Articulated Bus

Overview & Historical Background Articulated buses were developed in the 1920s. The first prototype was in service in 1960 in Budapest, Hungary. In the United States, AC transit in California started operating the experimental commuter coach named XMC 77 in the mid-1960s. During the early stages, articulated buses were eventually withdrawn from service due to the expensive maintenance. Nowadays, thanks to the high passenger capacity, articulated buses are use as part of BRT, including mechanical guidance. In addition to BRT, other applications include peak-only services on trunk routes, commuter express services to park-and-ride lots, trippers that experience overloads, replacement service for rail shutdowns, and high-demand special events. Technologies Typical articulated buses are approximately 59 feet in length, with a standard rigid-construction from 36 to 46 feet. Some variations include the bi-articulated bus and the double-decker articulated bus. The bus capacity is usually about 200 passengers. Articulated buses come in two configurationspusher or puller. In the pusher configuration, because rear-mounted engine powers the rear axle of the bus while the longitudinal stability is maintained by hydraulics, the buses can be built without steps. With this configuration, the pushers can be built with low floors and without steps, which enhance the accessibility of the passengers. The pullers, on the other hand, have the engines mounted in the front area, prohibiting lower floors and creating discomfort to the passengers because of the noise and the vibration. However, the pullers outperform the pushers in low temperature or freezing conditions. Diesel engines are common among articulated buses. Nevertheless, there are also diesel-electric hybrids and others that are propelled by compressed natural gas (CNG). Advantages, Disadvantages and Current Issues Articulated buses have a few attractive features. Aside from their high capacity, articulated buses enable more rapid, simultaneous boarding and disembarkation through more and larger doors. The bus dimension translates to a lower center of gravity (CG) and, therefore, more stability. The lower CG also allows the bus to turn at a smaller turning radius. Unlike the double-decker buses, the smaller frontal area of the articulated one results in less air resistance and, thus, higher maximum service speed. In addition, the low-floor articulated buses benefit passengers with limited accessibility. On the down side, however, the older-model articulated buses have inefficient and ineffective motive power (aka lower speed and acceleration in comparison to traditional 40-ft buses). Numerous stalling and on-board fires have been reported as a result of the overheating engines. When operating in highly populated areas, articulated buses are more likely to involve in road accidents. In a 2008 report by Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), TCRP discussed the experiences with higher capacity buses. The findings were based on the survey among transit agencies owing high capacity buses. There are two general findingsthe introduction of HC buses need not affect the ridership, and that the experience with HC buses is generally positive. For articulated buses, however, the feedbacks were mixed. While all the respondents agreed that the articulated bus was superior to standard bus in terms of the turning maneuverability, about half of them perceived the performance of articulated buses to be inferior in three areas: fuel economy, grade climbing and acceleration. On the other hand, the issue with acceleration is likely to be relieved thanks to the deployment of hybrid-articulated bus. Another consideration is the modification to be made to the existing infrastructure, should the articulated buses be deployed. For instance, the bus operator may need to make changes to the concrete pads at bus stops. Because of the lengths, articulated buses may require modifications to garage, parking spots, maintenance decks, etc. Articulated buses will also require a rescheduling due to the effects on the

dwell time and the running time. The use of articulated buses is expected to have a mixed effect on running time. First, there is a negative effect as a result of the decline in dwell times. Second, there is a positive effect due to the size of the bus and the time associated to acceleration, deceleration, and merger with regular traffic. In terms of the operation, special-trained drivers may be required, even though many parts of the US allow drivers with rigid bus license to operate the articulated buses. The potential trade-offs associated with utilizing the articulated buses are:
Pros 3 or 4 doors available for exiting. Also for boarding if pre-paid fare collection is used. Shorter dwell times. Turning radius comparable to 40-ft buses. Available in low-floor design, which facilitates boarding and exiting Wheelchair access and transport similar to 40-ft buses Cons Larger roadway footprint. Longer bus stop zones required. May have slower acceleration capacity. Low-floor results in higher passenger compartment road noise. Some passengers do not like the articulated joint to ride incannot see out and it moves. State regulations on length may be an impediment

Economic Aspects A number of transit agencies concern about the capital costs of articulated buses. The capital cost of an articulated bus varies according to the propulsion technology and the number of seats (which depends on the bus designstandard versus low-floor designs).
Bus Type Articulated Standard Articulated BTR Articulated, with special features Hybrid Articulated Propulsion Diesel Diesel CNG Diesel/Electric Cost Range $435,693 - $508,976 $476,411 - $498,000 $644,000 $650,000 Seats per Bus 43 - 61 63 - 68 57 57 Cost per Seat Range $7,142 - $ 10,995 $7,324 - $7,562 $11,298 $11,404

In addition to the capital costs, articulated buses also incur high maintenance costs. However, since 1) an articulated bus has more components to replace and maintain than a standard bus and 2) the models used by the agencies responding the survey are usually out-dated, their perception of maintenance costs may have been skewed. To assess the issue, TCPR examined the experience of King County Metro in Seattle Washington, as well as presented the findings by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). King County Metro Transit Operational Data for Articulated and 40-ft Bus Sub-fleets
Fleet ID 2600Articulated 2800Articulated 2300Articulated Weighted Average 360040-ft 900040-ft 320040-ft Weighted Average Propulsion Hybrid Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Seats 58 58 64 61.2 35 42 42 38.9 Maintenance Cost ($/vehicle-mile) 0.7103 0.7198 0.8352 0.7768 0.5846 0.3829 0.6000 0.5775 Miles Between Road Calls 5,628 4,424 4,123 4,763 5,069 9,552 6,494 7,539 Fuel Economy (mpg) 3.5 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 5.1 4.5 4.5

