ArticlePDF Available

Low-floor bus design preferences of walking aid users during simulated boarding and alighting

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Low-floor buses represent a significant improvement in accessible public transit for passengers with limited mobility. However, there is still a need for research on the inclusive design of transit buses to identify specific low-floor bus design conditions that are either particularly accommodating or challenging for passengers with functional and mobility impairments. These include doorway locations, seating configuration and the large front wheel-well covers that collectively impact boarding, alighting and interior movement of passengers. Findings from a laboratory study using a static full-scale simulation of a lowfloor bus to evaluate the impact of seating configuration and crowding on interior movement and accessibility for individuals with and without walking aids are presented (n=41). Simulated bus journeys that included boarding, fare payment, seating, and alighting were performed. Results from video observations and subjective assessments showed differences in boarding and alighting performance and users’ perceptions of task difficulty. The need for assistive design features (e.g. handholds, stanchions), legroom and stowage space for walking aids was evident. These results demonstrate that specific design conditions in low-floor buses can significantly impact design preference among those who use walking aids. Consideration of ergonomics and inclusive design can therefore be used to improve the design of low-floor buses.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Low-floor bus design preferences of walking
aid users during simulated boarding and
alighting
Clive D’Souzaa,b,*, Victor Paqueta,b, James Lenkera,c, Edward Steinfelda,d and Piyush Bareriaa,b
aCenter for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDeA Center), University at Buffalo, SUNY
bDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, SUNY
cDepartment of Rehabilitation Science, University at Buffalo, SUNY
dDepartment of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo, SUNY
Abstract. Low-floor buses represent a significant improvement in accessible public transit for passengers with limited mobil-
ity. However, there is still a need for research on the inclusive design of transit buses to identify specific low-floor bus design
conditions that are either particularly accommodating or challenging for passengers with functional and mobility impairments.
These include doorway locations, seating configuration and the large front wheel-well covers that collectively impact boarding,
alighting and interior movement of passengers. Findings from a laboratory study using a static full-scale simulation of a low-
floor bus to evaluate the impact of seating configuration and crowding on interior movement and accessibility for individuals
with and without walking aids are presented (n=41). Simulated bus journeys that included boarding, fare payment, seating,
and alighting were performed. Results from video observations and subjective assessments showed differences in boarding
and alighting performance and users' perceptions of task difficulty. The need for assistive design features (e.g. handholds,
stanchions), legroom and stowage space for walking aids was evident. These results demonstrate that specific design condi-
tions in low-floor buses can significantly impact design preference among those who use walking aids. Consideration of ergo-
nomics and inclusive design can therefore be used to improve the design of low-floor buses.
Keywords: Transportation, low-floor bus, accessibility, walking aids, inclusive design
*Corresponding author. E-mail: crdsouza@buffalo.edu.
1. Introduction
Public transportation is an essential public service
that should be designed to benefit as many individu-
als as possible. United States (U.S.) federal regula-
tions and guidelines require transit agencies to trans-
port and accommodate mobility aids for persons with
disabilities, particularly those who use wheeled mo-
bility devices [10,11].
U.S. transit agencies are also faced with the chal-
lenge of having to accommodate other mobility de-
vices such as walkers, canes, crutches, oxygen cylin-
ders and service animals [3,5,8]. But federal regula-
tions and guidelines for accessibility on transporta-
tion vehicles [10,11] are less specific on how to safe-
ly accommodate these devices. One concern with
larger walking aids like walkers and rollators is the
stowage space needed to prevent obstruction or risk
to other passengers when they are otherwise stored in
the aisle or in seats required for other passengers.
Low-floor buses represent a significant improve-
ment in accessible public transit for passengers with
limited mobility primarily by eliminating the need for
steps at the entry doorway. However, there are still
problems associated with the interior design of low-
floor buses. These include constricted movement of
passengers in the forward area of the bus due to large
wheel-well covers, congestion due to irregular seat-
ing configurations, and the lack of adequate hand-
holds for support [3,7-9]. These challenges may be
1051-9815/12/$27.50 © 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserve
d
4951
Work 41 (2012) 4951-4956
D
OI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0791-4951
I
OS Press
particularly problematic for those who use mobility
aids.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the
impact of interior design and crowding in low-floor
buses on boarding, disembarking, and interior circu-
lation for ambulant passengers with mobility im-
pairments using walking aids such as canes and
walkers.
2. Methodology
2.1. Simulation Description
A full-scale static simulation of a low-floor bus
was constructed to systematically evaluate human
performance across a wide variety of realistic bus
interior design configurations through reconfigurable
seating arrangements, wheelchair securement spaces,
and different conditions of boarding and disembark-
ing. Full-scale environment simulations provide a
valuable and cost-effective method for evaluating
whether the intended users can safely and effectively
perform critical tasks in the expected use environ-
ment. Ergonomics researchers have previously used
environmental simulations to evaluate design alterna-
tives pre-production and generating new design re-
quirements for transportation vehicles [2,6,12].
