San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) Double Decker Bus Pilot Demonstration

Alexander Dennis Inc. – Enviro 500 Model

December 2007—January 2008

Paul Bignardi Transportation Planner IV

Transportation Planning and Development Division Long Range Planning

May 2008

1

2

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) Double Deck Bus Pilot Demonstration Table of Contents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Summary 1 Background / Introduction 9 A Short Chronicle of Double Deck Buses 10 The SFMTA Pilot Demonstration 11

– Part I: The Vehicle – Alexander Dennis Inc. “Enviro 500” 11 – Part II: On-Street Operation / Maintenance / Storage 15 – Part III: Internal SFMTA Technical Data 17 – Part IV: Survey Data Collection and Analysis 19 – Part V: Observations by the Report Author: SF Pilot Demonstration 28 – Part VI: Observations by the Report Author: Service--Las Vegas 31 – Part VII: SFMTA & Alexander Dennis Staff – Vehicle Design Meetings 32

Pilot Demonstration Summary: Strengths / Challenges 36

– Part I: Strengths and Challenges 36 – Part II: Double Decker Bus Placed into a Service Perspective 38

Report Recommendations 39

– Part I: Four Alternative Courses of Action 39 – Part II: Report Recommendation 39 – Part III: A Closer Look at the Four Alternatives 40 – Part IV: Endnotes 42

Appendices A: AD Enviro 500 Fact Sheet B: AD Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 40’ Design C: Contract Agreement between SFMTA and Alexander Dennis for Loan of Enviro 500 Bus D: SFMTA In Service Route Schedule: Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 E: Passenger Survey Form (Full Size) 2007-2008 F: Passenger Survey Data Matrix 2007-2008 G: Passenger Survey Comments 2007-2008 H: Passenger Survey Data / Comments – Senior and Disabled Passengers I: Recommendations from the Mayor’s Office on Disability J: Muni Accessibility Advisory Committee Comments: Mtg. 11-15-07 K: SFMTA Operator and MTAP Survey Data and Comments L: Passenger Survey 1990 M: SFMTA Preparation for Double Decker Pilot Demonstration

3

N: BUSRide Article: Las Vegas Double Decks (October 2007)

O: AD Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 42’ Design P: Summary of Calgary Double Decker Trial (2003) Q: Artist Renditions of Enviro 500 in SF Muni paint scheme

4

Executive Summary Background / Introduction In Fall 2007 the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) decided to conduct a pilot demonstration of a double decker bus. An arrangement with the Alexander Dennis Corporation (AD) was worked out to have one vehicle (Enviro 500 model) at SFMTA from December 2007- January 2008. The push to test this vehicle came from planning work performed as part of the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects. BRT plans include the introduction of new vehicles on BRT routes proposed for Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard. A concern over space constraints at SFMTA yards also contributed to a decision to do a pilot demonstration. This pilot using the AD Enviro 500 occurred seventeen years after Muni tested a Leyland double decker bus in early 1990. The format of this report is cumulative – each successive section builds upon the previous one, leading to a recommendation near the end of the document. The format is followed both in the Executive Summary and in the main report. The report was prepared in this way to provide the reader with the relevant information collected during the pilot demonstration prior to discussion of the recommended course of action. However, if you want to go straight to the recommended course of action, it is on page 7 of the executive summary. In the main report it is on page 39. A Short Chronicle of Double Decker Buses Double decker horsecars existed in the 19th century, but it is not clear regarding “how” and “why” two level transit vehicles became popular, especially in the United Kingdom. In 1956 the English “Routemaster” double decker was introduced and remained in service in London for almost 50 years. This iconic model, required two-man operation, loaded from the rear and held about 60-70 passengers. By 2000, it was being replaced by double deckers that loaded from the front and articulated buses. At the start of 2008, a half-dozen or so transit vehicle manufacturers continue to produce double decker buses. Around the world, double decker buses are operated in over a dozen large cities including London, Hong Kong, Dublin, Berlin, and Singapore. In North America, several dozen buses are in service in Las Vegas, NV, Victoria, B.C., and in New York where they are used as tourist buses. Las Vegas purchased its first 50 double deckers for use on the “Deuce” route on the Las Vegas Strip in 2005. Daily ridership is over 40,000 on the Deuce route. At this time, Alexander Dennis Corporation (AD) is the only double decker bus producer that has achieved “Buy American” standards. AD has offices and factories in Guildford, UK, and an office in Canyon Lakes, CA, near Los Angeles. The SFMTA Pilot Demonstration – The Vehicle The SFMTA pilot demonstration bus was an AD Enviro 500: 40’ long (480”), 8.3’ wide (101”), 14’ tall (168”), 51,000 lbs., with 3 axles and 83 seats (57 upper / 26 lower). The

1

vehicle was a low floor model (12 inches), with a 6’6” ceiling height on most of the lower level and a 5’7” inch ceiling height on the upper level. Two wheelchair securements and six accessible / senior / disabled seats were located on the lower level. The Enviro 500 was powered by a rear-mounted 330 hp SM 6 cylinder Cummins diesel mated to a 6-speed ZF automatic transmission. The bus was stored and serviced at Flynn Division. SFMTA decided to operate the double decker bus on major trunk lines with heavy ridership. A final schedule was approved to operate the bus on Route 49 (Van Ness-Mission), Route 14L (Mission), Route 38/38L (Geary), and on Route 1BX (California – B Express). In on-street operation, the double decker bus was an “extra” that was spliced between two regularly scheduled buses. The SFMTA Pilot Demonstration – Passenger Capacity & Flow – Dwell Times The AD Enviro 500 contained 83 seats versus 55-57 seats for an SFMTA articulated diesel or trolley coach, with a total of 6 accessible / senior seats and room for 11 standees, resulting in an official maximum capacity of 94 passengers. “Crush” loads larger than maximum capacity often occur on SFMTA routes, and during the pilot demonstration, the double decker achieved crush load capacity, on two trips, with a peak load of 120 passengers. Alternate seating plans are available that could raise the number of accessible / senior seats to 8, with 6 more seats located one step up, but in these plans overall seating capacity is reduced to 71-75 seats. Dwell time for the articulated bus fleet and the AD double decker bus was recorded by automatic passenger counter (APC) units. Composite dwell time on the double decker bus was about 25%-33% greater than on articulated buses, with articulated buses averaging 18 seconds per stop, while the double decker bus averaged 29 seconds per stop. At some times, the extra delay was caused by passenger confusion due to the unexpected appearance of the double decker bus itself, and the free fare policy. The SFMTA Pilot Demonstration – On-Street Operation / Maintenance and Storage Six operators were trained to drive the bus, which was also staffed by at least one Muni Transit Assistant Program (MTAP) staff at all times while in service. Several issues concerning operations and safety were raised prior to the bus entering service. The possibility of vandalism was a public safety issue, especially on the upper level (hence the presence of MTAP staff). Injuries to passengers due to lower ceilings, the stairway and “step-up” seats, was a concern, but no major injuries were recorded during the pilot demonstration. A street grade issue was tested by operating the double decker bus on the 1BX route, which included a very steep grade (Pine between Kearney and Grant), and the bus climbed the grade successfully. Ride quality was found by most passengers and staff to be superior to an articulated bus. Fuel economy of 3.5 mpg was recorded, which was 50% better than the average fuel economy of the articulated bus fleet. No major maintenance issues were cited by Flynn Division staff that were responsible for the bus during the pilot demonstration. The potential storage benefits to SFMTA of a

