1983 Ketron Inc

DOT-TSC-U MT A -83-2 Wheelchair Lifts on U.S.Department of Transportation Transit Buses Urban Mass Transportation Administration Prepared by: January 1983 Ketron Inc. H: 3 1 ~ 190 i EQUIPM ENT ENGlNEERING DEPARTMENT NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Trans portation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to th e object of this report. DOT-TSC-U tv'IT A-83-2 S.C.R. T.D. LIBRARY Wheelchair Lifts on U.S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transit Buses Transportation Administration Summary of U. S. Experience Prepared by: Ketron Inc. One Broadway Cambridge MA 02142 Office of Technical Assistance Office of Bus and Paratransit Systems Washington DC 20590 0-7548 ~ .. PREFACE This project was conducted for the USDOT Transportati on Systems Center (TSC) and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) by KETRON, Inc . - Cambridge Facility. The contract \vas initiated in September, 1980 betv1een TSC and Applied Resour ce Integration, Ltd. (ARI) of Boston - Contract r~o . DTRS57-80-C-00150 . In 1981 KETRON acquired ARI and t he project was continued and completed by the same project teom . The successful completion of t he project is attr ibutabl e to the cooperation of a large number of organizations and personnel representing t r ansit properties, bus manuf ac t ur Prs, lift su pp liers , and others concerned v1ith the problem of acccssi bil ity on public transit systems. The authors wish to thank all of the indi vidual s wh o hove contributed their time and information to the study effort and t o Debor ah Burke for her efforts in the t yping and preparation of the report. The UMTA Project Sponsor \las Mr . John Goon of tile Office of Tec linology Development and De pl oyment. Project moni toring and gu idance was provided by Mr . Stuart Pa l onen and Mr . Richard Porcaro of TSC. Over all proj ect management and i nputs to the st udy ~,ere provided by Mr . Richard Robichaud and Dr . Donald Sussman of TSC . i i i TAB LE OF CONTENTS SECTI ON PAGE 1 EXECUT IVE SL.MMARY • • •••••••••• • • ••• ••• •••••••••••• •••• •••• • ••••••• • • 1- 1 2 BACKGR OUND . .... .... .............................................. 2-1 2.1 SECTION 504 REGULATI ONS • • •••••• ••• •••••••••••• • ••••• ••• ••••••• 2-1 2. 2 LIFT HIST ORY •••••.••.••••••••• •••• ••••• •• ••••••••....••....... 2 - 2 2. 3 LIFT ASSESSMENT PROJECT.. .. ................................... 2-7 3 LIFT DESCRIPTI ONS ••• • •••••••••••• • •• ••• •••••• • ••••••• •• •••••••••••• 3 - 1 X 3. 1 COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC ........................... .. .......... 3-1 ? 3. 2 EN VIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT CORP ORATI ON ....................... ... 3- 9 ' 3. 3 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ....................... ........ ... 3-14 3. 4 LIFT-U, INC ••••••••••• • •••••••• • ••••••••••••••••• •••••• • • ••••• 3- 17 X 3. 5 TRANSILIFT EQUIPMENT, LTD ................................... .. 3-25 3. 6 TRANSP OR TATION DE SIGN AND TECHNO LOGY, INC • ••••••••• • •• •••••••• 3-26 x 3. 7 VAPOR CORPORATION •••••••••••••• • ••••••• ••• •• • • • ••• •••••••••••• 3-30 4 SITE VIS IT S ................. .. ........•......••.. .. ............. 4-1 4. 1 BLOOMINGTON -NORMAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM (BNPTS), IL ..... ..... 4-2 4. 2 CHAMPAIGN-URBANA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT (MTD), IL • •• • ••• ••• • ••• 4-6 4. 3 DEN VE R REGIONAL TRANSPOR TAT ION DISTRICT (RTD), CO ............. 4-13 4.4 CITY OF DETROIT OCPARTMENT OF TRANS PORTATION (D DOT), MI. ...... 4-30 4. 5 SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SEMTA), MI. ••• 4-3 7 4. 6 EUGENE (LANE CO UNTY MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT ), OR •••••• • ••••••• • • 4-49 4. 7 GRAND RAPIDS AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (GRATA) , MI. ..... ........ 4-58 4. 8 CAMBRIA COUNTY TRANS IT AUTHORITY (CCTA), JOHNSTa.JN, PA ........ 4-64 V 4. 9 KALAMAZOO METRO TRANS IT SYSTEM (KMTS), MI. .................... 4-71 4.10 LOS ANGE LES - SOUTHERN CALIF ORN IA RAPID TRANS IT DISTRICT (SCRTD), CA ......................................... 4-75 4. 11 MIDD LETOWN TRANS IT DISTRICT (MTD), CT ......................... 4-80 4.12 MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM (MCTS), WI. ................... 4-84 4. 13 OA KLAND AC TRANS IT, CA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4- 93 4.14 PORT HUR ON - BLUE WATER AREA TRANSPORTATION COMM I SS I ON ( BWA TC) , MI . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-95 4.15 SAN JOSE - SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPOR TATION AGENCY (SCCTA), CA •••••••••••• •• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-97 4.16 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA - SAMTRANS ............................... 