Based on a review of transit buses operating in the
U.S., three bus layouts were identified for simulation
purposes that differed substantially in physical con-
figuration. The designs adhered closely to federal
accessibility requirements [10] and dimensional
clearances recommended by the U.S. bus industry [1]
for aisle widths, wheelchair accessible pathways, seat
spacing and the positioning of handholds and stan-
chions. Boarding and alighting occurred over a fold-
ing access ramp of a 1:6 incline slope. Side-facing
fold-down seats were provided in the wheelchair se-
curement area to accommodate seated passengers
when the space was not occupied by a wheeled mo-
bility device.
Bus layout 1 (L1) included an access ramp in the
front doorway, a floor mounted fare payment box
positioned adjacent to the driver’s seat, two spaces
for wheelchair securement immediately behind the
front wheel-wells, and forward facing seats through-
out the remainder of the bus interior. This layout is
very typical of low-floor buses used in many U.S.
cities, e.g. Buffalo, Washington, D.C.
Bus layout 2 (L2) included ramps located at the
front and rear doorways, a wall-mounted fare pay-
ment box positioned near the rear doorway, side-
facing seats along the sides of the bus interior i.e.
perimeter seating, and two spaces located along the
curb side of the bus for wheelchair securement. The
rear doorway was used for boarding, and the front
door for alighting.
Bus layout 3 (L3) included an access ramp located
at the rear doorway, a wall mounted fare payment
box positioned near the rear doorway, a wheelchair
securement space on the road side and curb side of
the bus to the right of the doorway, and forward fac-
ing seats throughout the remainder of the bus interior.
For each of the bus layouts, two levels of crowd-
ing were simulated using seated mannequins – high
crowding where only one pair of seats were available
restricting seating choice, and low crowding where
only half the number of seats were occupied.
Study participants evaluated each of the six condi-
tions by undertaking a simulated bus journey that
included boarding from a sidewalk, fare payment
using a smart-card, locating and moving to a vacant
seat, getting into and out of the seat, moving to the
exit door and alighting (Figure 1). Participants had
the opportunity to sample different seating conditions
involving combinations of front- or side-facing seat
positions, as well as front and rear entry and exit
conditions.
Following each journey, participants were asked to
provide ratings of design related to the configurations
and interviewed to assess their difficulty in complet-
ing various aspects of the journey. Movements were
recorded using conventional video cameras and a
three-dimensional active marker motion capture sys-
tem.
2.2. Research Participants
Forty-one ambulatory adults between the ages of
18-80 years were recruited from the general public
and local organizations serving the elderly and per-
sons with disabilities to participate in the study. This
included thirteen individuals who used a walking
cane, eleven who used a walker, five who did not use
an ambulatory aid but had a walking impairment, and
twelve who did not have a walking impairment. A
majority of the sample used fixed-route buses fre-
quently, and only four walker users depended on
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) paratransit
services for transport. A summary of the four differ-
ent sub-groups is presented in Table 1.
C. D’Souza et al. / Low-Floor Bus Desi
g
n Pre
f
erences o
f
Walkin
g
Aid Users Durin
g
Simulated Boardin
g
and Ali
g
htin
g
4952
Fig.1. Photograph of the simulated environment depicting bus layout 3 with a cane user during the boarding process
Table 1
Demographic information of the study sample (n=41) stratified by use of walking aid and walking impairment.
Cane Users
(n=13)
Walker Users
(n=11)
Mild Imp.
(n=5)
Able-bodied
(n=12)
Total
(n=41)
Gender (F, M) 7 , 6 9, 2 2, 3 8 , 4 26, 15
Age: Mean (SD) yrs. 53.6 (11.1) 63.1 (10.7) 42 (10.7) 44 (9.3) 52 (13)
Bus Users (>= once a
week) 10 6 4 9 29
Difficulty walking or climbing stairs e.g. entering home, boarding a bus:
No difficulty 2 2 1 11 16
Some difficulty 10 6 3 1 20
A lot of difficulty 1 3 1 0 5
3. Results
3.1. Preference in Bus Layout Design
When asked to rate the travel conditions tested, the
layout with a perimeter seating configuration (L2)
was preferred overall in terms of physical access for
both the low and high crowding conditions. The de-
sign with forward entry and exit (L1) was consis-
tently rated poor in conditions with high crowding.
Participant preferences are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Boarding and Alighting
Regarding preference of doorway location for
boarding, ten participants preferred the front door
while eight preferred the rear door. Sixteen partici-
pants preferred the front door for alighting, and thir-
teen preferred the rear door. Many did not express
any preference. Reasons for choosing the rear door
included “taking less time for boarding”, “less con-
strained for space”, “easier to locate a vacant seat”
and “quicker exit as most passengers sit up front”.