2

vehicle that is 1/3 smaller in size than a comparable articulated transit vehicle was a driving force behind the pilot demonstration. At this time, no SFMTA bus yards are designed to maintain double decker buses, but following the pilot demonstration, modification of the new diesel bus yard at Islais Creek to serve double decker buses was found to be conceptually feasible. More study was recommended. Data Collection and Analysis – Part 1: Passenger Survey 2007-2008 & 1990 A total of 841 surveys were completed during the 2007-2008 pilot demonstration, and an amazing 7,149 surveys were completed in the 1990 pilot demonstration. Several questions in the recent survey were asked in 1990 allowing direct comparison between the two data sets. Highlights of the survey included the following points. Vehicle Questions 2007-08 1991 • 84% 94% did not have trouble climbing to the upper level • 48% Not asked preferred to ride on the upper level • 14% Not asked preferred to ride on the lower level • 80% 85% preferred the ride quality on the double decker bus • 85% 79% preferred the view on the double decker bus • Not Asked 80% preferred the double decker bus over an artic. bus Travel / Demographic questions 2007-08 1991 • 63% 75% use transit to go to work / business • 76% 79% use Muni 5+ days per week • 52% 60% were age 18-45 • 31% 16% were age 46-64 • 8% 7% were age 65+ A breakout of the data from all survey questions is present in the main text. This includes all detail from the 14-part Question #9, which asked passengers to compare a double decker bus and an articulated bus on several elements – and select a preference or state they were tied. Generally, passengers preferred the double decker bus over an articulated bus by a measure of 3 to 1 or 4 to 1. Passengers were also allowed to provide additional comments. A complete list of comments in Appendix G.

Data Collection and Analysis – Part II: : 2007-2008 Staff A total of seven SFMTA staff (operators and MTAP staff) returned completed surveys, which asked them both to list the greatest benefits to passengers and SFMTA, and the greatest challenges to passengers and SFMTA. The greatest passenger benefits were thought to be: 1) the view and experience of riding on the upper level, 2) the increased seating capacity, and 3) the ride quality of the bus and the low-floor entry

3

The greatest SFMTA benefits were thought to be: 1) the positive attention the test brought to SFMTA, with most passengers being in favor of SFMTA obtaining this type of vehicle, 2) the increased seating capacity, and 3) the reduced length of the bus which allowed easier on-street movements and increased storage capacity. The greatest challenges to passengers were thought to be: 1) the stairway, 2) wheelchair clearance near the front door, and 3) (tie) lack of standee space and low ceiling on the upper level. The greatest challenges to SFMTA were thought to be: 1) enforcement of regulations and possible vandalism on the upper level, 2) passenger accidents (stepping off elevated seats, use of stairs, low ceilings) 3) low overhead clearance and obstructions. Six other questions that built upon the information listed above were asked, and a final open ended comment question was asked. The comments are included in Appendix H. On-Street Observations: SFMTA Pilot Demonstration and Las Vegas As a passenger on seven in-service trips during the pilot demonstration, with at least one trip being taken on each of the service routes, the author was able to obtain some interesting observations concerning on-street operations. More detail is present in the main report. On two trips (38L westbound, 1BX westbound) the author personally saw the double decker bus in service with 120 passengers onboard. It was tight, but dwell times did not appear worse than those experience on an articulated bus in similar conditions. Although negative comments were heard from passengers and staff concerning the stairway and low ceilings, passengers expressed an almost universal positive opinion toward the double decker bus. Almost all reacted favorably when informed that Muni was looking at the possibility of purchasing double decker buses and adding them to the larger Muni fleet. The high level of positive passenger opinion was equaled or surpassed only by passenger excitement the author has experienced while a passenger on the F-Market streetcars or the cable cars. In May 2008 the author visited Las Vegas and met with transit staff to discuss their experience with double decker buses in transit service. Many of the issues that were discussed were previously mentioned in this report, but worth noting are steps underway to address particular issues. The most innovative is implementation of a longer bus with two stairways instead of one. It is believed the two stairways will help lessen dwell time and improve passenger flow. Only one seat was lost in the modification, so the seated capacity was reduced from 81 seats to 80 seats. Overall, the new twin stairway double decker bus appears to be a better transit vehicle than the single stairway vehicle that was used in the SFMTA pilot demonstration.

4

SFMTA & Alexander Dennis Staff – Vehicle Design Meetings SFMTA and AD staff met for a half day workshop meetings on two occasions during the pilot demonstration to discuss design issues concerning the Enviro 500 model double decker bus and possible modifications to the design. The items below are a distillation of the highlights of those meetings. Issue Resolution Buy America and Timeline Yes, the bus meets Buy America standards Buses take 14-20 months to build and deliver Can the bus be made longer / taller In theory, yes, but the price is probably than the Las Vegas two stairway bus? prohibitive Can the bus be made with left side This appears to be feasible, but only 1 door doors to allow dual-side loading? can be added to the left side Can an electric trolleycoach version This is probably feasible, but will not be easy. be manufactured? AD wants $60K-$100K to perform an initial analysis prior to further detailed research Can the bus be modified to allow for Yes, the bus can be equipped with stop cords basic changes on some features instead of buttons, additional grab poles, dual wheelchair lifts, plastic seats, safety doors, etc. Can the bus be produced as a hybrid? A hybrid is currently being tested. Future A future zero emission vehicle? tech advances in power mode should be able to be incorporated into the design Cost The vehicles have a baseline cost of approximately $750,000. With upgrades and unique equipment this cost will likely increase by 15%-35%. Pilot Demonstration Summary: Strengths and Challenges All SFMTA staff that performed a role in the pilot demonstration were in agreement that the AD Enviro 500 double decker bus had many positive points, and several challenging issues, making a choice whether to go forward and procure buses, or not go forward, a difficult decision. Below are the four strongest positive features and the four greatest challenges. A more detailed analysis is contained within the main report. Strongest Positive Features • Greater seating capacity • Distinctive appearance of the vehicle • Favorable public perception of the vehicle • Smaller footprint it utilizes in service and in storage

5

Greatest Challenges • Lack of existing electric trolleycoach option in the marketplace • Reduced number of accessible seats • Longer dwell time at stops • Limits on design modification options (left side doors/low ceilings/overall height)

