DOCSLIB.ORG

Evacuation and Rescue of Elderly and Disabled Passengers from Paratransit Vans and Buses DOT-VNTSC-UMTA-84-25 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evacuation and Rescue of Elderly and Disabled Passengers from Paratransit Vans and Buses DOT-VNTSC-UMTA-84-25 6 UMTA-MA-06-0152-84-3 DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-25 Evacuation and Rescue of Elderly and Disabled U. S. Department Passengers from Paratransit of Transportation Vans and Buses Federal Transit Administration Ketron, Inc. October 1984 58 Charles St. Final Report Cambridge, MA 02141 Reprint August1995 I FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION - . ... NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704-0188 Public c reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and compleetint g and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other t of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters ces. Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Arlington. VA -4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington. PC 26503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE Reprint 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED October 1984 August 1995 Final Report January 1983 • December 1983 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Evacuation and Rescue of Elderly and Disabled Passengers from Paratransit Vans and Buses DOT-VNTSC-UMTA-84-25 6. AUTHOR(S) John N. Balgo, H. Norman Ketola, Frank A. Varker, T. Thomas Mclnerney, Robert E. Scott 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION KETRON, INC.* KETRON, INC.* REPORT NUMBER Hickory Hill Plaza One Broadway DTRS-57-81-C-00144 151 S. Warner Road Cambridge, MA02142 Wayne, PA 19087 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Transit Administration URT-6 Office of Technical Assistance Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES U.S. Department of Transportation •under contract to: Research and Special Programs Administration Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The provision of efficient and safe methods for the effective evacuation and rescue of elderly and disabled passengers from such vehicles as standard and modified vans, body-on-chassis-small buses, and heavy-duty transit buses is necessary to ensure their safety during system use. Standard methods are not always useful for these patrons as a result of their physical and mental condition and their insufficient ability to manage self-evacuation. Effective methods and equipment are identified and developed as a function of transit use by the elderly and disabled, accident incidence rates for the various vehicles, a study of actual transit vehicle characteristics and their crashworthiness, and an analysis of emergency preparedness forces. Needed equipment is identified along with suggestions for familiarity and simulation training, the development of standard operating procedures, the debriefing of actual accident experiences and the sharing of this technology. An industry-wide Project Review Comnittee was established and utilized for the purpose of comment and input regarding the development of evacuation and rescue scenarios and alternative methods. Transit operators, state DOTs and transit equipment manufacturers were contacted and interviewed. A bibliography of 190 items is included. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES evacuation, rescue, elderly, handicapped, bus, van transit, paratransit, disabled, 190 collision, safety, accident, fire, extrication, emergency causing incident, crashworthiness, emergency preparedness, rollover 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Standard Fo rm Z98 (Rev. 2-89) NSN 7540-01-280-5500 bed by ANSI Std. 239-18 METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) - 0.04 inch (in) 1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0. 4 inch (in) 1 yard (yd) = 0. 9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) =3.3 feet (ft) 1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) =1.1 yards (yd) 1 kilometer (k) = 0.6 mile (mi) AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 2 2 1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm ) 1 square centimeter (cm ) - 0.16 square inch (sq in, in ) 2 1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd ) 2 2 1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) 0. 8 square meter (m ) 1 square kilometer (km 2) = 0. 4 square mile (sq mi, mi ) 1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (he) = 2.5 acres 2 1 acre s 0. 4 hectare (he) 4, 000 square meters (m ) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz) 1 pound (Ib) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (Ib) 1 short ton = 2,000 pounds (Ib) = 0. 9 tonne (t)____ 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) =1.1 short tons VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 1 teaspoon (tsp) 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0. 03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 1 tablespoon (tbsp) 1 5 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 2.1 pints (pt) 1 fluid ounce (fl oz) 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (I) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 1 cup (c) 0.24 liter (I) 1 liter (I) = 0. 26 gallon (gal) 1 pint (pt) 0. 