Regarding the use of the front door, participants
commented on “needing to interact with the driver
(in asking for directions)”, “feeling safer” and “pre-
ferring to be seated closer to the driver”.
C. D’Souza et al. / Low-Floor Bus Desi
g
n Pre
f
erences o
f
Walkin
g
Aid Users Durin
g
Simulated Boardin
g
and Ali
g
htin
g
4953
Table 2
Preference in bus design for layouts L1, L2 and L3, across conditions of low and high crowding.
Cane
Users
(n=13)
Walker
Users
(n=11)
Mild
Imp.
(n=5)
Able-
bodied
(n=12)
Total
(n=41)
Low Crowding
Most preferred L1 L2 L2 L2 L2
Intermediate L2 L3 L1 L3 L1
Least Preferred L3 L1 L3 L1 L3
High Crowding
Most preferred L2 L2 L2 L3 L2
Intermediate L3 L3 L3 L2 L3
Least preferred L1 L1 L1 L1 L1
3.3. Interior Movement
Interior movement to and from the seat was rela-
tively more difficult in conditions of high crowding
and noticeably problematic for walker users. The
narrower aisles adjacent to forward-facing seats en-
countered in high crowding conditions for designs L1
and L3 did not provide adequate space for walker
users to turn and orient with the seat. Participants
reported being concerned about finding a seat quickly
to avoid delays or accidently bumping into passen-
gers when moving through the aisles, and in finding a
seat that allowed storage of the walking aid without
obstructing other passengers.
A few participants also commented that finding a
seat quickly without having to walk a distance was
most paramount. Real-life experiences of the bus
taking off before the person could find a seat was
cited as the primary reason.
3.4. Seating
A large majority (91%) of the participants pre-
ferred side-facing seats over the front-facing seats.
These included 7 of 13 (54%) cane users, all eleven
(100%) walker users, 2 of 5 mildly impaired, and 8
of 12 (67%) able-bodied participants. Commonly
cited reasons were “more legroom”, “ease of getting
in to and out of the seat”, “wider aisle” and “more
room for luggage”. Three participants did not ex-
press any preference.
Walker users strongly favored side-facing seats as
it provided for legroom and space to position the
walker directly in front during sitting and standing
and without the aid of a handrail or stanchion. Dur-
ing travel, participants tried to draw the walker close
to the seat as possible with the intent of keeping the
aisle clear for other passengers.
The primary complaint against forward facing
seats was the inadequate leg-room, with walker users
particularly inconvenienced by the lack of space for
stowing the walker even when folded – although
most users preferred to travel with the walker un-
folded as it is used for support when getting into and
out of the seat. For a few cases, the bags and purses
hanging off the walker prevented it from folding
properly.
Reasons for preferring front-facing seats included
needing “to see where the bus was going”, avoiding
the “direct stare of other passengers” seated across
the aisle, “less sway” during acceleration or decelera-
tion. If the spacing between front-facing seats were
to be increased it is likely that a few more individuals
would prefer these seats over side-facing seats.
3.5. Use of support features
Among the different support features, vertical
stanchions were most preferred and frequently used
along with the horizontal handles on the back of for-
ward-facing seats primarily in seating, standing up,
and during interior movement. In general, overhead
handrails were found to be too high for effective use.
In a response to questions about support features,
more than half the number of participants (27 of 41)
commented on having found stanchions very helpful,
particularly among people with walking impairments
“for support and balance”, “when sitting down and
getting up”, “as the straps (on the overhead handrail)
were too high”, “handy if you had to travel standing”
and “good to hold on to if the bus were moving”.
Most of the participants including cane users
needed a handhold or stanchion when getting into
C. D’Souza et al. / Low-Floor Bus Desi
g
n Pre
f
erences o
f
Walkin
g
Aid Users Durin
g
Simulated Boardin
g
and Ali
g
htin
g
4954
and out of the forward-facing seats. Walker users,
however, relied on their walker for support when
getting into or out of the seat.
4. Discussion
Individuals with mobility impairments were found
to require longer time and reported greater difficulty
for some tasks including getting into a seat, moving
to a vacant seat, and getting to the exit door particu-
larly in more crowded conditions. The study also
showed the need for adequate device storage space
and the importance of support features like handrails
and vertical stanchions during ambulation and seat-
ing by people with mobility limitations. A detailed
analysis of the video and movement data is being
performed to more specifically characterize boarding
and alighting movement and behavior during the tri-
als.
