DOCSLIB.ORG

Policy Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Policy Alternatives ___________________________________________________ Study & Report to Congress: Applicability of Maximum Axle Weight Limitations to Over-the- Road and Public Transit Buses Pursuant to Senate Report No. 107-38 December 2003 Acknowledgements This project benefited from the information, insights and comments provided by the following people at the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration: Marcel Belanger, Donald Durkee, Paul Marx, Jeffrey Mora, Michael O’Connor, Terry Rosapep, and James Saklas. Special thanks go to Quon Y. Kwan, FTA Project Manager. We also thank the following people for their insights: John Maddox and William Coryell of North American Bus Industries, Paul Murphy of Motor Coach Industries, Mark Braeger of Orion Bus, George Husman of the Southern Research Institute, Tony Mascarin of IBIS Associates, Steve Misencik of TPI Composites, and David Klinikowski and Mustafa El-Gindy of the Altoona Bus Research and Testing Center. Volpe Center authors of the report include Scott Smith (Project Manager), John Brewer and Douglass Lee. Other contributions were made by William Chernicoff, Scott Lian, Matthew Rabkin, and Edward Ramsdell. Although these people and others contributed to the results of this study, the authors are solely responsible for any errors and omissions contained in this report. i Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. ii Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv Figures............................................................................................................................... vi Acronyms......................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary.................................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter I: Background and Purpose...................................................................... I-1 Chapter II: Current Situation and Trends .............................................................II-1 II.1 Fleet Composition and Size ............................................................................ II-1 II.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled................................................................................... II-3 II.3 Weight Components and Trends..................................................................... II-6 Chapter III: Impacts of Overweight Buses......................................................... III-1 III.1 Pavement Damage ......................................................................................... III-1 III.2 Other Impacts............................................................................................... III-10 III.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................. III-12 Chapter IV: Lightweight Materials for Manufacturing Buses..........................IV-1 IV.1 Composite Materials ......................................................................................IV-1 IV.2 Issues with Composites..................................................................................IV-3 IV.3 Current and Potential Use of Composite Materials .......................................IV-5 IV.4 Conclusions....................................................................................................IV-6 Chapter V: Market Penetration of Lighter Weight Buses .................................... V-1 V.1 Life Cycle Costs.............................................................................................. V-2 V.2 Forces that Encourage Innovation .................................................................. V-5 V.3 Obstacles to Innovation................................................................................... V-5 V.4 Economic Viability of Lighter-weight Buses ................................................. V-6 V.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................... V-8 Chapter VI: Initial Review of Policy Alternatives..............................................VI-1 VI.1 Design of Policy Alternatives ........................................................................VI-1 VI.2 Estimating the Impacts of a Policy ................................................................VI-2 VI.3 Evaluation of Policy Alternatives ..................................................................VI-3 VI.4 Review of Proposed Policy Options ..............................................................VI-5 VI.5 Selection of Policy Options for Further Evaluation.....................................VI-16 Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Evaluation of Selected Policies ............................... VII-1 VII.1 Policies to be Evaluated ...............................................................................VII-1 VII.2 Re-impose Weight Limits on Transit Buses.................................................VII-3 VII.3 Re-impose Weight Limits on Over-the-Road Motorcoaches.....................VII-12 VII.4 Expand the Current Permissive Arrangement to Interstate Transit Buses .VII-17 VII.5 Financial Incentives to Use Lighter Weight Transit Buses........................VII-18 VII.6 Financial Incentives to Use Lighter Weight OTR Buses ...........................VII-20 VII.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................VII-21 Chapter VIII: Recommendations.................................................................... VIII-1 Appendix 1: ESAL Weighted Load Factors......................................................... A-1 ii Appendix 2: Pavement Damage Cost as a Function of Empty Weight.............. A-5 Appendix 3: OTR Bus Benefits Versus Pavement Damage................................ A-7 Appendix 4: Glossary ............................................................................................. A-9 Appendix 5: References........................................................................................ A-11 iii Tables Table II-1 VMT (millions) by Highway Class (5)......................................................... II-4 Table II-2 1994 Vehicle Miles (millions) by Market Segment...................................... II-4 Table II-3 Public Transit Vehicle Miles (millions) (6)................................................. II-4 Table II-4 Vehicle Miles (millions) by Market Segment............................................... II-5 Table II-5 Bus Annual VMT by Highway Class (5) ..................................................... II-5 Table II-6 Estimated annual VMT by Highway Class and Market Segment ................ II-6 Table II-7 VMT by Registered and Operating Weight.................................................. II-7 Table II-8 Loaded Axle Weights (lbs) for 40-foot Transit Buses.................................. II-8 Table II-9 Axle Weights used in Kulakowski (15)........................................................ II-8 Table II-10 Alternate Fuel Impacts............................................................................... II-13 Table II-11 Major Contributors to Increased Transit Bus Weight............................... II-13 Table II-12 Major Contributors to Increased OTR Bus Weight.................................. II-15 Table III-1 Average Structural Number (SN) by Pavement Type................................. III-4 Table III-2 HERS Default Values for SN and D ........................................................... III-4 Table III-3 Flexible Pavement Restoration Costs per ESAL......................................... III-6 Table III-4 ESALs for Transit Buses and Motorcoaches............................................... III-8 Table III-5 Estimated Pavement Damage Cost per Vehicle Mile.................................. III-8 Table III-6 Estimated Bus Total Pavement Damage Cost............................................. III-9 Table III-7 Congestion Costs....................................................................................... III-10 Table III-8 External Crash Costs ................................................................................. III-11 Table III-9 Air Pollution Costs .................................................................................... III-11 Table III-10 Noise Costs.............................................................................................. III-12 Table V-1 Life Cycle Cost of Buses............................................................................... V-3 Table V-2 Assumed Price Premiums for Lighter-Weight Buses................................... V-7 Table VII-1 Policies to be Evaluated ............................................................................VII-1 Table VII-2 Benefit Categories.....................................................................................VII-1 Table VII-3 Smaller Transit Bus..................................................................................VII-4 Table VII-4 Impact of Smaller Buses on Operating Cost............................................VII-5 Table VII-5 Tag Axle Impact on Operating Cost ........................................................VII-6 Table VII-6 Lighter-Weight Transit Bus Scenarios.....................................................VII-6 Table VII-7 Lighter-Weight Transit Bus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Buses – Global Market Trends
    2017 BUSES – GLOBAL MARKET TRENDS Markets – Competition – Companies – Key Figures Extract from the study BUSES – GLOBAL MARKET TRENDS Markets – Competition – Companies – Key figures In all regions across the globe, buses remain the most widespread public transport mode. Their demand goes hand in hand with several, mostly region-specific factors, including demographics, increasing mobility of people and environmental awareness, as well as public funding. Buses are comparatively to other transportation modes cheap and easy to use, since their use does not necessarily require the implementation of a specific infrastructure. This makes buses ideal vehicles for both short- and long-distance services. Based on the current developments, this Multi Client Study offers a comprehensive insight into the structure, volumes and development trends of the worldwide bus market. In concrete terms, the market study “BUSES – GLOBAL MARKET TRENDS” includes: A look at the worldwide market for buses differentiated by region An analysis of the relevant market data including present and future market volumes Information concerning the installed fleet and future procurement potential until 2022 An assessment of current developments and growth drivers of the worldwide bus markets in the individual regions An overview of bus manufacturers including an analysis of the market shares, financial backups as well as a brief description of the current product portfolio and strategy outlook A list of the major production facilities in each of the regions including product range as well as production capacities Presentation of the development stage of alternative propulsions, their manufacturers and their occurrence worldwide The study is available in English from the August 2017 at the price of EUR 3,400 plus VAT.
    [Show full text]
  • S92 Orient Point, Greenport to East Hampton Railroad Via Riverhead
    Suffolk County Transit Bus Information Suffolk County Transit Fares & Information Vaild March 22, 2021 - October 29, 2021 Questions, Suggestions, Complaints? Full fare $2.25 Call Suffolk County Transit Information Service Youth/Student fare $1.25 7 DAY SERVICE Youths 5 to 13 years old. 631.852.5200 Students 14 to 22 years old (High School/College ID required). Monday to Friday 8:00am to 4:30pm Children under 5 years old FREE SCHEDULE Limit 3 children accompanied by adult. Senior, Person with Disabilities, Medicare Care Holders SCAT Paratransit Service and Suffolk County Veterans 75 cents Personal Care Attendant FREE Paratransit Bus Service is available to ADA eligible When traveling to assist passenger with disabilities. S92 passengers. To register or for more information, call Transfer 25 cents Office for People with Disabilities at 631.853.8333. Available on request when paying fare. Good for two (2) connecting buses. Orient Point, Greenport Large Print/Spanish Bus Schedules Valid for two (2) hours from time received. Not valid for return trip. to East Hampton Railroad To obtain a large print copy of this or other Suffolk Special restrictions may apply (see transfer). County Transit bus schedules, call 631.852.5200 Passengers Please or visit www.sct-bus.org. via Riverhead •Have exact fare ready; Driver cannot handle money. Para obtener una copia en español de este u otros •Passengers must deposit their own fare. horarios de autobuses de Suffolk County Transit, •Arrive earlier than scheduled departure time. Serving llame al 631.852.5200 o visite www.sct-bus.org. •Tell driver your destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Bus Automation Risks, Barriers, & Mitigations