The Double Decker Bus Placed into a Service Perspective The pilot demonstration and subsequent analysis was a useful process to test a new unique transit vehicle and compare it to existing transit vehicles in the SFMTA fleet. The pilot demonstration did not reveal any obvious fatal flaws that could be cited to end consideration of using double decker buses at SFMTA. The demonstration did reveal a snapshot into the real-life experience of operations of this type of vehicle. It showed there are significant differences between double decker buses and articulated buses in their operation characteristics and ability to carry heavy passengers loads. A key element, perhaps the key element, for consideration among SFMTA staff in making a determination to procure this type of vehicle is whether the service focus for key major transit routes (BRT service or Rapid Network in the TEP), should be focused primarily on speed, or based on a combination of speed and passenger amenities. In the former concept, the focus is on passengers taking short trips and high passenger volume. Vehicle speed and dwell time are both very important. Transit vehicles that fit this niche offer a lower number of seats, more standee room, and a maximum number of doors to speed boarding and alighting. In the latter concept, speed and passenger comfort are evaluated more equally rather than focusing solely on speed and passenger volume. Transit vehicles that fit this niche offer a higher number of seats, fewer doors for boarding and alighting, and slower dwell times – although the service offered can still be relatively fast. The latter concept is a good fit for the double decker bus. The former concept is not. Report Recommendations To go forward or not– that was the big question – and remains the big question? At this time, clear options exist that should be considered by SFMTA management:

1) Perform a second pilot demonstration 2) Purchase or lease a small number (2-12) of double decker buses 3) Purchase a larger number (12+) of double decker buses 4) Decide not to consider double decker buses as a service vehicle at this time

Option 1 should be a test with more than one vehicle, and the test should be more vigorous than the initial pilot demonstration. The double decker bus should be scheduled in regular service, a farebox should be installed, and the bus should be treated no differently than an SFMTA owned bus in regular service. AD believes they may be able to provide two vehicles to SFMTA if we are interested in performing a second pilot demonstration. Option 2 would be more of a commitment, but still have the elements of a test or demonstration. A small procurement of double decker buses could provide an opportunity to fit an expanded test into ongoing SFMTA fleet plans. Option 3

6

is self explanatory. Assuming the recent pilot demonstration has provided adequate information, SFMTA would prepare to phase in double decker buses as part of the next vehicle procurement cycle in 2013-2015. Option 4 is the opposite extreme where a decision is made to end consideration and testing of double decker buses at the current time and for the near future. As the author of this report, the following actions are recommended as the next steps SFMTA management should consider: • Look further into procuring a small fleet of the two stairway double decker buses

ordered and delivered recently in Las Vegas for additional testing in revenue service

• Do not look further into the design of a dual-side door design for the double decker bus that will allow left side boarding and alighting in addition to right side boarding and alighting

• Look into contracting with Alexander Dennis to perform an initial analysis on the feasibility of the production of a double decker electric trolley coach

Other staff may have a different recommendation based upon the data presented in the report, and SFMTA management should seek out opinions from all internal staff that participated in the pilot demonstration. The pilot demonstration was a good first step, but more extensive research should be undertaken prior to taking the large step of adoption of double decker buses as an integral vehicle in the SFMTA fleet. Adoption of the proposed recommended actions will allow SFMTA to test the feasibility of any unique SFMTA desire design modifications in the small fleet of vehicles prior to any large future procurement. Assuming the outcome of a more extensive pilot demonstration is positive, the timing of the small scale procurement should coordinate with revision of a long-term SFMTA maintenance and storage plan, and a long-term fleet plan that would allow double decker buses to be procured in large quantities when the FTA vehicle procurement schedule cycles back to San Francisco in the 2010-1017 time period. San Francisco is a world famous city and a major transit city. This status should be used to leverage agreements with Alexander Dennis, the Metropolitan Transportation Commision (MTC) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other necessary parties if the decision is made to test a small fleet or begin acquisition of a larger fleet of double decker buses. If San Francisco becomes the second major U.S. city after Las Vegas to make a significant investment in double decker buses, the policy and industry impacts are likely to be felt across North America. Endnotes This report is the record of the project. It is an unbiased attempt to record the facts, observations and analysis that resulted from the pilot demonstration. The double decker bus pilot was a success due to the work of SFMTA staff and management in several divisions that contributed to the effort that took place between October 2007 and

7

April 2008. All staff that participated receive credit for a job well done, and management is recognized for a proactive and innovative spirit concerning this project.

8

9

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Double Deck Bus Pilot Demonstration Background / Introduction The format of this report is cumulative, meaning each successive section builds upon the previous one, leading to a recommendation near the end of the document. The format is followed both in the Executive Summary and in the main report. The report was prepared in this way to provide the reader with the relevant information collected during the pilot demonstration prior to discussion of the recommended course of action. Discussion of testing a new double decker bus at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) was an issue that received renewed interest in 2007 as part of planning efforts connected with the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) and the two Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) studies for the Van Ness and Geary corridors. The Van Ness BRT study effort that is being jointly managed by staff at SFMTA and our sister agency, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), completed an initial feasibility study in December 2006. In early 2007 a formal environmental review process began, and preparations were also made to submit a funding request to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in Fall 2007 to obtain federal funds to complete the environmental review process and begin preliminary engineering on the project. The FTA submittal required analysis of many issues, including identification of equipment needed to operate the BRT service and analysis of maintenance and vehicle storage. Thus, the vehicle issue, which was also present in the environmental review work, was front and center in the planning process. An initial analysis showed SFMTA was challenged regarding adequate space to house and maintain a large number of additional articulated buses (approximately 80-100) required for the Van Ness and Geary corridor projects. As an alternative to possibly ease the tight space issue, use of a double decker bus was raised by several SFMTA staff, and a pilot demonstration was arranged with Alexander Dennis, the manufacturer of double decker buses in Las Vegas, NV. The agreement to perform a pilot demonstration was reached quickly, and the bus, the AD Enviro 500 prototype, was delivered to San Francisco in late November. The pilot was the second time a double decker bus was tested in San Francisco. In January – February 1990, S.F. Muni tested a Leyland Olympian model for a three-week period. Information on that pilot test is shown in Appendix H. A report on the 1990 pilot titled “Double Deck Bus In-Service Demonstration February 1990 Test”, written by Carl Natvig with assistance from Peter Straus is available in the SFMTA library. The AD Enviro 500 model was in service six days a week (off Sundays) from December 17, 2007 –January 8, 2008. It was deployed on Routes 49-Van Ness / Mission, 38-Geary, 38L-Geary Limited, 1BX-California Express, and 14L-Mission Limited during the three week time period. The vehicle was returned to AD staff on January 9, 2008.