Not all the designs considered in this study were
equally favored based on previous literature and
feedback from a few industry representatives, either
due to prevailing market trends (e.g. forward-facing
seats being more prevalent), limitations in existing
station infrastructure (e.g. difficulties with ramp de-
ployment and fare-payment in rear-boarding), and
costs (e.g. use of two folding ramps). However, pas-
senger concerns about inadequate stowage space for
non-wheelchair mobility aids such as walkers, canes,
other items carried with walking aids, and insuffi-
cient assistive design features like handholds and
stanchions can be overcome by making modest but
concerted changes to the bus interior.
In many of the low-floor buses that have forward
boarding, the priority seats for the elderly and mobil-
ity impaired are often located in the same area desig-
nated for wheelchairs. Further, these might be the
only side-facing seats on the bus that provide the
necessary legroom, causing the ambulant disabled
and wheeled mobility users to compete for the same
space. The legroom provided between forward-
facing seats was also commented as being inadequate
by many participants that had walking impairments.
During the study, the spacing between forward-
facing seats was set at 675 mm (26.5 in.) and meas-
ured at seat pan height from the seat back cushion to
the rear panel of the seat in front. This value repre-
sents the recommended industry-minimum [1] and
was also observed in field measurements – but in-
creasing the spacing is recommended.
Study participants were required to use a smart
card for fare payment, which consists of a program-
mable card to automatically pay the fare when
brought within a few inches of a sensing device or
card-reader. Participants reported significant ease in
using this system, decreasing payment time as well as
the anxiety of handling coins and producing exact
change. These systems are a significant improve-
ment over the typical magnetic strip cards in terms of
technology and usability [4] and have been intro-
duced in some larger cities like Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C.
The focus of this study was on the preferences that
ambulatory individuals with and without walking
aids had towards the physical configuration of the
bus environment. While the study did not simulate
the bus in movement, the use of the laboratory-based
environmental simulation provides the opportunity to
evaluate how new concept designs of transit vehicles
could impact user performance. Results clearly
demonstrate that design features in low-floor buses
can impact design preferences; particularly for those
who use walking aids. These results support the use
of ergonomics and inclusive design to improve the
design of future low-floor public transit buses.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported with funding pro-
vided by the U.S. Department of Education, National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR) through the RERC on Accessible Public
Transportation (Grant# H133E080019). The opin-
ions expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not represent those of the Department of Edu-
cation or NIDRR.
References
[1] American Public Transportation Association, Standard Bus
Procurement Guidelines, APTA, Washington, D.C., 1997.
[2] B. M. Brooks, An Investigation into Aspects of Bus Design
and Passenger Requirements, Ergonomics 22(1979), 175 –
188.
[3] D. Cross, Wheelchair Access: Improvements, Standards, and
Challenges, American Public Transportation Association An-
nual Conference, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[4] G. Giuliano, J. Moore and J. Golob, Integrated Smart-Card
Fare System: Results from Field Operational Test, Transporta-
tion Research Record, No.1735 (2000), 138-146.
[5] J. Goldman and G. Murray, TCRP Synthesis 88: Strollers,
Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains, Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
C. D’Souza et al. / Low-Floor Bus Desi
g
n Pre
f
erences o
f
Walkin
g
Aid Users Durin
g
Simulated Boardin
g
and Ali
g
htin
g
4955
[6] J. Petzall, Ambulant Disabled Persons using Buses: Experi-
ments with Entrances and Seats, Applied Ergonomics
24(1993), 313-326.
[7] National Council on Disability, The Current State of Trans-
portation for People with Disabilities in the United States, Na-
tional Council on Disability, Washington, D.C., 2005.
[8] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Status Report on the
Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and
Private Transportation, Easter Seals Project ACTION, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2008.
[9] R. D. King, TCRP Report 41: New Designs and Operating
Experiences with Low-Floor Buses. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.
[10] U.S. Access Board, Federal Register 36 CFR Part 1192: ADA
Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles (Amend.
September 1998), 1998.
[11] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Register 49 CFR
Part 38: Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Speci-
fications for Transportation Vehicles (Rev. October 1, 2007),
2007.
[12] W. Daamen, Y.-c. Lee and P. Wiggenraad, Boarding and
Alighting Experiments: Overview of Setup and Performance
and Some Preliminary Results, Transportation Research Re-
cord, No. 2042 (2008), 71-81.
C. D’Souza et al. / Low-Floor Bus Desi
g
n Pre
f
erences o
f
Walkin
g
Aid Users Durin
g
Simulated Boardin
g
and Ali
g
htin
g
4956
... Meanwhile, posture no. 2 was bowed (facing downward). These findings are consistent with a previous study [4] that concluded that passengers tend to face towards direction of travel and, in some cases, facing down or bowed [15]. The undesired consequences for these bad postures, if maintained for long period, are muscle fatigue and postural stress in the neck [35] and increased risk of neck pain [36]. ...
... Reference no. [4] serves as the primary reference to justify the suitability of front-facing seats on the new design. Moreover, previously published guidance was considered [35], along with up-to-date anthropometric measures, design principles/strategies, and constraints when designing new seating arrangement of angkot. ...
