.net 12
http://motoricosinfo.blogspot.com.ar 4
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://wildfire.gigya.com 1
http://www.motoricosinfo.blogspot.com.es 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users Presentation Transcript

  • Urban Bus Designs for Wheelchair Users Planner Network Conference 2005 Justice By Design? Anh Phan Nguyen Master’s City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley
  • Overview
    • Intro
    • What is in practice today in the U.S.?
    • Comparison of urban transit design
    • Safety issues
    • Strategies
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • High Floor Bus
    • Unreliable
    • Mechanically Dependent
    • Significant dwell time (2-4 min)
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
    • 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
  • Low-Floor Around the World
    • UK/Europe
      • 1980s
    • North America
      • U.S. 1990
      • Canada 1992
    • Asia
      • late-1990s
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 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
    • Wider doors
    • 100% Low-Floor
    • Utilize “Kneeling” System
    • Reduction in dwell time
    Van Hool – Improve Access Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 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
  • Safety Issues (Source: RERC on Wheelchair Transportation Safety) Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 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
  • Wheelchair Wheel Clamps
    • Good dwell time
    • Simple to use
    Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Thank You
  • Latin America
    • Curitiba, Brazil
    • Bogota, Colombia
    • 100% low-floor
    • Off-fare ticketing
    • ITS, GPS
  • Japan
    • France Strasburg
    • ITS - AVL
    • 100% low surface
    • Urban Design façade
  • Van Hool A330
    • 134 forty-foot A330
    • 100% Low-Floor
    • 3 doors configuration
    • Ramp @ 2 nd door
    • Combi-facing design
  • Van Hool AG300
    • 57 sixty-foot articulated AG300
    • 4 doors configuration
    • Ramp @ 2 nd door
    • Combi-facing design
  • Van Hool
    • Large windows with 360-degree visibility
    • Spacious Interior
    • Improved Stop Request Buttons
  • 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.