47 liter (I) 1 quart (qt) 0.96 liter (I) 1 gallon (gal) 3.8 liters (I) 3 3 1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) 0.03 cubic meter (m ) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft ) 3 3 1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) 0. 76 cubic meter (m ) 1 cubic meter (m3) =1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd ) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) [(x-32)(S/9)] °F = y "C______ [(9/5) y * 32] 'C = x °F_____ For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NBS Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2. 50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Revused 1/23/95 PREFACE This report was sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's Office of Technical Assistance, Safety and Security Staff. Lloyd G. Murphy, Director of the Safety and Security Staff was instrumental in the initiation and overall guidance of this effort. The contractual effort which resulted in this report also included consideration of evacuation and rescue of elderly and disabled passengers from vehicles and structures of underground portions of urban rail transit systems. The results of that work are not reported here but have been incorporated into the "Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for Rail Transit Systems" which are currently under review pending dissemination by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's Office of Technical Assistance, Safety and Security Staff. Special methods of evacuation and rescue are required to ensure the safety of elderly and disabled passengers on standard and modified vans, body-on-chassis small buses, and heavy-duty transit buses. The standard methods are often ineffective with elderly and disabled passengers because their physical and mental problems hinder them from cooperating with rescue forces or extricating themselves. This study determines the most effective methods of evacuation and rescue as a function of transit use by the elderly and disabled, accident incidence rates for various types of transit vehicles, transit vehicle characteristics and crashworthiness, and the state of emergency preparedness forces. Equipment needs are ascertained, and suggestions are made for providing familiarity and simulation training, for developing standard operating procedures, for debriefing actual accident victims, and for disseminating this newly developed technology. An industry-wide Project Review Committee has been formed and consulted to gather comments concerning the development of evacuation and rescue scenarios and alternative iii methods. Transit operators, state DOTS and transit equipment manufacturers have been contacted and interviewed. A bibliography of 190 items is included. At the beginning of the project, important direction was provided by Roy Field, Arthur L. Flores, William T. Hathaway, Irving Litant, Stuart N. Palonen, Robert J. Pawlak, Donald E. Sussman, and Stephanie H. Markos from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Stuart Palonen served capably as the Project Monitor until leaving the Center. Richard J. Porcaro took over as Interim Project Monitor and provided significant direction. Robert Pawlak subsequently brought this project to its successful completion. Important contributions were made during the course of this project by our subcontractor, the University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. A special expression of gratitude is conveyed to George L. Cancro, Robert S. Carpenter, Richard Fasy, Farnham Folsom, Terrence J. Moakley, Thomas O'Brien,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INTERNATIONAL TRUCK & ENGINE COW, Ooiootoaoa
    Page: 6 Friday August 22, 2003 Docket: 01-022Nll-B Comment Date Date of Number Received SubmitterlFinnlSubject Document ___-__________ 09003 0312612003 1 01123l2001 DANIEL'S CERTIFIED WAHLING INC. 09004 03/26/2003 2 01/24/2001 LIPPERT COMPONENT MFG. INC. 09005 0312612003 1 0411 012001 DAN GURNEY ALLIGATOR MOTORCYCLES INC. 09006 0312612003 1 0211 612000 CYCLE CONCEPTS OF NEW YORK INC. 09007 0312612003 2 04103l2002 IRISBUS 09008 0312612003 STEPHAN J. SPETH 10 04/26/2002 DAIMLER CYRYSLER 09009 0312612003 9 04/26/2002 INTERNATIONAL TRUCK & ENGINE CON. 090 10 0312612003 ARTHUR DELAROSA 2 0510612002 VOLVO 0901 1 0312612003 SUZANNE K. PETERSON 3 0411 112002 VICTORY MOTORCYCLES USA 090 12 0312612003 42 0511712002 GENERAL MOTORS (GM) USG 3680 090 13 0312612003 LOUIS J. CARLIN 43 0511712002 GENERAL MOTORS (GM) USG 3682 090 14 03l2612003 PETER M. YI 5 05102l2002 DREAM TOUR 090 15 0312612003 2 05/02/2002 ADVANCED TRANSP. TECH. R & D 09016 03/26/2003 3 0410412002 B AND M TRAILER SALES 090 17 03l2612003 KEVIN E. KIRSCHKE 20 0513 112002 FORD MOTOR CO. 09018 03l2612003 2 ooiootoaoa PATRIOT MOTORCYCLES 09019 0312612003 RICHARD KEMPF 9 0lI2812002 INTERNATIONAL TRUCK & ENGINE COW, GENERAL MOTORS NORTH AMERICA Safety Center May 17, 2002 01- USG 3682 Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Attention: Mr. George Entwistle, VIN Coordinator Subject: Update of General Motors Vehicle Identification Number decoding for 2003 Model Year Dear Mr. Entwistle: The latest revision of the General Motors Vehicle Identification Numbering (VIN) Standard for 2003 model year dated May, 2002 is submitted per the VIN reporting requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.7.