... [12] reported a potential homework for this design, that passengers sitting on frontfacing seats still have a propensity to stare outside of the windows, which may warrant further investigation. However, front-facing seats are perhaps the best option for angkot to minimize the tendency of non-ergonomic postures and discomfort caused by direct stares of other passengers and acceleration sway [4]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents an evaluation of angkot, which was conducted to address ergonomic issues related to this mode of transport and to support the development of design recommendations for angkot use by the Indonesian population. This was achieved by carefully investigating the way people sit inside the angkot, modeling and running simulation to assess comfort, and finally proposing a design recommendation that is likely to be more ergonomic and healthy based on the simulation. A contextual inquiry method using video observation was applied to investigate sitting postures that appear most often among passengers. The analysis revealed that the most common sitting postures were sitting fairly upright, with the head facing down to the floor or facing front to the direction of travel; meanwhile, both arms were supported, and both legs were free on the floor. JACK Digital Human Modelling (DHM) software was used to perform Rapid Upper-Limb Assessment (RULA) analysis, which revealed a number of commonly adopted postures that require correction. A new seating layout is proposed based on the analysis and best practices from literature. RULA analysis was reapplied to the design changes to check the anticipated postures that would emerge i.e. passengers are facing towards the front of the bus, which is more likely to be ergonomically better for their comfort and health. This paper also discussed its limitations and potential future works. Future study of similar phenomena is still wide-open to obtain a more thorough comprehension of angkot microbus.
... Of the 26 studies, 14 investigated user experiences to understand what users may face, particularly related to access barriers [8,11,34,35,[39][40][41][42]47,50,51,53,55,56], five examined bus formats and floor layouts [38,40,41,43,47], and a further five focussed on bus ramp incidents and optimal design [36,37,44,45,48]. Ten studies examined the accessibility of public transport in general [8,11,12,34,35,39,46,51,54,55], and through reviewing the specific types of vehicles included in the studies, 24 included bus, 10 included train, 5 included taxi, and 2 studies each included ferry or tram/light rail/streetcars (refer to Table 1, column 2). ...
... Eleven of the studies were from the USA, four from Sweden, three from England two from Australia, and one each from New Zealand, Norway, Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, and Northern Ireland. In terms of populations included in the studies, 15 of the 26 studies focused solely on mobility device users [8,11,35,36,38,[40][41][42][43][44][45]50,[54][55][56] and included people using powered wheelchairs and scooters, manual wheelchairs, ambulant-propelled adult strollers, walkers, walking sticks/canes and crutches. Seven of the studies had a mix of people who were able-bodied (including older people with general health declines) and disabled [12,34,39,46,48,51,52], and four of the studies only included able bodied participants simulating mobility device use [37,47,49,53]. ...
... Seven of the studies had a mix of people who were able-bodied (including older people with general health declines) and disabled [12,34,39,46,48,51,52], and four of the studies only included able bodied participants simulating mobility device use [37,47,49,53]. Only two studies specifically researched people aged 60 years and over [39,50], one explored the experience of teenagers (13-17 years) [8] and the remaining studies with people who use mobility devices all had participants of mixed age groups [11,[34][35][36]38,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]48,[51][52][53][54][55][56]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: Being able to access public transport is vital for mobility device users as this is an affordable way of maintaining community connections and participating in activities that promote quality of life. This systematic review investigated literature on public transport access for people using mobility devices, excluding transit restraint and securement literature. Materials and methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature in English from 1995 to 2019, with critical appraisal and narrative synthesis. Results: Twenty-six articles were identified, including 14 studies investigating user experiences, seven examining bus formats and floor layouts, and five focusing on bus ramp incidents and optimal design. Studies were generally observational and descriptive, with 12 including analysis of video data. Conclusion: This is the first systematic review of literature related to the accessibility of public transport for people using mobility devices. Topics such as ramp access have been relatively well-researched, as have the experiences of users. However, many gaps remain and there is a need for research to; address the barriers identified through user experiences, discern the best access to stations and stops, as well as floor formats for people to ingress, manoeuvre and egress from a variety of transport modes, and promote universal design principles in the transport sector. Rehabilitation professionals can use the findings of this review to advocate for, and support people using mobility devices to successfully negotiate public transport. • Implications for Rehabilitation • Accessible public transport is vital to enable people using mobility devices to remain connected in their communities. • Despite increased international awareness and adoption of accessibility features by the public transport sector to improve getting to a stop, ingress, manoeuvrability within and egress from conveyances, access for people using wheeled mobility devices cannot be assumed. • When prescribing new wheeled mobility devices with clients, rehabilitation professionals and users need to consider public transport access and the suitability of different devices for this purpose. • Rehabilitation professionals can undertake skills training with people using wheeled mobility devices to test out access prior to independent travel on public transport and develop strategies to overcome any barriers.