A Short Chronicle of Double Decker Buses A quick survey of the Internet contained only modest information on the origin and subsequent implementation of double deck buses around the world. The current diesel versions seen in the United Kingdom (UK), especially in London, were an outgrowth of the double deck trams and trolleycoaches that were mostly replaced in the decade following World War II. The author could not find the genesis of the idea to double deck a transport vehicle, but double decker horsecars did exist in the 19th century. Most likely, the genesis was due to passenger capacity as the double deck vehicles could simply carry more paying passengers than a single deck vehicle. The English diesel operated “Routemaster” was introduced in 1956, and became a British icon around the world. It required two-man operation (driver and conductor) and loaded from the rear. Between the 1950s and 1990s, several thousand of these vehicles operated in London, other UK cities, and in other cities around the world. A few even made it as far as Davis, CA where they continue to be operated by Unitrans, serving students at UC-Davis. They were far more popular than PCC streetcars in the United States, and arguably approached popularity levels of Muni cable cars in San Francisco. After several renovations, the London fleet was retired (2 heritage routes remain) in 2006 and replaced with new single-man double decker buses or articulated buses. At the start of 2008 several manufacturers continue to produce double decker buses (Ashok-Leyland, Van Hool, Alexander Dennis, Zhongda (China), Neoplan, Volvo and Scania (Sweden)). Around the world double decker buses are operated in several cities:

• London, UK: 4,000+ units • Manchester, UK, York, UK, Blackpool, UK, Manchester, UK, Edinburgh, UK, Glascow, UK, other UK cities: number unknown • Berlin, Germany: about 500 units • Dublin, Ireland: 1,000+ units • Hong Kong, China: 5,000+ units • Singapore: 900+ units • Istanbul, Turkey: 89 units • Victoria, BC: 20 units • Las Vegas, NV: 100+ units on “The Deuce” route • New York, NY 70+ units in use as tour buses • Davis, CA: 6 1950s vintage AEC London double decker buses

(The list above does not include all cities)

Routemaster – London Hong Kong double decker tram and bus Berlin

10

11

Since the late 1990s, several of the older manufacturers have merged to create new companies, and the standard design has evolved to consist of single-man operation (driver), rear engine placement, and low-floor chassis, with designs being offered in either 2-axle or 3-axle wheelbases. Although articulated coaches have been purchased for London, UK, and other cities with double decker buses, the market appears to remain solid, as exports have landed in new cities during the last two decades, such as Las Vegas, NV, Singapore, and Jakarta, Indonesia. It also appears that double decker buses will continue to play a vital role in the transit future within the UK.

In the United States, double decker buses are in use in the following locations.

• Unitrans in Davis, CA has operated six AEC London Regents (contemporary of the Routemaster) since it acquired the first one in 1968.

• New York, NY, currently has 73 Alexander Dennis (AD) open top Enviro 500 models in use as tour buses.

• Las Vegas, NV, has over 100 AD Enviro 500 models in use in regular passenger service. The first were delivered in 2005. Most are used on “the Deuce” route that serves Las Vegas Boulevard (The Strip) which has a ridership of approximately 40,000 per day. Las Vegas has started to receive new double decker buseas that are equipped with two staircases. These buses are slightly longer measuring 42’ long (instead of 40’). Due to the added length, the addition of a second stairway only resulted in a loss of 1 seat.

• San Francisco, CA , currently has a half-dozen Alexander Dennis double decker tourist buses.

Although much of the AD vehicles are built and outfitted at factories in the UK (England and Scotland), at this time, AD is the only double decker bus manufacturer that can meet Buy America standards. Some of the “Buy U.S.” goal has been achieved by outfitting the bus with U.S. made engines and seats. A local AD U.S. office is located in Canyon Lakes, CA outside of Los Angeles.

The SFMTA Pilot Demonstration Part I: The Vehicle Alexander Dennis – Model Enviro 500 The double deck bus used during the SFMTA pilot demonstration project was manufactured by Alexander Dennis Corporation (AD) of Guildford, UK (England). AD is a bus manufacturer with roots that reach back to the late 19th century. It has evolved through mergers with other companies in the U.K. during the past few decades and most recently was named TransBus International between 2001-2004. In 2004 the company was broken into parts, with the Alexander and Dennis groups of the old company being purchased by independent investors and reformed as the Alexander Dennis Corporation.

The bus was a prototype of the “Enviro 500” maxles, 8’4.3” wide (101.5”), with 83 seats (57 onascending) and two doors (single in front, doumanufactured, and contained fabric seat insertsheight of 13”. The bus had “kneeling” capabilityincluded air springs and double acting damperseach on the first set of rear wheels, for a total The gross vehicle weight was approximately

odel. It was 40’ (474”) long with three the upper level), one stairwell (forward ble in back). The 83 seats were U.S. . It was a low-floor design with an entry at the front door. Suspension elements on all six wheels, with a double set of of eight air springs and eight dampers. 51,000 lbs. Vehicle height was 14’0”.

12

13

Ceiling height on the lower level was 6’6” from the entrance to the ramp area to the rear seats where it gradually decreased to about 5’0” by the last row of seats. Ceiling height on the upper level was 5”7” for the entire level. It was equipped with a clam-shell type wheelchair ramp present at the front door. The rear door was not ramp equipped, but it is possible to place a ramp at that door too. Two wheelchair securements were located near the rear-door. A total of six seats (per the seating pattern present in this design) were located on the flat portion of the low-floor area and these were the designated senior / disabled seating area. The engine and transmission combination consisted of a rear mounted ISM 6 cylinder Cummins diesel unit that developed 330 hp at maximum tied to a 6-speed ZF automatic transmission. The bus was equipped with air conditioning and had windows that were sealed closed. The fuel tank had a capacity of 114 U.S. gallons. More information on vehicle specifications is present in Appendix A, which is a copy of a AD vehicle specification brochure. AD offers several versions of both double deck and single deck buses, and many of the double deck vehicles are very similar to the Enviro 500 prototype tested at SFMTA. Currently slightly shorter (approx. 35’) but slightly taller (14’6”) vehicles are produced for use in the U.K. market, and slightly longer (42’’) vehicles are in production for North America and Asia markets. Seating variations are available in the North American models that results in a capacity range of between 71-88 seats. Passenger Capacity A key concern of SFMTA staff concerned passenger capacity. Of particular interest was the combined seated and standee maximum passenger capacity of the double decker bus compared to the capacities of an articulated bus. AD information stated the bus capacity at 83 seated with approximately 10 standees (71-88 seated with alternate seating configurations). In comparison, existing Muni articulated buses have a range of 55-57 seats and a “preferred” standee capacity of 37-39. The “preferred” term relates to the stated maximum capacity of these vehicles as shown in the SFMTA Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). In reality, articulated buses regularly carry “crush” loads of well over 100 passengers. An analysis of available standee square footage of both vehicles showed the double decker to have approximately 50.5 square feet of space on the lower level as compared to 165-175 square feet for an articulated bus (difference dependent upon manufacturer and seating layout). Standees on the upper level of the double decker bus were not allowed during the Muni pilot demonstration, so available space on the upper level was not included in the space calculation. To achieve a fair comparison between the two vehicles required the calculation of the average square foot area allocated to a standee per the SRTP. The outcome showed 4.34 square feet per standee to be the preferred space. On the double decker bus this translated to space for 11 standees – or a total preferred vehicle capacity of 94 passengers – the same as the preferred capacity for articulated buses. As stated above, SFMTA articulated buses regularly carry “crush” loads in excess of 100 passengers, so could the double decker bus do the same? On-street operations showed actual passenger loads surpassed 100 on a few occasions during the pilot demonstration, with a peak observed load of 120 passengers being achieved on one occasion. (See more on author observations in sub-section V.)