    Transit Bus Automation Risks, Barriers, & Mitigations Introduction In 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) studied risks and barriers to transit bus automation and developed mitigations as a part of the development of its Strategic Transit Automation Research (STAR) Plan. • Risks are the potential for automated technologies, once in place, to yield negative consequences or for anticipated benefits to go unrealized. • Barriers are obstacles that could prevent or significantly challenge implementation of an automation technology. Both are challenges to the potential implementation of transit bus automation that require the development of mitigation options or strategies to overcome barriers or reduce the likelihood of a risk. This factsheet summarizes the findings of this study. For more information, please see the full report, contained in the STAR Plan. Risks Four categories of risks related to transit automation were identified: Safety and Security: Automated transit buses are at risk of potential hardware and software failures or limitations, human factor errors related to over-reliance on automated assistance or decline in driver skill, and cyber-attacks, as well as potential impedance with emergency response and communications. Operations, Maintenance, & Cost Effectiveness: Transit agencies run the risk of accumulating unrealized costs from technology and transition expenditures, workforce retraining expenses, and increased labor costs due to the need for specialized skills, and technological obsolescence. Changes in service patterns or transit funding mechanisms could lead to additional costs. In addition, automated bus transit will compete against other modes that are moving toward automation. Passenger Experience: Automation could negatively affect passenger experience, or fail to deliver expected benefits. This could include degradation in service reliability, slower travel speeds, reduced access and convenience, inadequate customer service, and poor ride quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Transit Agencies COVID-19 Pandemic Response
    March 27, 2020 Guidance for Transit Agencies COVID-19 Pandemic Response Public transportation is an essential element of our critical infrastructure and necessary to support required trips to work and healthcare for those that must travel during this unprecedented time. Public transportation agencies around the Commonwealth have been working very diligently in order to maintain operations and ensure the health and safety of their customers and employees. Some examples of the types of actions that have already been taken include: Extensive cleaning of transit vehicles and facilities Elimination of fares to reduce high-touch areas and maintain more social distancing for transit vehicle operators Use of rear-door-only boarding and spreading out passengers on the bus to ensure spacing Adding additional vehicles to higher volume routes to ensure appropriate passenger loads Skipping stops if vehicles are already at a capacity that would ensure social distancing Recommended guidance: Continue to communicate to the public that they should not take transit if they are sick. Message: if you are showing symptoms, please use an alternate mode of transportation. Transit use should be limited to essential trips only – trips to work for essential workers and to meet essential personal needs (e.g., grocery store and medical trips, but not if you are sick). Transit agencies should closely monitor employee absenteeism and direct employees not to come to work if they are sick. Transit agencies should suspend fare collection for fixed-route services, where practical, to reduce the interaction with transit operators and to limit contact with high-touch surfaces. Use rear-door boarding, where possible, to increase separation on buses.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)
    7UDQVLW&DSDFLW\DQG4XDOLW\RI6HUYLFH0DQXDO PART 2 BUS TRANSIT CAPACITY CONTENTS 1. BUS CAPACITY BASICS ....................................................................................... 2-1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 2-1 Types of Bus Facilities and Service ............................................................................ 2-3 Factors Influencing Bus Capacity ............................................................................... 2-5 Vehicle Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-5 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-13 Fundamental Capacity Calculations .......................................................................... 2-15 Vehicle Capacity................................................................................................... 2-15 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-22 Planning Applications ............................................................................................... 2-23 2. OPERATING ISSUES............................................................................................ 2-25 Introduction..............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry
    Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry Michael Renner and Gary Gardner Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry Michael Renner and Gary Gardner September 2010 2 GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS IN THE RAIL AND TRANSIT INDUSTRY © 2010 Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. Printed on paper that is 50 percent recycled, 30 percent post-consumer waste, process chlorine free. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff; or of its funding organizations. Editor: Lisa Mastny Designer: Lyle Rosbotham Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents Summary . 7 U.S. Rail and Transit in Context . 9 The Global Rail Market . 11 Selected National Experiences: Europe and East Asia . 16 Implications for the United States . 27 Endnotes . 30 Figures and Tables Figure 1. National Investment in Rail Infrastructure, Selected Countries, 2008 . 11 Figure 2. Leading Global Rail Equipment Manufacturers, Share of World Market, 2001 . 15 Figure 3. Leading Global Rail Equipment Manufacturers, by Sales, 2009 . 15 Table 1. Global Passenger and Freight Rail Market, by Region and Major Industry Segment, 2005–2007 Average . 12 Table 2. Annual Rolling Stock Markets by Region, Current and Projections to 2016 . 13 Table 3. Profiles of Major Rail Vehicle Manufacturers . 14 Table 4. Employment at Leading Rail Vehicle Manufacturing Companies . 15 Table 5. Estimate of Needed European Urban Rail Investments over a 20-Year Period . 17 Table 6. German Rail Manufacturing Industry Sales, 2006–2009 . 18 Table 7. Germany’s Annual Investments in Urban Mass Transit, 2009 . 19 Table 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S