... It is confirmed in [6] that the operation of buses is accompanied by constant overloads, leading to premature damage to body frame elements and suspension elements, especially when transporting passengers in low-entry public transport buses. Despite the above-specified shortcomings of low-floor structures, buses of this type have become widespread and convenient for the transportation of public transport passengers [7,8]. Therefore, the issue of determining the durability of public transport bus bodies is relevant for a significant proportion of carriers and manufacturers. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper addresses the issue related to forecasting the durability indicators of public transport buses under operational conditions. It has been established that when buses are operated to transport passengers the bus bodies wear at different intensities. During operation, the strength of the body frame weakens under the influence of corrosion in combination with sites of fatigue destruction. As it was established, the intensity of corrosion of the bus body depends on the number of residents in the city where the bus is operated. The earlier established dependences were taken into consideration; the current study has identified two conditional variants of corrosion evolution based on the number of inhabitants: up to 1 million and exceeding 1 million. The expediency of repairs and their impact on the bus passive safety has been analyzed. It was found that the elements of the body frame, without external characteristic damage, no longer meet the specified conditions of strength as a result of sign-alternating loads and during long-term operation. Determining the durability of the bus body was made possible through the construction of a mathematical model. The model’s adequacy was confirmed by road tests of the bus. The devised model describes the movement of the bus over a road surface with different micro profiles, with different corrosion penetration, different loading by passengers, and bus speeds. It was established that the reason for the evolution of structural corrosion is the influence of salt mixtures preventing the icing of roads, as well as ignoring the washing of buses after such trips. It is recommended to use new software for the in-depth study into this issue addressing the combination of various factors of destruction: cyclic loads at variable bus speeds and the corrosion progress. The study results could make it possible to predict a life cycle of the body frame under factors that correspond to actual operating conditions.
... Improving usability and accessibility in fixed-route transit potentially shifts riders to fixed-route, and reduces dependence on special transportation services with substantial financial savings for transit providers [31]. Universal design strategies to improving transit vehicle usability for wheeled mobility users (e.g., raised bus stop pads, increased interior circulation space) benefit many other riders groups including users of ambulation aids such as walkers, rollators, Segway's, and users with luggage, push-strollers, or carrying small children, thereby increasing the overall population of potential transit riders [17,[87][88][89]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Multiple field studies provide qualitative accounts of usability barriers experienced by users of wheeled mobility devices on public transit. This study aimed to examine these usability barriers from the theoretical perspective of Environmental Docility by quantifying the relationship between functional capabilities of wheeled mobility device users and ingress–egress performance on accessible fixed-route transit vehicles in an urban setting. Twenty-eight wheeled mobility users each completed three trips on a predetermined route through the local public transit system. Ingress and egress times, user-reported usability ratings and open-ended comments were analyzed. Regression analyses indicated significant interactions between age and minimum parallel-park length on ingress and egress times. Specifically, lower functional capability reflected in older age and less maneuvering ability predicted decreased performance (longer ingress–egress times), indicating less adaptability to environmental demands and agreement with the Environmental Docility Hypothesis. Usability ratings and comments revealed difficulty with negotiating access ramps and turning maneuvers in the vehicle interior and in proximity to other passengers. Despite compliance with accessibility standards, current design of transit vehicles present substantial usability barriers for wheeled mobility users. Environmental Docility provides a theoretical basis to identifying modifiable factors related to person and environment for improving usability of public transit for people aging and/or with mobility impairments.
... Wheeled mobility device users were evaluated in this study to address a demonstrated need for improved usability [4,5,7] in light of proposed and subsequently finalized changes to U.S. accessibility guidelines that could impact wheeled mobility device users on transit buses [56]. As part of an inclusive design process addressing the design needs of other user groups, including older adults, users of ambulation aids, and persons with sensory and cognitive impairments are also necessary [57,58]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Low ridership of public transit buses among wheeled mobility device users suggests the need to identify vehicle design conditions that are either particularly accommodating or challenging. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of low-floor bus interior seating configuration and passenger load on wheeled mobility device user-reported difficulty, overall acceptability and design preference. Methods: Forty-eight wheeled mobility users evaluated three interior design layouts at two levels of passenger load (high vs. low) after simulating boarding and disembarking tasks on a static full-scale low-floor bus mockup. Results: User self-reports of task difficulty, acceptability and design preference were analyzed across the different test conditions. Ramp ascent was the most difficult task for manual wheelchair users relative to other tasks. The most difficult tasks for users of power wheelchairs and scooters were related to interior circulation, including moving to the securement area, entry and positioning in the securement area and exiting the securement area. Boarding and disembarking at the rear doorway was significantly more acceptable and preferred compared to the layouts with front doorways. Conclusion: Understanding transit usability barriers, perceptions and preferences among wheeled mobility users is an important consideration for clinicians who recommend mobility-related device interventions to those who use public transportation. • Implications for Rehabilitation • In order to maximize community participation opportunities for wheeled mobility users, clinicians should consider potential public transit barriers during the processes of wheelchair device selection and skills training. • Usability barriers experienced by wheeled mobility device users on transit vehicles differ by mobility device type and vehicle configurations. • Full-scale environment simulations are an effective means of identifying usability barriers and design needs in people with mobility impairments and may provide an alternative model for determining readiness for using fixed route buses or eligibility for paratransit.
