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

Intro

What is in practice today in the U.S.?

Comparison of urban transit design

Safety issues

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

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.

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

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).

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

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).

High Floor Bus Unreliable Mechanically Dependent Significant dwell time (2-4 min) Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies

Unreliable

Mechanically Dependent

Significant dwell time (2-4 min)

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

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 Around the World UK/Europe 1980s North America U.S. 1990 Canada 1992 Asia late-1990s Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies

UK/Europe

1980s

North America

U.S. 1990

Canada 1992

Asia

late-1990s

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

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

Wider doors 100% Low-Floor Utilize “Kneeling” System Reduction in dwell time Van Hool – Improve Access Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies

Wider doors

100% Low-Floor

Utilize “Kneeling” System

Reduction in dwell time

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

1 st U.S. transit agency to utilize forward- and rear-facing “combi” seating positions on urban bus

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

Wheelchair tiedown

4-point securement

Occupant Restraint System (shoulder & lap)

Rear-facing

With stanchions

Without stanchions

Wheelchair Wheel Clamps Good dwell time Simple to use Intro Practice Comparison Safety Strategies

Good dwell time

Simple to use

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

Safest securement design (8-10g)

Cumbersome

Increase dwell times (~2-4 minutes)

Ineffective if not applied correctly

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

Improve mobility

Low-floor

Easy access

Simple design

No Wheelchair Tiedown & Occupant Restraint System (WTORS)

Hand breaks & vertical stanchion

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

Front-facing with ALL 4-point WTORS

Rear-facing, bulkhead, and stanchion

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

Rear-facing => Safe

Mix reviews from passengers

UK/Europe (+)

North America (+/-)

Combi design

U.S. does not utilize stanchion

Use WTORS

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

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

Thank You

Latin America Curitiba, Brazil Bogota, Colombia 100% low-floor Off-fare ticketing ITS, GPS

Curitiba, Brazil

Bogota, Colombia

100% low-floor

Off-fare ticketing

ITS, GPS

Japan

France Strasburg ITS - AVL 100% low surface Urban Design façade

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

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

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

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.

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.