    Effects of Buy America on Transportation Infrastructure and U.S. Manufacturing Updated July 2, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44266 SUMMARY R44266 Effects of Buy America on July 2, 2019 Transportation Infrastructure and Michaela D. Platzer U.S. Manufacturing Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business In 1978, Congress began placing domestic content restrictions on federally funded transportation projects that are carried out by nonfederal government agencies such as state and local William J. Mallett governments. These restrictions, which have changed over the years, are commonly referred to as Specialist in the Buy America Act, or more simply, Buy America. Although there has been ongoing Transportation Policy congressional interest in domestic preference policy over the years, statements and actions by the Trump Administration about reinvigorating domestic manufacturing and investing in infrastructure have stimulated renewed interest in Buy America. Buy America refers to several similar statutes and regulations that apply when federal funds are used to support projects involving highways, public transportation, aviation, and intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak. Unless a nationwide or project-specific waiver is granted, Buy America requires the use of U.S.-made iron and steel and the domestic production and assembly of other manufactured goods, particularly the production of rolling stock (railcars and buses) used in federally funded public transportation and Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail service. A separate law requires that at least half the value of products imported by sea for federally supported transportation projects be transported in U.S.-flag ships. This report examines the effects of Buy America on iron and steel manufacturing, rolling stock manufacturing, and transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Transit Bus Axle Weight Issues
    AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT BUS AXLE WEIGHT ISSUES Prepared for: American Public Transportation Association Prepared by: MORR Transportation Consulting Ltd. 202-1465 Buffalo Place, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 1L8 November, 2014 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of TCRP Project J-11, Task 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. Acknowledgements This study was conducted for the American Public Transportation Association, with funding provided through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project J-11, Quick- Response Research on Long-Term Strategic Issues. The TCRP is sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration; directed by the Transit Development Corporation, the education and research arm of the American Public Transportation Association; and administered by The National Academies, through the Transportation Research Board. Project J-11 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee, the Federal Transit Administration, and the American Public Transportation Association and its committees. The report was prepared by MORR Transportation Consulting, Ltd. The work was guided by a technical working group, including: Rene Allen, Nova Bus; Joseph Gibson, North American Bus Industries; Jeffrey D. Gonneville, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority;
    [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]
  • Optimization Tool for Transit Bus Fleet Management
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2012 Optimization tool for transit bus fleet management Feng Zhen West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Zhen, Feng, "Optimization tool for transit bus fleet management" (2012). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 600. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/600 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPTIMIZATION TOOL FOR TRANSIT BUS FLEET MANAGEMENT by Feng Zhen Dissertation submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mechanical Engineering Approved by Nigel N. Clark, Ph.D., Committee Chairperson W. Scott Wayne, Ph.D. Hailin Li, Ph.D. Benjamin C. Shade, Ph.D. Roy S. Nutter, Jr., Ph.D. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Morgantown, West Virginia 2012 Keywords: Transit Bus Operation, Cost Evaluation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Operation Optimization, Genetic Algorithm Copyright 2012 Feng Zhen ABSTRACT OPTIMIZATION TOOL FOR TRANSIT BUS FLEET Management By Feng Zhen Transit agencies face the challenge of being environmentally-friendly, while maintaining cost-effective operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lightweighting of Double-Decker Buses’ Has Resulted in the Following Principal Innovations
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/133199 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications LIGHTWEIGHTING OF DOUBLE-DECKER BUSES by Christopher Micallef CEng ¦ MIMechE ¦ AFHEA ¦ MSc ¦ B.Eng (Hons) INNOVATION REPORT Submitted to the University of Warwick in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Engineering (International) September, 2018 This page is intentionally left blank ABSTRACT The bus industry is currently undergoing extensive transformation as cities around the world push for the rapid introduction of electric buses. Lightweighting of bus structures is identified by leading experts as one of the key technologies necessary to enable and assist this revolution in the industry. Alexander Dennis Ltd. (ADL) is the UK’s largest bus manufacturer and a worldwide leader in the construction of double-decker buses. ADL consider lightweighting to be one of the three main technological pillars of the company and have thus supported various ongoing research programmes with this EngD research programme funded in collaboration with WMG, University of Warwick. This thesis summarises the outcomes of the EngD programme, the primary objective revolving around the identification of innovative yet feasible lightweighting opportunities applicable to ADL double-decker buses.
    [Show full text]