... For physical barriers, we have focused on issues surrounding rapid boarding and egress from transit vehicles, vehicle ramp slope, and understanding of how local infrastructure impacts the ability to reach transit stops and stations [14][15][16][17][18]. Research has centered on full-scale simulation of transit buses to identify important design elements and new design concepts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.
Chapter
The mobility of bus space is strong and there are many facilities and functional areas in the bus, which makes interior design works difficult. Visual search can reflect the adaptability of passengers to a certain space to some extent. However, this ability of the elderly is significantly different from that of the young group. Therefore, an interior layout suitable for older passengers should make up for the lack of information in their process of visual search. This paper summarized 48 bus interior layouts and established the correlation model between the acceptability of the elderly and their eye movement characteristics including fixation, saccade and pupil diameter when observing these layouts. On this basis, the visual search law of the elderly was found and the important areas were located. By means of this method, the priority of the key functional areas to guide the vision of the elderly was figured out. The study found that for old people, the initial recognition degree of the rear seat area was higher, and there were more meaningful clues in the middle right part. The conclusions provided a reference for determining the position of visual symbols which were used to guide the line of sight and designing an elderly-oriented layout in buses.
Chapter
Digital media technologies have been gradually integrated into teaching activities over the past few years, providing teachers with more possibilities for teaching. This study examines the teaching effects of an interactive AI based image-processing platform in assisting as a teaching aid for children painting education. In this study, we compared the learning interest, learning attitude, and continuous learning intention of 96 children aged 5 to 13 in the process of painting education. The subjects were divided into two groups: the experimental group used AI image processing for painting education, and the control group utilized traditional teaching methods for painting learning. Results showed that the use of AI image-processing tools in painting education reduces girls’ learning attitudes and continuous learning intention, while stimulating boys’ learning interest.
Article
Full-text available
Low-speed, driverless automated shuttles have the potential to significantly improve community mobility for older adults and people with disabilities who are otherwise unable or ineligible to drive. However, accessibility and inclusive design of these shuttles to accommodate the spectrum of human abilities and impairments is impeded by the lack of accessible design regulations, standards, and information tools specific to automated vehicles. In light of the scarce accessibility research on automated shuttles, a literature review on public transit was performed. A total of 66 documents were identified addressing components of the public transit travel chain involving older adults and people with disabilities. This paper reviewed 11 of the documents pertaining to onboard circulation. Findings highlight the importance of vehicle interior design on accessibility and usability for people with impairments, the inadequacy of existing accessibility standards when designing beyond minimum requirements, and a lack of evidence-based design tools and information to support designing for accessibility. An interactive web-based repository for transportation accessibility research is introduced to inform the accessible design of LSAS, along with directions for future research.
Article
The purpose of this synthesis was to document the state of the practice of transit agencies managing capacity on vehicles carrying customers with large items. The synthesis also includes a discussion of vehicle designs to accommodate these various large items. It was accomplished through a literature review, a transit agency survey, and through interviews with survey respondents who had a particular success, innovation, or experience that highlighted issues with large items. Forty-two completed surveys were received from 42 transit agencies, a response ratio of 100%. As evidenced by report results, with the exception of wheelchairs and many types of mobility devices, policies regarding bicycles, strollers, carts, and other large items appear to be developed in response to particular circumstances experienced by the transit agencies. Six transit agencies' particular experiences offer more detail about these items, as well as policy considerations.
Article
Vehicle dwell time is an important determinant of the system performance and passenger service quality of public transport systems. Adequate prediction models for vehicle dwell time are required in timetable planning and in pedestrian simulation tools to optimize station design and rolling stock design. Because most of the dwell time is consumed by boarding and alighting, this paper focuses on increasing insight into boarding and alighting behavior in railroad vehicles by performing laboratory experiments using video cameras. The experiments test the effects of the physical environment (stepping gap, height difference, and door width), population (age, gender), flow composition (direction, time pressure, luggage, boarding group size, boarding ratio, queuing discipline), and prevailing traffic conditions (crowding on board and crowding on the platform). From the video images, pedestrian trajectories (movements over time) have been derived. This paper describes the effects of the size of the horizontal and vertical gap and the presence of luggage on the door capacity. Door capacities have been estimated by using headway distributions and cumulative curves. Increasing the horizontal and vertical gap leads to decreases in the capacity (up to 15%). When passengers with luggage (suitcases) are present, the capacity decreases more (up to 25%).