Double Decker bus (above) and articulated buaccessible seats (yellow), wheelchair securem

A second area of interest was the differendouble decker bus versus the 55-57 seat ca“flow” of passengers while the bus was full was thought to have some relation to dwelleven though the APC data showed the domany occasions. In general, during the pdecker bus were a much less common sseated capacity on the pilot demonstratiostandees were present, overall the passeheavily loaded, the flow of passengers osmoother than similar activity on an articulat Accessibility for Senior and Disabled PasThe AD double decker bus used by SFMTAforward facing wheelchair securements, a ra5 seats located on the low-floor section oreserved for seniors and people with disabilevel required access via an aisle ramp anwas not equipped with a Digital Voice Acustomers with visual impairments and heaof destinations. One wheelchair securemerear door on the right side, and the other wstairway area. The second wheelchair seculow-floor section, leaving only 2 reserved sein that space. SFMTA staff believe the small number of swould negatively impact customers who are

s (below) showing: total seats (83 vs. 57), ent area (green ‘x’), and standee area (tan).

ce between the 71-83 seat capacity of the pacity of an articulated bus, and the interior with seated passengers and standees. This time, and that assumption may still be true, uble decker bus had longer dwell times on ilot demonstration standees on the double ight than on an articulated bus (the extra n bus made a big difference), and when nger aisles were less congested. When

ut the rear door and off the bus seemed ed bus, although alighting was slower.

sengers was a low-floor vehicle equipped with two mp at the front door, and as configured had f the bus that were designated as seating lities. The remaining 21 seats on the lower d/or a step to reach the seat. The vehicle nnouncement system, or display to alert ring disabilities of upcoming transfer points nt was located immediately in front of the as on the left side immediately behind the

rement area utilized 3 “jump seats” from the ats remaining if the wheelchair was present

eats on the low-floor section of the vehicle unable to stand for long periods of time and

14

15

are unable to climb the steps to the seating on the upper level. An alternate seating configuration is available that increases the number of low-floor seats to 8, with 6 more located one step up (see diagram 3C in Appendix B). Using this seat pattern reduces overall capacity of the vehicle to 71-75 seats. Note that providing 8 reserved seats is still a lower number than the 14 seats that are currently designated as reserved on Muni’s existing fleet of articulated buses and trolley coaches. The Enviro 500 utilized a 39” “clam shell” style ramp that folded out from the floor surface. When fully kneeled, the floor surface of the vehicle was approximately 10” from the roadway (a big improvement over SFMTA current floor kneeling height of 11.5”). When the ramp was deployed to a 6” curb, the slope was approximately 10%, but when the ramp was deployed on the roadway the slope was approximately 26%. The April 2007 proposed modification for the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles sets the maximum slope at 8% in all cases, including when deployed in a roadway. The Enviro 500 ramp is not in compliance for a roadway deployment. It is estimated that new wheelchair ramp technology (such as the :”Lift U Fold out Plus”) will help bring the slope into compliance. SFMTA staff are concerned about the width and length of the passageway from the front door, by the wheelwells to the first wheelchair securement area. Movement throughout this area requires a wheelchair user to perform a 90 degree left turn once inside the front door. As tested, the AD 500 included two areas where the passageway did not meet the minimum requirements as specified by the ADA. It was observed that the fit was very tight for a wheelchair and was complicated by the placement of safety handrails. Although later versions of the vehicle have recessed handrails and a wider entrance passageway, the length creates a barrier for people who are unable to walk while the vehicle is moving and require seating. Part II: On-Street Operation / Maintenance / Storage Operators / Routes After internal SFMTA staff discussion, a decision was made to operate the double decker bus on major trunk lines with heavy ridership, with a goal of having it operate in as many neighborhoods as possible. Initial plans had to be scaled back due to concerns with low hanging obstacles, especially tree branches, on the service routes or access routes to the proposed service routes. Low electrical overhead used by LRT vehicles, historic streetcars, and trolley coaches was not a concern as the 14’0” height of the double decker bus was 4’ below the official height of the electrical overhead wires. After addressing low objects, the final list of routes that the double decker bus operated on consisted of: Route 49-Van Ness / Mission - December 13-December 15, December 17, Route 38-Geary (Local) – December 31, January 2-January 5, Route 38-Geary Limited – December 18-December 22, Route 14L-Mission Limited – (midday) December 24, December 26-December 28, (all-day) December 29 Route 1BX-California “B” Express – (AM & PM peak) December 24, December 26- December 28

The bus operated out of the Flynn Division (Harrison & 15th Street), and was generally in service from 7:00AM-2:00PM and 3:30PM-7:30PM. Six SFMTA operators were trained to drive the double decker bus, and a group of about ten Muni Transit Assistant Program (MTAP) staff were trained to perform an ambassadorial / security role on the vehicle when it was in service. They also performed an important role in distributing and collecting passenger surveys. While in service, the bus usually had 2-4 MTAP staff plus the operator onboard at all times. Operator breaks and switching of operators were usually done in the early afternoon onsite at the Flynn Division. The bus operated in service as an “extra” vehicle placed between two regularly scheduled buses. It was not tied to a specific block on any of the routes. All passengers rode free - fares were not collected, and a farebox was not installed. Maintenance and Storage The pilot demonstration didn’t offer a definitive opportunity to assess the AD Enviro 500 bus concerning the areas of maintenance and storage. The vehicle was delivered by AD staff to Flynn Division in excellent condition. SFMTA staff installed APC equipment, a hubometer, additional safety signage in multiple languages on the interior, exterior decals and a few other items. All installations were removed before the bus was returned to AD staff. During the time it was in service at SFMTA, the double decker bus was regularly fueled, serviced, washed and stored at Flynn. An issue with much broader interest and possible impacts to SFMTA concerns vehicle storage. Although no existing SFMTA vehicle yard is designed to maintain double decker buses, the initial appeal of a vehicle that is 50% shorter than an articulated bus, but which has the same passenger capacity is noteworthy. The one SFMTA bus yard that is under design at the current time is Islais Creek. Initial designs were to accommodate 40 foot standard buses, but following the SFMTA double decker pilot,

design criteria have been

mp STnwTPs

modified so the facility could store and maintain double decker or 40’ standard buses. Initial analysis showed it to be not feasible to

odify the facility to serve articulated buses due to the presence of freeway support illars in the yard footprint that impact the exterior bus storage area.

treet Grades he routes selected for service were generally flat or with minimum grades with a few otable exceptions: 5%-10% eastbound on Geary between Fillmore and Gough, estbound on Geary between Polk and Gough and between Divisadero and Masonic. he most challenging of all grades were found on Route 1BX: 5%-18% westbound on ine between Leavenworth and Larkin and between Baker and Masonic, with the teepest grade of all being a 10%-18% grade found westbound on Pine between

16

Kearney and Stockton. No acceleration problems were recorded by operators when the bus operated on these grades. The engine and transmission were powerful enough that the double decker was equal in performance to existing SFMTA equipment in its ability to scale the grades. On more than one occasion the front / rear overhang scraped the ground as the bus passed through the Pine and Grant intersection westbound when fully loaded. Part III: Internal SFMTA Technical Data APC Data: Dwell Times A key concern of SFMTA staff concerned observing and recording dwell times at bus stops on busy routes. The assumption held by several staff in Operations was that the bus would have longer dwell times than an articulated unit due to its two-door configuration and presence of stairs - versus the three door configuration and no stairs that are standard on an articulated bus. A good comparison was made possible by the presence of APC’s that were placed on the double decker bus, and which have been regularly present on much of the articulated bus fleet for the past couple of years. Overall, the composite dwell time on the double decker bus was about 25%-30% greater than the composite dwell time recorded on articulated buses. The APC data showed articulated buses averaged 18 seconds per stop, while the double decker bus averaged 29 seconds per stop.

