DOCSLIB.ORG

Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Federal Transit Administration Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Report No. FTA VA-26-7229-07.1 Project VA-26-7229 April 2007 Federal Transit Administration Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public 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 completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES April 2007 COVERED Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans 6. AUTHOR(S) Richard Laver, Donald Schneck, Douglas Skorupski, Stephen Brady, Laura Cham Booz Allen Hamilton 8. PERFORMING 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) ORGANIZATION REPORT Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. NUMBER 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 FTA 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/ Federal Transit Administration MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Washington, DC 20590 FTA-VA-26-7229-07.1 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE Online at [http://www.fta.dot.gov] 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Available From: National Technical Information Service/NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Phone (703) 605-6000, Fax (703) 605-6900, Email [[email protected]] 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored this research to assess both the appropriateness of its existing minimum service-life policy for transit buses and vans, and the need to change that policy. The research evaluated the federal minimum service-life requirements based upon the actual experience of both transit operators and vehicle manufacturers. The analyses in this research provide the transit industry and the FTA with a better understanding of (1) the current useful life of transit buses and vans, (2) the appropriateness of FTA’s minimum service-life policy, and (3) the policy’s impact on transit vehicle life expectancies and vehicle retirement decisions at the agency level. Actual ages of buses retired from service generally exceed FTA minimums. Transit agencies interviewed cited availability of capital funds for bus replacement as the primary determinant of retirement age. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Transit, Bus, Van, Useful Life, Engineering Analysis, Economic Analysis, FTA Bus and Van 195 Minimum Service-Life Policy, Transit Fleet Retirement Age 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18298-102 Federal Transit Administration Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation 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 the objective of this report. Federal Transit Administration Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report FOREWORD The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored this research to assess both the appropriateness of its existing minimum service-life policy for transit buses and vans, and the need to change that policy. The research evaluated the federal minimum service-life requirements based upon the actual experience of both transit operators and vehicle manufacturers. The analyses in this research provide the transit industry and the FTA with a better understanding of (1) the current useful life of transit buses and vans, (2) the appropriateness of FTA’s minimum service-life policy, and (3) the policy’s impact on transit vehicle life expectancies and vehicle retirement decisions at the agency level. Actual ages of buses retired from service generally exceed FTA minimums. Transit agencies interviewed cited availability of capital funds for bus replacement as the primary determinant of retirement age. Author Acknowledgements This report was authored by Richard Laver, Donald Schneck, Douglas Skorupski, Stephen Brady, Laura Cham, and Jeff Rankin of Booz Allen Hamilton. Valuable insight and direction was provided by Henry Nejako, John Bell, and Nancy Ody of the FTA. In addition, the authors would like to thank the staff of those transit operators and vehicle manufacturers who graciously provided their time and input to this study and without whom the study would not have been possible. Federal Transit Administration Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report Table of Contents Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................IV Study Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................... iv Approach..................................................................................................................................... v Key Findings.............................................................................................................................. vi Recommendations....................................................................................................................xiii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Objectives......................................................................................................................... 2 Reasons for Reviewing the Service-Life Policy......................................................................... 3 What is Useful Life?................................................................................................................... 4 Project Approach ........................................................................................................................ 8 CHAPTER 2. FTA SERVICE-LIFE CATEGORIES............................................................. 10 Service-Life Category Descriptions.......................................................................................... 10 Implications for the Current Service-Life Categories............................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3. LEGISLATION AND PROCUREMENT........................................................ 