4-107 4. 1 7 SE ATT LE -ME TR O, WA. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 4 -10 9 5 CONC LUSIONS ..••.•..••••••••••••••.••••••••....•.•••..•••••••.•... .. 5-1 5. 1 LIFT DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION ............................. ..... 5-1 5. 2 LIFT INSTA LLAT IONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• • •• •• •••••••••• 5-3 5. 3 TEST AND TEST ING.... ................... ..... .......... .. ..... 5-4 5. 4 TRAINING AND OPERATIONAL PROC EDURES ............................ 5-8 6 REC OMME NDAT l ON S. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 -1 6.1 LIFT DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS................ .............. 6-1 6. 2 TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE. ................................... .... 6- 3 6. 3 OPERATIONAL PROC EDURES......................................... 6-5 6.4 PROCUREMEITT REQ UIREMENTS . ... .................................. 6-5 APPENDIX A vi SECTION 1 EXEC lJf I VE SUMMARY The overall objective of the project was to dev elop information and guidance for the transit industry concerning wheelcha i r lifts on transit buses in t he area s of lift procurement, testing and ac ceptance , training, and maintenance. Th e methodology for the project included the conduct of a nationwide survey/inventory of 1 ifts, the buses equipped v1ith them, and t he transit properties operating them . Based on the inventory.thirteen properties v✓ere sel ected for on-site collection of data and experiences with 1 ift performance in t r ansit service. The project scope was 1 im ited to an examination of passive-type lifts installed in heavy duty transit buses providing fi xed route service. A passi ve lift is defined as one which forms a conven tional step entryway when in the stored or stowed position. Seven manufacturers with passive lifts installed in heavy duty transit buses we re identified. In descending order of market share, the l i f t manufacturers were: Market Share (Up to Spring 1981) 0 General Motors Corporation 45% 0 Environmen tal Equ i pn ent Corporation 27% 0 Transportation De sign & Technology , Inc. 16% 0 Lift-U, Inc. 11 % 0 Va por Corporation 11 % 0 Transilift Equipnent , Ltd. <l % 0 Coll ins Industries, Inc. <1% These 1 ifts were i nstalled or in production for 11 different ma nufacturer s of buses, predani nantly for original equipnent installation. At t he end of 1980 , there v.e re over 100 transit properties with accessible service. Due to the impact of state and local accessibility ma ndates, the geographical distribution of l ift equipped buses was not uniform. Ca lifor ni a accounted for 25% of the operators and 30% of accessible fixed route transit buses nat ionw ide. California a nd Michigan together r epresented nearly half the ac cessible bus population. 1-1 Selection of the sites was based upon a nUllber of criteria incl ud ing : o experience with the latest model for all l ifts ; o original equi pnen t and retrofit situations; o length of service and community committment to accessibility; o represent all major transit bus manufacturers; o size of transit operation; o climatic and envirorment factors; and o av a i l ab i l it y of d at a. A nUllber of general problens with lifts in transit 1t.ere identified through the on-site assessment process. o Buses were jacked up by the lift due to failures or inadequate design of ground contact sensors. Many lift damage failures resulted from jacking of t he bus. o Microswitches used in lifts v1ere too sensitive for the environ ment, resulting in a continual need for replacement or adjustment. o Po or sealing of the lift in the stowed po sit ion contributed to microswi tch problems and had an advance impact on the internal environment in the bus. o Bus doors v1ere not fully open and interfered vii th 1 i ft deployment. o The cost of some repl acST1ent components were very expensive, therefore these few items would often control overall parts cost . Ot her more 1 ocal i zed probl ens were ident ified: o Corrosion problems induced by salt and snow in front door lifts. Most lift install at ions preclude t he use of existing stepwell heating sys terns. o Corrosion problens or increased maintenance requirements in rear door installations due to use of rear stepwells as a latrine in metropolitan areas. 1-2 A number of operational need and problens were ident ified. o A need for maximum simplicity of li ft operating controls because many drivers lose famil iarity with the lift due to lov, ridership. Daily cycling by the driver is not believed to be practical at many larger properties. o Lack of refresher training to enhance driver familiar ity. o A need to minimize routine maintenance requi renents and realistically tail or them to practices within the industry

Load more