Doors and Dwell Time: Double Decker Bus vs. Articulated Bus

18 s

econ

ds

29 s

econ

ds

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Double Decker(2 doors)

Articulated(3 doors)

Vehicle Type

Avg

. Dw

ell T

ime

per S

top

The APC’s recorded passenger boardings and alighting (ons and offs) and dwell time for both equipment types in December 2007, and categorized them by ranges of ons / offs for comparison: 1-4 passengers, 5-9 passengers, 10-14 passengers, 15-19 passengers, and 20-24 passengers. The double decker bus had a shorter average dwell time in the 1-4 passenger category, while APC data showed articulated buses to have faster dwell times in the other four categories. The slower dwell times for articulated buses in the first category may be due to the presence of stairs at the doors, whereas the doube decker bus was a low floor design. Although the assumption that the double decker bus would have a longer dwell time was verified, the results are not completely clear. The two graphs below 17

show that while the dwell time issue grows larger at stops with more boarding and exiting passengers, the general trend is that busy stops (15+ passengers) comprised 15% of all stops, while less active stops (1-9 passengers) comprised 70%-80% of all stops on the routes served by the double decker bus during the pilot demonstration. Oftentimes, some of the dwell delay was caused by the unexpected appearance of the double decker bus itself, and the confusion among passengers regarding whether the bus was “really” a Muni bus. More confusion resulted when they were told fares were not being collected as they boarded the bus. A conclusive answer to this question would require more testing with more rigorous controls to ensure an accurate result.

Dwell Time

Double Decker Bus

Articulated Bus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5

Number of Passengers Boarding / Exiting

Seco

nds

1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24

Dwell Time - Boarding-Exiting Activity

APC D

Double Decker Bus

Articulated Bus

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percen

tage

of 1

00% of S

tops

4

The daconsistfloatingmovedmarginlevel dait was

01 2 3 4 5 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-2

ata: Passenger Levels

Number of Passengers Boarding and Exiting

ta collected on ridership by the APC’s installed on the double decker bus ed of passenger levels and dwell time data. Since the double decker bus was a vehicle that was spaced between existing regularly scheduled buses, and it between different routes, the passenger level data that was collected was only ally relevant to the findings of the pilot demonstration. However, the passenger ta was very useful when viewed in tandem with dwell time data (see below), and

useful to see the passenger preferences for alighting from the bus. The results

18

showed that an overwhelming percentage of passengers (usually in excess of 90%) exited via the rear door. Fuel Economy Fuel economy on the double decker bus was captured by data collected by the Fleetwatch system. Throughout the pilot demonstration, the bus showed a consistent performance of 3.5 miles per gallon. In comparison, the average fuel economy for an articulated diesel coach at the Flynn Division is estimated at 2.3 miles per gallon, or 35% less than the AD double decker bus. Part IV: Survey Data Collection and Analysis

Overview In preparation of the double decker bus pilot

demonstration, SFMTA developed operator, support staff, and passenger surveys to formally record individual opinions on the double decker bus. The operator and staff surveys were distributed at the conclusion of the pilot demonstration to the half-dozen operators who drove the double decker bus and to the MTAP staff that was assigned to the bus. The passenger survey was translated into Spanish and Chinese, and a partner survey with questions specific to the disabled community was also created. The passenger surveys could be dropped into a collection box on the bus or mailed back to SFMTA with the postage paid by SFMTA. The 2007-2008 survey design included several questions that were asked during an earlier double decker bus pilot that occurred in 1990. A full copy of the survey is Appendix E. The highlights of the 1990 test are summarized in Appendix H. Partial results of the 1990 survey are included here for comparison purposes. Passenger Survey Data Results: 2007-2008 and 1990 A total of 841 passenger surveys were completed during the 2007-2008 double decker bus pilot demonstration. The breakdown of the completed surveys found 808 (96.1%) were completed in English, 9 (1.1%) were completed in Spanish, 14 (1.6%) were completed in Chinese, and 10 (1.1%)

19

were completed by the disabled community. The disabled/accessible surveys included additional questions not present on the other surveys. An incredible total of 7,149 surveys were completed during the 1990 double decker bus pilot demonstration. The graphs below show 2007-08 data in a darker color and 1990 data in a lighter color. The numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 correspond to the horizontal data locations in the graphs. As stated above, several questions contained in the 2007-2008 survey were taken from the 1990 survey, so a direct comparison between the results is possible. Question 1 asked passengers to state the purpose of their trip, and allowed multiple options to be selected. Response 2007-08 1990 1 Travel to Work / Business 63% 75% 2 Shopping 37% 26% 3 Doctor / Medical 19% 14% 4 School 14% 21% 5 Other 37% 31% 6 No Response 13% Unknown Travel to work was the most common response in both surveys, followed by shopping and other, which were reversed between the two surveys. Travel to work / business was listed as a trip purpose by passengers twice as oft08, followed by travel toin 7 (13%) offered no resIntra-question cross-tabcombination to be pasfollowed by shopping an Question 2, 3 and 3A results are addressed in Question 4 asked passeResponse 1 5+ days per week 2 2-4 days per week 3 1 day per week 4 Less than 1 day per w5 Other 6 No Response

en as any other reason. Travel to the doctor was next in 2007- school, and these too were reversed in 1990. One respondent ponse in 2007-08. The 1990 no response total is unknown.

Tr i p P ur pose

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

T r i p T y p e

ulation of the 2007-08 data showed the most common sengers that used Muni for work and shopping trips (23%), d other (17%) and shopping and school (15%).

asked passengers to list origin and destination data. The Appendix F and Appendix G.

ngers to state how often they ride Muni. 2007-08 1990 76% 79% 13% 9% 3% N/A

eek 5% 6% N/A 5% 6% unknown

20

Passengers that used transit 5+ days per week were the largest group in both surveys with over five times as many passengers checking this category as the second group. Passengers that used Muni 2-4 days per weekeither 1 day a week orquestion in the 2007-08unknown. Inter-questionwide variances in ridersh Question 5 asked pasdouble decker bus. Arode on the double deckprevented a comparisopreference outcome. ThResponse 1 Upper Deck 2 Lower Deck 3 Either Deck A plurality of passengers preferred the upper deck (48%), while many would use either deck (31%), and a minority preferred the lower deck (14%). An interesting, or coincidental fact present in these results these percentages almoseats on the upper levelwhich can be split equaresult is the passenger p25 of the 30 seats on the

were a distant second, followed by those passengers that ride less than 1 day a week. A total of 6% did not answer the survey, and again the number that didn’t respond in 1990 is cross-tabulations of the 2007-08 survey data didn’t show any ip frequency by age.

