ADA Regs and Articulated Buses

[geneking7320]

Hi All;

For a while now we have discussed NABI artics and their problems. The latest of which is the articulation crack issue. My (anecdotal) understanding of ADA requirements is that the "low section" of a low floor bus must extend from the front of the bus to the back door. Now the questions:

1) If this is true why?

2) Have there been many artic-joint problems on high floor artics like what is happening with CTA's NABIs?

3) A low floor allows faster boarding of passengers using wheel chairs [along with other riders of course],

what if we could raise the floor of the bus from the point beyond the wheelchair stations?

This might yield a more durable bus [or at least help mitigate the articulation joint cracking problem].

I'm not an engineer and I might be overlooking the answers to some of these questions.

Anyway, what do you folks think?

Gene King

[MT0851]

Hi All;

2) Have there been many artic-joint problems on high floor artics like what is happening with CTA's NABIs?

Gene King

A San Francisco MUNI E60HF split in half a couple years back.

[Guest]

Hi All;

For a while now we have discussed NABI artics and their problems. The latest of which is the articulation crack issue. My (anecdotal) understanding of ADA requirements is that the "low section" of a low floor bus must extend from the front of the bus to the back door. Now the questions:

1) If this is true why?

2) Have there been many artic-joint problems on high floor artics like what is happening with CTA's NABIs?

3) A low floor allows faster boarding of passengers using wheel chairs [along with other riders of course],

what if we could raise the floor of the bus from the point beyond the wheelchair stations?

This might yield a more durable bus [or at least help mitigate the articulation joint cracking problem].

I'm not an engineer and I might be overlooking the answers to some of these questions.

Anyway, what do you folks think?

Gene King

With the problems plaguing the NABIs, like Ive said in past threads. When it comes to CTA you get what you pay for!

[Busjack]

Hi All;

For a while now we have discussed NABI artics and their problems. The latest of which is the articulation crack issue. My (anecdotal) understanding of ADA requirements is that the "low section" of a low floor bus must extend from the front of the bus to the back door. Now the questions:

1) If this is true why?

2) Have there been many artic-joint problems on high floor artics like what is happening with CTA's NABIs?

3) A low floor allows faster boarding of passengers using wheel chairs [along with other riders of course],

what if we could raise the floor of the bus from the point beyond the wheelchair stations?

This might yield a more durable bus [or at least help mitigate the articulation joint cracking problem].

I'm not an engineer and I might be overlooking the answers to some of these questions.

Anyway, what do you folks think?

Gene King

I don't think it is the ADA regulations as much as it is the Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines. After all, we discussed previously that ADA allowed a high floor bus with a lift.

Of course, it would only take the transit and manufacturing industries to change the Guidelines, as opposed to the government having to advertise a rule making proceeding to change regulations.

Also, I believe that at the time, NABI advertised an articulated bus with the exit door in the front compartment and a high articulation joint. Of course, the nabi.hu site is down and that bus was never manufactured.

I still think the problem is more that it is a pusher than low floor to the back door. I was somewhat deluded by that NABI diagram to which I referred in the previous paragraph in thinking that the engine would be under the front unit, like on a MAN, but that wasn't the case.

With the problems plaguing the NABIs, like Ive said in past threads. When it comes to CTA you get what you pay for!

In this case, you may be right. There is someone on the CTA Tattler with the revisionist history that Kruesi was stuck with them, which was not the case.

We don't know that New Flyer bid on this contract, but all indications are that NABI was cheaper, and CTA was sure in a hurry to exercise all options. If it hadn't done the latter, we would be talking only about an 80 bus problem, not a 226 one. Of course, at the time Pace bought the Orion VIs, it said they were $10K each cheaper than the previous order (NABIs), but the Orion VI proved (at least in Toronto) that it couldn't take it either.

[geneking7320]

Busjack notes that rear engine [pusher mode] location on artics may be the real problem.

If that is the case, what would be the impact on CTA's maintenance expense if they were to buses where the engines were mounted in the front section?

Gene King

[Busjack]

Busjack notes that rear engine [pusher mode] location on artics may be the real problem.

If that is the case, what would be the impact on CTA's maintenance expense if they were to buses where the engines were mounted in the front section?

Gene King

Don't know the answer to that one, but it appears that only Van Hool offers something like that (in this market at the current time).

[westing]

A San Francisco MUNI E60HF split in half a couple years back.

I haven't been able to find much information about this incident. How bad did the bus split apart? Was it a complete separation or one similar to the CTA NABI?

[SlickFlair_859]

On 2/23/2009 at 9:42 AM, geneking7320 said:

Busjack notes that rear engine [pusher mode] location on artics may be the real problem.

If that is the case, what would be the impact on CTA's maintenance expense if they were to buses where the engines were mounted in the front section?

 

Gene King

They would fishtail more with a center engine in inclement weather. The engine weight in the back makes the rear slightly more stable and makes it so that the engine only has to push as opposed to pushing the front and pulling the back which one would think would put strain on the engine if it wasn't strong enough or if the body was too heavy.