    [Show full text]
  • RR-564 Part 2
    -------~---- -----~ __ _...: ___ ~--".~· ·~· ~~· ~··_ _:__~·~·~----~. 94" I _::\ 'r-'( 1~\ 107'' D 0 0 "" 0 0 00 O_Q JJJJ lUl t«--------125"------»t 1---------2105''----------""'1 Figure 28. TYPICAL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS FOR A 12 PASSENGER SMALL BUS. / / 7 Wheel -------- f--1 36" Chair r -~ L ( ) .--- f_j 1\. \. '- 485'' '-- '-- 1~" 86" 129" I/ / 3b" --------- Lift \.. \.. r '/'/ I / / I I Wheel Lr- -------- Chair 1---' r -~ 45" L ,--- ,---- \.. (~ '-- '-- Wheel I/ / Chair ---· 30"-- Lift \.'\. \.. t Figure 29. TYPICALINTERIORDIMENSIONSANDSEATING ARRANGEMENTS FOR A 12 PASSENGER SMALL BUS. 52 90"==:1 £ _"'\ JUOI JQUl BBBB 64" 79" 0 D 0 (QQ] "'"\ 107" IOOI 50"-~---+ 1+24"~ \ ,__, ~ . ~ lJ1 I~ lr'l ~ 1 w ,.. ... - 76" -: 163" ' 262" Figure 30. TYPICAL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS FOR A 20 PASSENGER SMALL BUS. c::::J =aCJ ··I- ······· 36" 86" 186" 14" ... I- . ..... 36" I,P" II = c::§bo Wheel Wheel ·- " ...... Chair Chair oo Jl Jl :·- '' ..... ·-· : Lift ?"'" Figure 31. TYPICAL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS AND SEATING ARRANGEMENTS FOR A 20 PASSENGER SMALL BUS. 54 TABLE 17 DIMENSIONS FOR VANS, MODIFIED VANS AND SMALL BUSES (1980 VEHICLES) Overall Vans Modified vans Small Buses Length (ins) 178 - 227 220 - 227 233 - 280 Width (ins) 80 80 - 94.5 80 96 Height (ins) 80 - 84 101 - ll5* 93.5 - ll7 Interior Length (ins)** 91 - 137 131 - 137 130 - 220 Width (ins) 69 - 71 69 - 82 79 90 Headroom (ins) 52 - 54 64 - 74 63 78 GVW (lbs) 6,050 - 8,550 9,000 10,250 - 18,000 Wheelbase (ins) llO - 138 127 - 138 125 - 167 Seating Capacity 5 - 15 9 - 16 12 22 *Higher value generally indicates the addition of air conditioning mounted on the roof.
    [Show full text]
  • DAIMLER AG, : : Defendant
    Case 1:10-cr-00063-RJL Document 3 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff : : v. : : CRIMINAL NO.: 1:10-CR-063 DAIMLER AG, : : Defendant. : __________________________________________: NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT The United States of America, by and through its counsel, the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Department”), hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached deferred prosecution agreement between the Department and Daimler AG in the above-styled matter. Respectfully submitted, DENIS J. MCINERNEY Chief, Fraud Section /s/ John S. Darden Assistant Chief, Fraud Section United States Department of Justice Criminal Division 1400 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-7023 Case 1:10-cr-00063-RJL Document 3 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 24, 2010, the undersigned electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. /s/ John S. Darden 2 Case 1:10-cr-00063-RJL Document 3-1 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICTDISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA '2 JJ,S, ijiSTRH::'T COtJHT UNITED STATES OFOF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NO. _______ DAIMLERAG, DEFERREDDEFERRD PROSECUTION PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Defendant. Defendant Daimler AGAG ("Daimler"), a public corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany,Gennany, by its undersignedundersigned attorneys,attorneys, pursuant to authorityauthority granted by Daimler'sDaiinler's Board Boardof of Management, and the UnitedUnited StatesStates Department Deparment ofJustice, CriminalCriminal Divisiun, Fraud Section (the(the "Department"Department ofJustice"ofJustice" or the "Department")"Department") enter intointo thisthis DeferredProsecution DeferredProsecution Agreement (the "Agreement").