23 FTA Service-Life Circulars and Regulations ........................................................................... 23 Procurement Methods and Guidelines...................................................................................... 25 Conclusions: Impact of Regulations and Procurement Practices ............................................. 26 CHAPTER 4. AVERAGE RETIREMENT AGES.................................................................. 27 Analysis of Actual Fleet Retirement Ages Using NTD Vehicle Data...................................... 27 Assessment of Existing Bus Type Categories Based on NTD Analysis .................................. 35 CHAPTER 5. INDUSTRY OUTREACH................................................................................. 37 Transit Agency Participants...................................................................................................... 37 Agency Interview Guide Responses......................................................................................... 38 Vehicle Manufacturer Response............................................................................................... 51 Private Operators Response...................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 6. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS............................................................................ 60 Transit Agency Participants – Follow-Up Interviews .............................................................. 60 Useful Life of Transit Vehicle Chassis and Components......................................................... 61 Vehicle Structure – A Second Look ......................................................................................... 70 Federal Transit Administration i Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans Final Report Table of Contents Bus Durability and New Technologies..................................................................................... 74 Life-Extending Practices..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan
    Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Energy Use Reduction, Capital Expenditure, Funding and Management/Training Plan December 2015 Prepared by ICF International 620 Folsom St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 415.677.7100 Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Energy Use Reduction Plan ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Facility ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Review of Existing Facility and Operations .................................................................................6 1.2.2 Facility, Operations and Maintenance Strategies .......................................................................7 1.3 Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels .......................................................................................... 16 1.3.1 Review of Fleet Operations ...................................................................................................... 16 1.3.2 Alternative Fuel Options .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 NFPA 1917 Standards
    Copyright 2018 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA®). Licensed, by agreement, for individual use and download on 12/12/2018 to Delaware Fire Prev Comm for designated user Sherry Lambertson. No other reproduction or transmission in any form permitted without written permission of NFPA®. For inquiries or to report unauthorized use, contact [email protected]. NFPA® 1917 Standard for Automotive Ambulances 2019{4474F64E-7E00-4BF2-BBD3-B3778A4FF0E1} Customer ID 1029731 Copyright 2018 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA®). Licensed, by agreement, for individual use and download on 12/12/2018 to Delaware Fire Prev Comm for designated user Sherry Lambertson. No other reproduction or transmission in any form permitted without written permission of NFPA®. For inquiries or to report unauthorized use, contact [email protected]. IMPORTANT NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS CONCERNING NFPA® STANDARDS NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY CONCERNING THE USE OF NFPA STANDARDS NFPA® codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides (“NFPA Standards”), of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in NFPA Standards. The NFPA disclaims liability for any personal injury, property, or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance on NFPA Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Buses: a Case Study of the Delaware Authority For
    LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE- FUEL BUSES: A CASE STUDY OF THE DELAWARE AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT (DART) by Amirhossein Shahpar A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Civil Engineering Summer 2010 Copyright 2010 Amirhossein Shahpar All Rights Reserved LIFE-CYCLE COST AND EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE- FUEL BUSES: A CASE STUDY OF THE DELAWARE AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT (DART) by Amirhossein Shahpar Approved: __________________________________________________________ Ardeshir Faghri, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Harry Shenton III, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Approved: __________________________________________________________ Michael Chajes, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Engineering Approved: __________________________________________________________ Debra Hess Norris, M.S. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Ardeshir Faghri for his encouragement, patience, and guidance throughout the course of my graduate study. His comments and advice not only helped me to stay on track but also assisted me to get the most out of my time at the University of Delaware. I would like to thank Mr. Mark Glaze, Delaware Department of Transportation’s project manager and Mr. Brett Taylor, Delaware Department of Transportation’s financial and legislative policy advisor, for their comments and suggestions on my research work. I am thankful for Mr. Stephen Kingsberry, Executive Director of DART, for his patience and providing the necessary information for this study. His advice also was invaluable and helped me to make right assumptions whenever needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS by MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008
    Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS BY MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008 MANUFACTURER RECALLS VEHICLES ACCUBUIL T, INC 1 8 AM GENERAL CORPORATION 1 980 AMERICAN EAGLE MOTORCYCLE CO 1 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO 8 212,212 AMERICAN SUNDIRO MOTORCYCLE 1 2,183 AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. 4 25,023 AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORP. 5 1,441 APRILIA USA INC. 2 409 ASTON MARTIN 2 666 ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 3 304 B. FOSTER & COMPANY, INC. 1 422 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE 11 28,738 BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY 12 62,692 BUELL MOTORCYCLE CO 4 12,230 CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC. 1 818 CARPENTER INDUSTRIES, INC. 2 6,838 CLASSIC LIMOUSINE 1 492 CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC. 1 8 COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC. 8 5,271 COACHMEN RV COMPANY 1 576 COLLINS BUS CORPORATION 1 286 COUNTRY COACH INC 6 519 CRANE CARRIER COMPANY 1 138 DABRYAN COACH BUILDERS 1 723 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION 30 6,700,752 DAMON CORPORATION 3 824 DAVINCI COACHWORKS, INC 1 144 D'ELEGANT CONVERSIONS, INC. 1 34 DORSEY TRAILERS, INC. 1 210 DUTCHMEN MANUFACTURING, INC 1 105 ELDORADO NATIONAL 1 173 ELECTRIC TRANSIT, INC. 1 54 ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY 1 40 E-ONE, INC. 1 3 EUROPA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2 242 EXECUTIVE COACH BUILDERS 1 702 FEATHERLITE LUXURY COACHES 1 83 FEATHERLITE, INC. 2 3,235 FEDERAL COACH, LLC 1 230 FERRARI NORTH AMERICA 8 1,601 FLEETWOOD ENT., INC. 5 12, 119 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 60 7,485,466 FOREST RIVER, INC. 1 115 FORETRAVEL, INC. 3 478 FOURWINNS 2 2,276 FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION 27 233,032 FREIGHTLINER LLC 1 803 GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Public School Children Move with Propane
    Success Story April 2004 Portland Public School Children Move with Propane Portland, located in northwest Oregon, is a city of to concerns about increasing fuel prices and increasing- over 500,000 people in a 130 square mile area. In ly stringent air quality regulations, the school district December of 2001, Money magazine rated Portland as turned to propane as a fuel source for its fleet of buses one of the best cities in America to live, due partly to and the fleet of contractor-owned buses that provided “avoiding urban sprawl and overcrowding,” and “plac- transportation services. ing a premium on green space, culture and an acces- sible city center.” Freightliner LLC, a maker of medium Portland Public Schools began converting its bus fleet and heavy trucks, has agreed with this assessment and to propane in 1983, and stipulated that its bus contrac- makes its corporate home here and has also located its tor was to do the same. Since that time, the propane styling and test centers in Portland. bus fleet has continued to grow. At present, the school district has a total of 325 buses (85 district-owned and 240 contractor-owned), all of which operate on pro- pane. The district-owned buses are smaller Type A school buses on cutaway van chassis. These vehicles are converted to run on propane, and the conver- sions are currently costing the school district $3,000 to $4,000 per bus. These propane buses travel 3.5 million miles per year and use 1.4 million gallons of fuel per year.
    [Show full text]
  • CPY Document
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 213.922.2000 Tel Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 metro. net 28 æ Metro OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 15, 2007 SUBJECT: NATURAL GAS FUELED HEAVY DUTY ENGINES ACTION: AWARD CONTRACT TO CUMMINS CAL PACIFIC RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Chief Executive Offcer to award a firm fixed price contract under bid number 07-0004 to Cummins Cal Pacific, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the procurement of 400 Cummins ISL G natural gas engines for an amount not to exceed $14,602,925 inclusive of sales tax. RATIONALE Metro Regional Rebuild Center (RRC) staffhas identified a requirement to purchase 400 natural gas fueled heavy-duty engines to replace currently installed Detroit Diesel Series 50 engines during fiscal year 2008. The Detroit Diesel Series 50 engines wil no longer available or supported by the manufacturer. These engines wil be installed in the following 40' coach tyes: Neoplan 6700 series, New Flyer High Floor 5000 series, and New Flyer Low Floor 5300 series. Of the 400 engines requested, 150 wi be utilized for the FY08 RRC Bus Engine Replacement Program and 250 wi be utilized for the FY08 Bus Midlife Program. The Cummins natural gas fueled heavy-duty engines are warranted to be free from defects in design and materials for two-years/unlimited mileage with ful parts and labor on all warrantable failures. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funding of $9,126,828 (inclusive of sales) tax for the procurement of 250 natural gas fueled heavy-duty engines wil be included in capital project FY08 Bus Midlife Rebuild Program (CP# 203005).