Article
Evaluation results of the Ventura County smart card Phase III field demonstration are presented to show the feasibility of using smart cards and other technology to provide an integrated fare medium across several transit operators. The evaluation addressed technical performance, user response, and institutional issues. Technical performance was affected by installation problems, equipment failures, and communications problems. Technical problems often were the outcome of institutional issues. Smart-card users were very satisfied with the new fare medium; however, transit patrons in Ventura County have very low incomes, many are not English speaking, and few transit users bought and used the cards. Overall, the demonstration suffered from the absence of clear roles and responsibilities as well as a lack of understanding of the complexity and demands of the technology.
Article
This report will be of interest to transit managers, policymakers, operations and maintenance professionals, bus procurement specialists, bus manufacturers and suppliers, and others interested in operating experience to date with low-floor transit buses. The report provides information on the current market for low-floor buses and provides a summary of operating experiences on the basis of discussions with transit agencies and low-floor bus manufacturers. The report includes information on customer satisfaction and acceptance, bus capacity and ridership impacts, bus operating experiences, impacts on maintenance and facilities, safety experiences, and operator and mechanic acceptance and satisfaction. Also included is a discussion of the current market and market trends for low-floor buses, an update of the status of low-floor bus technology and technological developments, and a summary of key specifications for low-floor buses available to the North American transit market. This report will be particularly useful for transit agencies considering the deployment of low-floor transit buses.
Article
A two part investigation was undertaken by Leyland Vehicles Human Factors Group under contract to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Phase 1 of the project covered the physical capabilities of passengers and their design preferences, using a static wooden mock up of a bus floor layout and 200 elderly and disabled subjects. From a questionnaire on problems with bus usage, the height of the first step was identified as the major inhibiting aspect in physically using buses and subsequent tests quantified the capabilities of elderly and disabled subjects for step climbing and handrail use. Other tests within Phase 1 included the measurement of nine major body dimensions, various capability tests for reach, strength and step climbing, seat height, spacing, comfort and position preference, handrail diameter, shape and spacing and entrance configurations of steps and handrails. Phase 2 of the investigation covered five aspects: 1. Doorway handholds: Various designs based on the Phase 1 work were developed and built into a mock up bus entrance. A group of sixty elderly subjects assisted in evaluating these to select the most suitable shape, clearance and surface finish. 2. In the seat: The definition of good or bad journeys, as described by a Journey Quality Index, is related to the distribution of Jerk levels. Analysis of specific vehicle events reveals the area where improvements in vehicle control and driver training would produce better bus journeys. 3. Going to and from the seat: Using a modified Leyland National bus, equipped with an adjustable floor, instrumented stanchions and acceleration measuring equipment, the comfort and ability of standing passengers to remain upright was studied. 4. Step height and retractable step: A retractable step provided a first step height of 185 mm and improved the ease of use by elderly passengers, but did not increase the stationary vehicle time in these trials. 5. Accidents: A study was made of accident data over a period of 12 months by 30 bus operators, covering about 30,000 vehicles in the UK. 56% of the passenger injuries were sustained in non-collision accidents and 43% of these occurred to passengers who were estimated to be over 60 yrs of age.
Article
This paper describes research work carried out in Sweden to adapt buses to the requirements of ambulant disabled people. It contains an experimental study where subjects tried different entrances and seats. For the experiments a bus was rebuilt and equipped with new entrance and seating arrangements. Three categories of subjects participated: seriously ambulant disabled, representing people having severe ambulatory difficulties in their daily life; less seriously ambulant disabled, representing people that normally travel with the special transportation service; and slightly ambulant disabled, representing ordinary elderly people. The evaluation was based on observations, photographs, interviews and in some cases timing with a stopwatch. The results show that low similar steps and well-designed handrails in the bus entrance made boarding and alighting easier. The seat trials showed the importance of having suitable grab rails to allow people to pull or heave themselves up. Design requirements are presented in the paper. The Swedish Board of Transport have used the results when working out regulations to adapt public transport vehicles for use by disabled people.
The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States
National Council on Disability, The Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States, National Council on Disability, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Wheelchair Access: Improvements, Standards, and Challenges, American Public Transportation Association Annual Conference
  • D Cross
D. Cross, Wheelchair Access: Improvements, Standards, and Challenges, American Public Transportation Association Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., 2006.
  • J Goldman
  • G Murray
J. Goldman and G. Murray, TCRP Synthesis 88: Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
  • R D King
R. D. King, TCRP Report 41: New Designs and Operating Experiences with Low-Floor Buses. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.