Operational Data compared on Seat-mile Basis for Metro Transit Sub-fleets

Fleet ID 2600Articulated 2800Articulated Propulsion Seats Maintenance Cost ($/vehicle-mile) 0.0122 0.0124 Seat-Miles Between Road Calls Fuel Economy (seat-miles/gal) 203 139

Hybrid Diesel

58 58

2300Articulated Weighted Average 360040-ft 900040-ft 320040-ft Weighted Average

Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel

64 61.2 35 42 42 38.9

0.0130 0.0126 0.0167 0.0143 0.6000 0.0142

7,478

7,539

218 207 143 214 189 182

Summary of Evaluation Results of Metro Transit Hybrid and Diesel Articulated Buses
Evaluation Item Diesel Ryerson Base 2,949 2.50 0.79 0.46 0.12 1.25 5,896 12,199 Hybrid Atlantic Base 3,096 3.17 0.62 0.44 0.13 1.06 4,954 10,616 Difference Hybrid vs. Diesel +5% +27% -22% -4% +8% -15% -16% -13%

Monthly Average Miles per Bus Fuel Economy (mpg) Fuel Cost per Mile ($): Diesel at $1.98/gal Total Maintenance Cost per Mile ($) PropulsionOnly Maintenance Cost per Mile ($) Total Operating Cost per Mile ($) Miles Between All Road Calls Miles Between Propulsion Road Calls

In sum, the examination of King County Metro Transit shows that the articulated buses demand less in both the maintenance costs and the fuel consumption, in comparison to the standard buses. The findings by NREL on the new low-floor articulated fleets, half of which are diesel-hybrid models, reveal a significant improvement in fuel cost with only a small increase in the maintenance cost for the hybrid propulsion system (citation). Thus, the hybrid articulated bus can be a promising solution to the issues of acceleration and fuel economy. Environmental Considerations The table below shows a study by NRELs ReFUEL laboratory during May-June 2005. The hybrid articulated buses from various fleets were evaluated against the conventional buses.
Criteria Manhattan OCTA CBD KCM In-use: Atlantic Base 26.8% 21.2% -

Fuel Economy (mpg, % increase) Fuel Consumption (gram/mi, % reduction) NOx (gpm, % reduction) PM (gpm, % reduction) CO (gpm, % redution)

74.6% 42.9% 38.7% 92.6% ns

50.6% 33.7% 28.6% 50.8% 32.0%

48.3% 32.8% 26.6% 97.1% 48.0%

30.3% 23.4% 17.8% ns 59.5%

THC (gpm, % reduction) ns ns 75.2% 56.3% Where: gpm = gallons per mile ns = not statistically significant at 95% confidence interval or not enough data to determine. THC = total hydrocarbon PM = particular matter Fuel Economy indicates carbon dioxide emissions CO = carbon monoxide NOx

The data suggest that quite a significant emission reduction can be achieved via switching from conventional to articulated buses. Articulated Bus Around the World Articulated buses are common in the English-speaking countries, and some part of Asia including Singapore, China, etc. In the UK, particularly in London, articulated buses and their double-decker counterparts have replaced the old double-decker AEC Routemasters on most routes. Elsewhere in the UK, they are generally operated on particular routes in order to increase passenger numbers, rather than

across entire networks. With unsupervised open boarding through three doors and the requirement for pre-purchase of tickets, levels of fare-dodging on the new vehicles were found to be at least three times higher than on conventional buses where entry of passengers is monitored by the driver or conductor. Articulated buses have also been operated in Israel since the mid-1970s. In Hungarythe buses originarticulated buses are popular modes of transit. Articulated buses also serve as a solution to the space issues (aka the land-use problems) in Singapore. Applicability to the Ithaca Area The articulated buses should not be used in providing services in the Ithaca area because: I. There will be significant modifications to the bus stops, TCAT garages, parking spots, maintenance decks, etc. II. The propulsion and the transmission systems may not be able to withstand the geographical barriers (steep slopes). III. The existing infrastructures, especially the road conditions, do not support the use of articulated buses
Citations: Chandler, Kevin, and Kevin Walkowicz. King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses: Interim Evaluation Results. Golden, Colo: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2006. Internet resource. El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., and Nithya Vijayakumar. The Effects of Articulated Buses on Dwell and Running Times. Tech. McGill University, Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/JPT14.3El-Geneidy.pdf>.http://www.volvobuses.com/bus/brazil/pt-br/linhaprodutos/urbanos/b340m-articulado-biarticulado/Pages/default.aspx Hemily, Brendon, and Rolland D. King. "TCRP Synthesis 75." Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit Service (2008): 1-83. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. North American Bus Industries. "Articulated Transit Bus Steering Considerations." NABI. North American Bus Industries, 13 Nov. 2006. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. <http://web.archive.org/web/20061113124715/http://www.nabiusa.com/resource_page.cfm?res_id=11#>.