    [Show full text]
  • CNG As a Transit Bus Fuel
    TheThe TransitTransit BusBus NicheNiche MarketMarket ForFor AlternativeAlternative Fuels:Fuels: ModuleModule 3:3: OverviewOverview ofof CompressedCompressed NaturalNatural GasGas asas aa TransitTransit BusBus FuelFuel CleanClean CitiesCities CoordinatorCoordinator ToolkitToolkit PreparedPrepared byby TIAXTIAX LLC,LLC, IrvineIrvine OfficeOffice DecemberDecember 20032003 TIAX LLC One Park Plaza, 6th Floor Irvine, California 92614 949-833-7131 / [email protected] Options for Natural Gas Fueling in Transit • Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) – Pipeline natural gas: methane with other hydrocarbons – Pressurized to 3,600 psi – Fueling accomplished by pressure transfer to vehicle – About 12% of transit buses in the U.S. now use conventional CNG – Largest users include LACMTA, MARTA, NY DOT, Pierce Transit, Washington D.C. (WMATA), Cleveland, Sacramento • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – Nearly pure methane (~98%) liquefied at very low temperatures – Liquid transfer to vehicle – Largest users are Phoenix, Orange County (CA), Dallas, and Tempe – Newer users include Santa Monica, Long Beach • LNG to CNG (“LCNG”) – Vaporized LNG (also nearly pure methane) – Liquid to gas conversion, then pressure transfer to vehicle – Sun Metro, OmniTrans, others use this approach Document Code 1 Methane Content in Pipeline Natural Gas Varies Regionally Methane Molecule Typical Composition of Pipeline Natural Gas What are the Implications of the Resulting CNG Fuel Quality Variations? • CNG with lower methane content (higher levels of ethane, propane, or butane) has resulted in some adverse affects on heavy-duty NG engine performance (e.g., misfire, stumble and underrated operation, engine knock, overheating) • However, today’s lean-burn closed-loop NG engines for transit (e.g., C Gas Plus and DDC S50G) are better able to tolerate and compensate for variations • Compromises in emissions performance have been found to be modest Document Code 2 Numerous OEMs Offer Natural Gas Transit Buses and Paratransit Vehicles Natural Gas Bus Manufacturer Models Available Champion Bus, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Mykolo Romerio Universiteto Strateginio Valdymo Ir Politikos Fakulteto Aplinkos Politikos Ir Valdymo Katedra
    MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITETO STRATEGINIO VALDYMO IR POLITIKOS FAKULTETO APLINKOS POLITIKOS IR VALDYMO KATEDRA VITALIJUS ČEPULIONIS (DARNAUS VYSTYMOSI VADYBA IR ADMINISTRAVIMAS) TRANSPORTO SEKTORIUS DARNAUS VYSTYMOSI KONTEKSTE – EKOLOGIŠKŲ AUTOMOBILIŲ KONCEPCIJA IR JŲ PLĖTROS POLITIKA Magistro baigiamasis darbas Darbo vadovė – lekt. Giedrė Brazdauskaitė Konsultantas – doc. dr. Alfonsas Vaišnoras Vilnius, 2009 TURINYS ĮVADAS..........................................................................................................................................3 1. EKOLOGIŠKŲ AUTOMOBILIŲ KONCEPCIJA DARNAUS VYSTYMOSI KONTEKSTE.....................................................................................5 1.1. Literatūros apžvalga..............................................................................................................5 1.2. Transportas darnaus vystymosi aspektu...............................................................................6 1.2.1. Darnus vystymasis transporto sektoriuje......................................................................6 1.2.2. Transporto politika Europos Sąjungoje......................................................................12 1.2.2.1. Europos Sąjungos politikos analizė transporto sektoriuje..................................12 1.2.2.2. Europos Sąjungos šalių transporto politikos lyginamoji analizė........................16 1.2.2.3. Transporto sektorius Lietuvoje...........................................................................22 1. 3. Ekologiško automobilio koncepcija...................................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • AACA Clubs & Organizations (Automobile) Coachbuilders
    AACA Coachbuilders 1. AACA Events • Coachbuilders (history, general) 2. Events Elegance 1. Abbott, E.D. 3. History Committee 2. Accossatto 4. Library 3. Ackley, L.M. 5. Library Auction 4. ACG 6. Merchandise 5. Acme Wagon 7. Museum 6. Aerocell 8. National Awards Committee 7. A.H.A. 9. National Board 8. Alcoa Aluminum 10. Presidents 9. Allegheny Ludlum 11. Regions History 10. Alden, Fisk 12. Registration – Antique Auto 11. American Coach & Body 12. American Wagon Clubs & Organizations (Automobile) 13. America’s Body Co. 14. American Custom 1. AAA (American Automobile Assoc.) 15. Ames Body 2. Auburn Cord Duesenberg Club 16. Ansart & Teisseire 3. Automobile Club of America (ACA) 17. Armbruster Stageway 4. Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA) 18. ASC 5. Automobile Clubs – Australia 19. A.T. DeMarest 6. Bugatti Owner’s Club 20. Auburn 7. Classic Car Club of America (CCCA) 21. Audineau, Paul 8. CCCA Midwest 22. Automotive Body Company 9. Cross Country Motor Club 23. Avon Body Co. 10. FIVA (Federation Internationale des Vehicules Anciens) 24. Babcock, H.H. 25. Baker Raulang 11. Horseless Carriage Club of America (HCCA) 26. Balbo 12. Lincoln Continental Owner’s Club 27. Barclay 13. Mercedes-Benz Club of America 28. Barker 14. Automobile Club – Michigan 29. Bekvallete 15. Automobile Clubs – Misc. 30. Berkeley 16. Model T Ford Club International 31. Bernath 17. MVMA (Motor Vehicle Manuf. Assoc.) 32. Bertone 18. Automobile Clubs – New Zealand 33. Biddle & Smart 19. Automobile Clubs – Philadelphia 34. Bivouac 20. Royal Automobile Club – London 35. Bohman & Schwartz 21. SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) 36. Boneschi 22. SVVCCA (Susquehanna Valley Vintage Sports Car Club) 37.