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Million U.S. Cars Built Overtime Janesville, Wis
    production Arlington, Texas truck x x Scheduled plant Doraville, Ga. truck x - Fort Wayne, Ind. truck x - 1 million U.S. cars built overtime Janesville, Wis. Plant (Line 1) truck - x DaimlerChrysler Linden, N.J. truck - x ■ 3/24-3/28 3/29 Moraine, Ohio truck - x Year-to-date U.S. car production lerChrysler, 15.3 percent; Honda of Saltillo, Mexico truck x - Oklahoma City truck x x reached 1 million on Monday, America Manufacturing Inc., 8.1 St. Louis (North) truck x x Oshawa, Ontario truck x x St. Louis (South) truck - x March 17, six days later than in percent; Toyota Motor Manufactur- Toledo, Ohio (North) truck x - 2002. U.S. car production is down ing North America Inc., 4.9 percent; Toledo, Ohio (South) truck x x Plant closings 128,740 units. Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corp. Ford ■ 3/17-3/21 3/22 Plant Week(s) Units lost Ford Motor Co. will halt produc- U.S.A., 4.0 percent; New United Mo- down per week Edison, N.J. truck x - tion this week at its Hermosillo, tor Manufacturing Inc., 2.4 percent; Kansas City, Mo. truck x - Ford Lorain, Ohio truck x - Avon Lake, Ohio Mexico, plant because of slow sales. Volkswagen of America, 1.9 percent; Ford Escape1 Louisville, Ky. truck x - The plant, which produces the Ford Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of Michigan Truck Hermosillo, Mexico 3/17 2,400 (Wayne, Mich.) truck x - GM Escort ZX2 and Focus, has been America Inc., 1.2 percent; BMW Norfolk, Va. truck x - Fairfax (Kansas City, Kan.)2 down two other times this year be- Manufacturing Corp., 1.0 percent; Ontario Truck Lansing Craft Centre (Oakville, Ontario) truck x - (Lansing, Mich.)3 cause of slow sales.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan State Police Tests 2003 Patrol Vehicles
    National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center BULLETIN A Program of the National Institute of Justice December 2002 Michigan State Police Tests 2003 Patrol Vehicles atrol vehicles are among the most results to State and local law enforcement critical purchases that a law enforce- agencies, NIJ helps these agencies select vehi- P ment agency makes. For both large cles that maximize their budgets and ensures and small agencies, patrol vehicle purchases that evaluated vehicles provide reliable and frequently represent the second largest ex- safe performance under the increased penditure, after personnel, in their annual demands of police service. operating budgets. Selecting a vehicle that The 2003 model year patrol vehicles were balances both budgetary and performance evaluated from September 21 through 23, requirements has become an increasingly 2002. For the purposes of the MSP evalua- challenging task for police fleet administra- tion, police-package vehicles are those that tors. Many agencies are painfully aware of are designed and manufactured for use in the consequences that result from being the full spectrum of law enforcement patrol “penny wise and pound foolish,” where service, including pursuits. A special-service vehicles with inadequate performance, such vehicle is a vehicle that may be used by law as regular production passenger vehicles not enforcement agencies for specialized use specifically designed for police service, are (e.g., off-road, inclement weather, K–9, or selected because they cost less than police- commercial vehicle enforcement), but is not package vehicles. Although some agencies designed or manufactured to be used in high have had limited success with nontraditional speed or pursuit situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Make Abbreviation List Updated As of June 21, 2012 MAKE Manufacturer AC a C AMF a M F ABAR Abarth COBR AC Cobra SKMD Academy Mobile Homes (Mfd