Ri de r shi p Fr e que nc y

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6

N u mb e r o f D a y s p e r W e e k

sengers to state the preferred level (deck) to ride on the different set of three questions addressed where passengers er bus in the 1990 survey, but the wording of the questions both n to the 2007-08 question, and do not result in a “solid” erefore the results are not shown.

2007-08 48% 4 Standing 4 % 14% 5 No Response less than 1% 34%

P r ef f er ed Seat Level

shows that the total number of seats on the bus corresponds to st exactly. The entire bus contains 83 seats. 83 X 48% = 40 . 83 X 14% = 12 seats on the lower level. 83 X 31 = 26 seats - lly to 13 for the upper level and 13 for the lower level. The end references correspond to fill all 53 seats on the upper level and lower level. A small number (4%) did not answer the question.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Se a t L e v e l

21

Question 6 asked passenger to state if they had difficulty climbing the stairs to the upper level. A multi-part question in the 1990 survey contained this information to allow a comparison. Response 2007-08 1990 1 No difficulty to climb stairs 84% 94% 2 Difficulty to climb stairs 7% 6% 3 No Response 9% unknown The large majority of passengers did not have difficulty climbing stairs to the upper level in both surveys. Only a small minority (less than 10%) in both surveys had difficulty climbing the stairs. A small grothe number of non-retabulation of the 2007-seniors. Question 7 asked pasResponse 1 5-17 2 18-30 3 31-45 4 46-55 5 56-64 6 65+ 7 No Response The core group of Muni passengers is aged between 18-55 (69% in 2007-08 / 70% in 1990). Smaller groups comprise the low and higher ends of the age spectrum with slightly lBetween 4%-8% did nquestion to include in aon other questions to s

up (9%) did not answer the question in the 2007-08 survey and sponses in the 1990 survey is unknown. Inter-question cross-08 data showed those with the most difficulty climbing stairs were

Di f f i cul t y Cl i mbi ng St ai r s

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3

Y e s - N o - N R / U n k n o w n

sengers their age: 2007-08 1990 5% 10% 28% 30% 24% 30% 17% 10% 14% 6% 8% 7% 4% 8%

ess than 10% being under age 18 or over age 65 in both surveys. ot respond to this question in either survey. This is an important ny survey because it allows for cross-tabulations to be computed ee if differences appear dependent upon age. .

Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A g e G r o u p s

22

Question 8 asked passengers to state if they had previously ridden on a double decker bus, and if they had it asked them to name the location. This question was not asked in the 1990 survey. Response 2007-08 1 London 31% 4 S.F. (Gray Line 7% 2 Other 11% 5 Las Vegas 7% 3 Hong Kong 9% 6 No Response 6% A significant number of passengers had used a double decker bus before. London was the most common city cited, followed by Hong Kong, Gray Line Tours in San Francisco, and Las Vegas (7%). Other cities including several inin major world cities wethis question. Question 9 asked passbus on 14 separate elewere about the same. Mof the 1990 questions, b Seat width Aisle width Headroom Ease of boarding Ease of movement in buSmoothness (quality( of Noise level inside Noise level outside View through windows Feeling of safety Overall comfort Feeling of being crowdeSize of bus Which bus do you prefer

the United Kingdom, Berlin, Jakarta, plus several tourist buses re also cited. Some passengers did not submit a response to

E xposur e t o Doubl e Decker Bus

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6

L o c a t i o n

engers to compare the double decker bus to an articulated ments, and then choose their preference, or if the two vehicles ost of the questions in the 2007-08 survey were a direct reprint

ut there were a few modifications.

Double Decker Articulated / Standard Tie 2007-08 / 1990 2007-08 / 1990 2007-08 / 1990 76% / 49% 12% / 18% 11% / 33% 42% / 23% 30% / 54% 27% / 23% 43% / 34% 24% / 40% 33% / 21% 64% / 64% 9% / 11% 26% / 25%

s 58% / 47% 14% / 24% 25% / 29% ride) 80% / 85% 5% / 3% 14% / 12%

76% / 86% 3% / 2% 19% / 12% 73% / 81% 4% / 2% 22% / 17% 85% / 79% 4% / 5% 10% / 16% 53% / Not asked 11% / Not asked 33% / Not asked Not asked / 86% Not asked / 5% Not asked / 5%

d 53% / Not asked 11% / Not asked 33% / Not asked 75% / 68% 8% / 11% 15% / 22%

Not asked / 80% Not asked /11% Not asked / 9%

23

The outcomes show a clear passenger preference for the double decker bus on almost every question both in 2007-08 and in 1990. Preferences by individual question often are 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in favor of the double decker bus. Several questions show results that are very similar even though the surveys were conducted 17 years apart. Some preferences are obvious, such as view through windows and seat width, since the double decker bus has the great view from the upper level, and both pilot demonstration buses used more comfortable seats than used on regular Muni equipment. Other preferences seem counter-intuitive – and may not be believable, such as passenger preferences concerning headroom and aisle width, when it is known that headroom is greater on an articulated / standard bus, and aisle width is generally more open on an articulated / standard bus, because of the larger area used for standee room. The most informative comparisons are ease of movement in bus, noise levels (inside and outside), and ride quality. The passenger preference for the double decker versus an articulated / standard bus on these four factors can be considered important. It shows a large portion of passengers feel the double decker bus contains more space, is quieter, and has a better interior traffic flow pattern than an articulated bus. The question of “which bus do you prefer” was not asked in 2007-08, because it was felt the outcome of the other factors in this question and the results from other questions would clearly show a vehicle type preference. Question 10 (listed in the survey as question 11) asked passengers to provide comments. It was only asked in the 2007-08 survey. Most surveys contained at least a minimal comment. Some passengers added small notes to their survey so they could send more extensive comments. Passenger comments ranged from the very positive to the very negative, but generally were positive toward the double decker bus in general. Several comments addressed moot issues such as the potential for problems with fabric seats and the lack of a pull cord to signal a stop request. SFMTA staff and AD staff concurred that pull cords could be used to signal stop requests, and SFMTA staff agreed that if SFMTA were to buy double decker buses, it was highly unlikely that any would come equipped with fabric seats. Some examples of passenger comments that convey the most positive and most negative are shown below. The full list of passenger comments is in Appendix G.

“The buses are good in all respects. I hope to see all buses change soon.”

“I would pay extra to ride the double deck bus. Thanks. Best ride to work all year!”

“Overall it looks good, but tedious to maintain.”

“Security is a must!” “Getting off would be hard for people. Driver has to stop longer.”

“This would restore my faith in MUNI. Truly the best idea in my 31 years of ridership. The ride was fast especially getting on and off. Instead of arriving at work jarred and frazzled by the cacophony equipment that’s makes you think your teeth will come loose; you feel as though you have been treated with the respect that a citizen of our beautiful city deserves. We are all too familiar with the rude manner and disdain with which we are usually greeted as riders of MUNI. You MUNI have a chance to change that, do the right thing for once, put these wonderful buses into service.”

24

SenioTo beset osurveseniogroupquestover tbus, senio Memboppor2007 ServicincreaAppe OperDurintraineand mstaff. questthree Appe

“Great! Maybe more people will take the bus & leave their cars at home!”