    [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]
  • June 28, 2019 Gabriel Ride Control Is Pleased To
    June 28, 2019 Gabriel Ride Control is pleased to announce the following light vehicle New Product Introductions: FRONT REAR Make Model Year VIO Count Product Type Left Right Product Type Left Right Acura ZDX 2010 - 2013 5,282 Ultra Strut G52249 G52250 Ultra Shock G64080 Buick Encore 2019 9,677 Ultra Strut G52495 G52494 Ultra Shock G511030 Chevrolet City Express 2018 1,476 Ultra Strut G52591 G52592 Ultra Shock G64146 Chevrolet Suburban 2018 - 2019 66,811 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57023 Ultra Shock G64101 Chevrolet Suburban 3500HD 2016 261 Ultra Shock G64148 Ultra Shock G64149 Max Control Shock 779750 Chevrolet Tahoe 2019 18,081 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57023 Ultra Shock G64101 Guardian Shock 81947 Chevrolet Trax 2019 7,844 Ultra Strut G52495 G52494 Ultra Shock G511030 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57206 Dodge Grand Caravan 2019 37,329 Ultra Shock G64042 Ultra Strut G52131 Max Control Shock 77614 Max Control Shock 77623 Ultra Shock G63622 Ultra Shock G63623 Guardian Shock 81744 Guardian Shock 81828 Ford E-350 2015 - 2019 59,639 Front Load Carrier 34076 ProGuard Shock 61646 LTV 58622 LTV 58623 Hijacker 49178 Max Control Shock 77614 Max Control Shock 77623 Ultra Shock G63622 Ultra Shock G63623 Guardian Shock 81744 Guardian Shock 81828 Ford E-450 2015 - 2019 59,187 Front Load Carrier 34076 ProGuard Shock 61646 LTV 58622 LTV 58623 Hijacker 49178 Ford Escape 2017 - 2019 819,647 Ultra Shock G511001 Ford Explorer 2018 - 2019 215,852 Ultra Shock G51980 Ford Police Interceptor Utility 2013 - 2019 149,315 Ultra Shock G51980 - PAGE 1 OF 6- Visit our website at www.gabriel.com to view our Online Catalog for specific model information.
    [Show full text]
  • School Bus Classifications
    bus models School Bus Classifications A Type A school bus is a conversion bus A Type B school bus is constructed utiliz- trance door is behind the front wheels. constructed utilizing a cutaway front- ing a stripped chassis. The entrance door This type also includes the cutaway section vehicle with a left-side driver’s is behind the front wheels. This defini- truck chassis or truck chassis with cab door. This definition includes two clas- tion includes two classifications: Type with or without a left-side door and with sifications: Type A1, with a gross vehicle B1, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or a GVWR greater than 21,500 pounds. weight rating (GVWR) of 14,500 pounds less; and Type B2, with a GVWR greater or less, and Type A2, with a GVWR great- than 10,000 pounds. A Type D, or transit-style, school bus er than 14,500 pounds and less than or is constructed utilizing a stripped chas- equal to 21,500 pounds. A Type C, or conventional, school bus sis. The entrance door is ahead of the is constructed utilizing a chassis with a front wheels. hood and front-fender assembly. The en- Source: 2010 National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures. Model Classi- Capacity Available Fuel Engine Headroom fication Chassis Options Location Blue Bird Corp. For Micro Bird Type A, see Micro Bird Inc. specifications Blue Bird Vision C Up to 77 Blue Bird Diesel, Front 77 inches Blue Bird’s Vision propane All American FE D Up to 90 Blue Bird Diesel Front 77 inches All American RE D Up to 84 Blue Bird Diesel, CNG Rear 77 inches Micro Bird Inc.
    [Show full text]