    Motor Vehicle Make Abbreviation List Updated as of June 21, 2012 MAKE Manufacturer AC A C AMF A M F ABAR Abarth COBR AC Cobra SKMD Academy Mobile Homes (Mfd. by Skyline Motorized Div.) ACAD Acadian ACUR Acura ADET Adette AMIN ADVANCE MIXER ADVS ADVANCED VEHICLE SYSTEMS ADVE ADVENTURE WHEELS MOTOR HOME AERA Aerocar AETA Aeta DAFD AF ARIE Airel AIRO AIR-O MOTOR HOME AIRS AIRSTREAM, INC AJS AJS AJW AJW ALAS ALASKAN CAMPER ALEX Alexander-Reynolds Corp. ALFL ALFA LEISURE, INC ALFA Alfa Romero ALSE ALL SEASONS MOTOR HOME ALLS All State ALLA Allard ALLE ALLEGRO MOTOR HOME ALCI Allen Coachworks, Inc. ALNZ ALLIANZ SWEEPERS ALED Allied ALLL Allied Leisure, Inc. ALTK ALLIED TANK ALLF Allison's Fiberglass mfg., Inc. ALMA Alma ALOH ALOHA-TRAILER CO ALOU Alouette ALPH Alpha ALPI Alpine ALSP Alsport/ Steen ALTA Alta ALVI Alvis AMGN AM GENERAL CORP AMGN AM General Corp. AMBA Ambassador AMEN Amen AMCC AMERICAN CLIPPER CORP AMCR AMERICAN CRUISER MOTOR HOME Motor Vehicle Make Abbreviation List Updated as of June 21, 2012 AEAG American Eagle AMEL AMERICAN ECONOMOBILE HILIF AMEV AMERICAN ELECTRIC VEHICLE LAFR AMERICAN LA FRANCE AMI American Microcar, Inc. AMER American Motors AMER AMERICAN MOTORS GENERAL BUS AMER AMERICAN MOTORS JEEP AMPT AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION AMRR AMERITRANS BY TMC GROUP, INC AMME Ammex AMPH Amphicar AMPT Amphicat AMTC AMTRAN CORP FANF ANC MOTOR HOME TRUCK ANGL Angel API API APOL APOLLO HOMES APRI APRILIA NEWM AR CORP. ARCA Arctic Cat ARGO Argonaut State Limousine ARGS ARGOSY TRAVEL TRAILER AGYL Argyle ARIT Arista ARIS ARISTOCRAT MOTOR HOME ARMR ARMOR MOBILE SYSTEMS, INC ARMS Armstrong Siddeley ARNO Arnolt-Bristol ARRO ARROW ARTI Artie ASA ASA ARSC Ascort ASHL Ashley ASPS Aspes ASVE Assembled Vehicle ASTO Aston Martin ASUN Asuna CAT CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO ATK ATK America, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Evaluation for Nine Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
    TL DOT HS- 805 320 242 . H3 82 COST EVALUATION FOR NINE FEDERAL v . 6 MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS VOLUME VI FMVSS 220, 221, & 222 M. R. Harvey DEPARTMENT of J. A. Lesczhik transportation R. F. McLean 1 4 1980 De Lorean Motor Company JUL 2401 Elliott Street library Troy, Michigan 48084 J Contract No. D0T-HS-8-02015 Contract Amt. $332,007 NOVEMBER 1979 FINAL REPORT This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 5 O.’P- T*cImmc«I K fr> P»c——tt«— P /• *' 2. C t»tiw Ac<*l»i*a Mo. 1. i Ho. s.L J)OT-HS-805 320 4pr.»W rnU J. !•>••• £>•*• COST EVALUATION FOR NINE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE NOVEMBER 1979 SAFETY STANDARDS Vol. VI 4. 7«Imm| CWp.. miM Cat* $. —if Of|«w itiiMi B >»•»! Mo. 7 . AvAa/a M.R. GARVEY, J. A. LESCZHIK, R.F. McLEAN *. PwMkt Ot,s>i ukM K«m m* «<»IH 10. U«.l N. (THAIS) DE L0REAN MOTOR COMPANY RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 I Conflict 04 G'tni N • 2401 ELLIOTT STREET D0T-HS- 8-0201 TROY. MICHIGAN 48084 13. Tjth ol R sport ond P *r«od Cov«r*^ FINAL REPORT DEMT^rOF^^RWlON 10/78 - 11/79 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 SEVENTH STREET S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank You! a T T a C H M E N T
    AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION Bus & Paratransit Conference Planning Subcommittee Hilton Americas-Houston ● Room 340 Saturday, October 11, 2014 ● 1-3 p.m. MEETING AGENDA PLAN BUS & PARATRANSIT CONFERENCE MAY 3-6, 2015 Omni Fort Worth Hotel, 1300 Houston St., & Fort Worth Convention Center, 1201 Houston St., Fort Worth, TX 1. Welcome and host information – Paul Ballard and Nancy Amos (1 p.m.) 2. Review conference schedule overview and subcommittee’s work plan, decide on NTI courses – Lynne Morsen and Paul Larrousse (1:10) 3. Select abstracts ― breakout discussion groups organized by topics or “routes of study” to form sessions with abstracts – All (1:20 p.m.) 4. Identify invitational sessions (not having to do with abstracts) and suggest speakers for invitational / concurrent sessions and large, general sessions – All (2:30 p.m.) 5. 2016 conference in Charlotte, NC – Larry Kopf (2:45 p.m.) 6. Other business (2:50 p.m.) Attachments: 1. 2015 Bus & Paratransit Conference overview 2. Subcommittee work plan 3. Notes from May 2014 debrief meeting in Kansas City, MO 4. Subcommittee charter 5. Topics for call for papers & presentations 6. List of who receives the e-blast call for papers & presentations 7. Ideas for National Transit Institute courses to offer at the conference 8. 2014 Bus & Paratransit Conference session attendance 9. 2014 conference evaluation survey summary 10. All abstracts organized by route of study Thank you! A T T A C H M E N T 1 AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION MAY 3-6, 2015 BUS & PARATRANSIT CONFERENCE OVERVIEW OMNI FORT WORTH HOTEL, 1300 HOUSTON ST., FORT WORTH, TX 76102 (817) 535-6664 & FORT WORTH CONVENTION CENTER, HOUSTON ST., FORT WORTH, TX 76102 As of August 21, 2014 SAT.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio Motor Vehicle Industry
    Research Office A State Affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau The Ohio Motor Vehicle Report February 2019 Intentionally blank THE OHIO MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY FEBRUARY 2019 B1002: Don Larrick, Principal Analyst Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency PO Box 1001, Columbus, Oh. 43216-1001 Production Support: Steven Kelley, Editor; Jim Kell, Contributor Robert Schmidley, GIS Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 Description of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 4 The Motor Vehicle Industry’s Impact on Ohio’s Economy 5 Ohio’s Strategic Position in Motor Vehicle Assembly 7 Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio 10 Recent Expansion and Attraction Announcements 16 The Concentration of the Industry in Ohio: Gross Domestic Product and Value-Added 18 Company Summaries of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio 20 Parts Suppliers 24 The Composition of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry – Employment at the Plants 28 Industry Wages 30 The Distribution of Industry Establishments Across Ohio 32 The Distribution of Industry Employment Across Ohio 34 Foreign Investment in Ohio 35 Trends 40 Employment 42 i Gross Domestic Product 44 Value-Added by Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 46 Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S. 48 Capital Expenditures for Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 50 Establishments 52 Output, Employment and Productivity 54 U.S. Industry Analysis and Outlook 56 Market Share Trends 58 Trade Balances 62 Industry Operations and Recent Trends 65 Technologies for Production Processes and Vehicles 69 The Transportation Research Center 75 The Near- and Longer-Term Outlooks 78 About the Bodies-and-Trailers Group 82 Assembler Profiles 84 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV 86 Ford Motor Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 School Bus Companies Blog
    TOP 10 SCHOOL BUS COMPANIES Throughout the years, the task of making the best buses for school transportation has been handled by various companies. This article features 10 school bus companies which made a name for themselves, when it came to redefining the way we look at a school bus. #1 WAYNE CORPORATION Topping our list of companies is Wayne Corporation. Though the company declared itself bankrupt and discontinued operation in 1992, the Wayne Corporation had played a vital role in the development of safe buses for school children. They were the first and foremost to introduce the concept of school buses for schools. Their innovation predates the famous yellow coloured buses which are widely used these days. www.trackschoolbus.com They introduced the horse drawn carts, including kid hacks, which later evolved into automobiles which used full metal body chassis. Wayne Corporation introduced guard rails on the sides of all school buses, inboard wheelchair lifts, and even high-headroom doors. They were the first with a school bus based upon a cutaway van chassis, the Wayne Busette. This chassis design is still one of the most popular in North American markets even after more than 35 years. #2 BLUE BIRD An all time giant, the Blue Bird Corporation (formerly called Blue Bird Body Company) is clearly one of the top school bus manufacturing companies even today. Blue Bird's corporate headquarters and main manufacturing facilities are in Georgia. www.trackschoolbus.com It was in 1937 that the company began production of full-steel bus bodies. This innovation would soon replace the wooden bodies which were commonly used in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle Make, Vehicle Model
    V8, V9 VEHICLE MAKE, VEHICLE MODEL Format: VEHICLE MAKE – 2 numeric VEHICLE MODEL – 3 numeric Element Values: MAKE: Blanks 01-03, 06-10, 12-14, 18-25, 29-65, 69-77, 80-89, 90-94, 98-99 MODEL: Blanks 001-999 Remarks: SEE REMARKS UNDER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER – V12 2009 181 ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF MAKES FARS MAKE MAKE/ NCIC FARS MAKE MAKE/ NCIC MAKE MODEL CODE* MAKE MODEL CODE* CODE TABLE CODE TABLE PAGE # PAGE # 54 Acura 187 (ACUR) 71 Ducati 253 (DUCA) 31 Alfa Romeo 187 (ALFA) 10 Eagle 205 (EGIL) 03 AM General 188 (AMGN) 91 Eagle Coach 267 01 American Motors 189 (AMER) 29-398 Excaliber 250 (EXCL) 69-031 Aston Martin 250 (ASTO) 69-035 Ferrari 251 (FERR) 32 Audi 190 (AUDI) 36 Fiat 205 (FIAT) 33 Austin/Austin 191 (AUST) 12 Ford 206 (FORD) Healey 82 Freightliner 259 (FRHT) 29-001 Avanti 250 (AVTI) 83 FWD 260 (FWD) 98-802 Auto-Union-DKW 269 (AUTU) 69-398 Gazelle 252 (GZL) 69-042 Bentley 251 (BENT) 92 Gillig 268 69-052 Bertone 251 (BERO) 23 GMC 210 (GMC) 90 Bluebird 267 (BLUI) 25 Grumman 212 (GRUM) 34 BMW 191 (BMW) 72 Harley- 253 (HD) 69-032 Bricklin 250 (BRIC) Davidson 80 Brockway 257 (BROC) 69-036 Hillman 251 (HILL) 70 BSA 253 (BSA) 98-806 Hino 270 (HINO) 18 Buick 193 (BUIC) 37 Honda 213 (HOND) 19 Cadillac 194 (CADI) 29-398 Hudson 250 (HUDS) 98-903 Carpenter 270 55 Hyundai 215 (HYUN) 29-002 Checker 250 (CHEC) 08 Imperial 216 (CHRY) 20 Chevrolet 195 (CHEV) 58 Infiniti 216 (INFI) 06 Chrysler 199 (CHRY) 84 International 261 (INTL) 69-033 Citroen 250 (CITR) Harvester 98-904 Collins Bus 270 38 Isuzu 217 (ISU ) 64 Daewoo 201 (DAEW) 88 Iveco/Magirus
    [Show full text]
  • USPS Looks for the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle He Long Life Vehicle Could Finally Be Approaching the End of Its Life
    Carostal vehicles are partand of daily life for an vehiclesCarrier take on new meaning for the young and active letter carrier. A truck is just another the old, alike. tool, like a satchel or case, for doing our With the Postal Service looking to replace its ag- Pjobs. But postal vehicles are a familiar sym- ing fleet of vehicles, The Postal Record takes a look bol of the trust and reliability of the Postal Ser- forward at the design process for the postal vehicle vice—almost as recognizable as letter carriers. For of the future and a look back at postal vehicles that many, older postal vehicles are nostalgic remind- letter carriers used in the past, including some that ers of the old days. And as they evolve, postal have found new lives. Back in time with previous generations’ postal vehicles etter carriers have always enlisted some of the vehicles that city carriers wagons, which were used to transport the help of wheeled vehicles to bear have used throughout the history of mail between post offices and train Lthe load of mail and packages. The the U.S. Postal Service. stations in large cities from the 1870s vehicles they have used have changed When door-to-door mail delivery to the first decade of the 20th century. dramatically with carriers’ needs and became a popular service in the United The wagons were usually painted red, the technology available. From the States during the Civil War, postal white and blue with gold lettering. simple horse-drawn wagon of yester- employees used horse-drawn carts to By the late 1890s, regulation wagons year to today’s Long Life Vehicle (LLV) extend their range beyond the mail they began to be phased out in favor of to tomorrow’s Next Generation Postal could carry in a satchel or atop a horse.
    [Show full text]