”

r and Disabltter understa

f questions oys were formrs and disabl was analyzeion). The highe double decaisle width, fr/disabled sur

ers of the tunity to tourprior to the es received ase accessibil

ndix I.

ator / SFMTAg the pilot dd and drove onitored the

All staff wereion for operaMTAP staff c

ndix K.

“Aisle is narrow. If no standing is allowed, it would be great.

“More seats in double decker + feels safer Also don't like where the articulated is jointed, had to ride these, don't like it.”

“I love this bus. I think this bus brings something to the S.F. streets.”

edndn aedd hk

eeve

M tst

ity

–emthbu atoom

“ Very little room for wheelchair maneuvering.”

“Seems like during rush hour, the double decker bus would be inconvenient. Instead of investing in a double decker, how about more buses running.”

“It's great to think SF might be on the same level as London”

“For now this a novelty it's fun to ride and its nice and clean but with the vandals it will look like all the other buses

25

Passenger Surveys – Additional Questions / Special Event the needs of all of its customers, SFMTA included an additional the survey directed towards the senior/disable community. The

tted in large print on yellow paper. Unfortunately, relatively few passengers completed these surveys, but data specific to this from other questions using a cross-tabulation with question 7 (age lights of the findings included a preference for articulated buses er bus on several parts of question 9 (ease of movement inside the ling of safety, and feeling of being crowded). A majority of the y respondents did not feel safe using the stairs.

uni Accessibility Advisory Committee (MAAC) were given an he vehicle during a two-hour public demonstration in December art of service. Following the demonstration, SFMTA Accessible letter of support, and a list of specific recommendations on how to on the double decker from the Mayor’s Office on Disability. See

Muni Transit Assistant Program (MTAP) Surveysonstration, approximately a half-dozen SFMTA operators were

e bus, and about ten MTAP staff acted as SFMTA ambassadors s while it was in service. Survey forms were made available to all sked to answer the same seven questions, followed by one unique rs and one unique question for MTAP staff. Four operators and

pleted the surveys. A copy of the survey results can be found in

26

The first question asked staff to “name the three greatest benefits passengers received by riding on the double decker bus”. The most frequent answers were: 1) the view and the experience of riding on the upper level, 2) the increased seating capacity, and 3) (tie) the comfort of the bus (unclear if seats / suspension or both) the ease of getting on and off of a low-floor bus. Although low-floors are not unique to double deckers, the comments reaffirmed a passenger preference for low-floor vehicles. The comments also reflected the overall passenger fondness for double deckers in general, and the desire by many to ride on the upper level. The second question asked staff to “name the three greatest challenges passengers faced by riding on the double decker bus”. The most frequent answers were: 1) the stairway (crowded, narrow, slippery when wet, hard for seniors to climb, hard for anyone to climb or descend while the bus was in motion), 2) wheelchair clearance, 3) lack of standing room, and 4) low ceiling on the upper level. Every returned survey mentioned a concern about the stairs. The third question asked staff to “describe the three greatest benefits SFMTA obtained by operating the double decker bus during the pilot trial”. The most frequent responses were: 1) the positive attention the test brought to SFMTA (with most passengers being in favor of SFMTA purchasing the vehicle), 2) the larger seating capacity, 3) the reduced length that allowed easier on-street movement for operators, and 4) the steering and braking are good, which would be of value to SFMTA operators. Two responses took opposing view of the key upper level camera feature, with one response stating it was a good innovative idea, while the other stated that constant security would be needed on the bus to prevent tagging or other vandalism. One response from a staff person that didn’t like the double decker bus said that SFMTA obtained “no benefits – absolutely nothing”. The fourth question asked staff to “describe the three greatest challenges SFMTA faced by operating the double decker bus during the pilot trial”. The most common responses were: 1) enforcement of regulations (no eating, drinking, music playing and no graffiti and vandalism), especially among younger passengers, 2) the lack of a hill-holder device to limit movement while passengers are boarding or alighting, 3) low overhead clearance and obstructions (trees, wires at some locations). The regulations / security issue is possibly the largest single challenge to overcome. Although security cameras on the upper level and above the stairway allow a double decker operator to monitor passenger activity, it is likely that problems (graffiti or other vandalism) on the rear portion of the upper level will equal or exceed the same type of negative activity that occurs in the rear section of articulated buses. The fifth question asked staff to “describe the most positive event and most negative event you directly observed while riding on the double decker bus during the pilot trial”. On the positive side, every returned survey, except one from a staff person that didn’t like the bus, listed the positive passenger comments and complimentary feedback. One added, the look at children’s reaction after riding the bus. On the negative side, the two items that repeated were, the negative passenger comments, especially concerning the small amount of accessible seating on the lower level, and

27

concerns about vandalism that would be likely to occur if SFMTA purchased this type of vehicle and placed it into service. The sixth question asked staff to “describe three things about the bus you would change after observing the double decker in service during the pilot trial”. The most common responses concerned safety: 1) wider stairway or second stairway, 2) anti-slip strips on stairway, 3) rougher floor to prevent slipping when wet, 4) widen wheelchair space, 5) taller roof on upper level, 6) larger operator compartment, 7) add a hill-holder device, 8) modify seat layout so more are accessible on the lower level. A couple of comments, including the staff person that strongly disliked the bus stated that nothing needed to be changed. The seventh question asked staff to respond to the following situation. “If you were able to see the double decker bus with a full load of passengers (70 or more) or a crush load (100+), describe the reactions and movements of passengers while the bus was very full”. The comments received were not detailed, but a few repeat comments were recorded. Congestion at the stairwell was significant as passengers from the upper level, many of whom had queued on the stairs waited to get off. Passengers near the stairwell had to move forward to allow passengers in the rear on the lower level and those on the upper level a chance to get off. By moving forward they collided with new passengers entering at the front door. Much of the confusion and congestion was lessened by the presence of MTAP staff – who would not be present in regular service operation. There were differences of opinion whether or not passengers had difficulty boarding or alighting with full or crush loads. The eighth question was addressed only to operators and asked them to “describe unique things you observed about driving the double decker bus during the pilot trial”. On the positive side three operators felt the bus performed well. It turned well, braked well, and was smooth to operate. One operator added, “My experience with driving the bus was excellent. It was a challenge and a new learning experience for me. I really enjoy driving the double decker. I would love to have it as a part of MTA”. On the negative side, one operator felt the bus was top heavy, and another commented that it was difficult to see possible overhead obstructions in the dark at night. The ninth question was addressed only to MTAP staff and asked them to “describe the group of passengers (youth, seniors, parents, high school kids, disabled, women, men or any other you can describe that like the bus the best, and describe the group of passenger that disliked the bus the most”. Overall, no one group seemed to enjoy the bus more than another was a comment reflected in more than one survey. A few operators answered this question too. The view was that a very high percentage of passengers highly enjoyed riding on the bus. Small children and school age kids were the most enthusiastic, and loved to ride on the upper level. The groups that disliked it the most were disabled and senior passengers, because of the limited number of accessible seats on the lower level. Even this group generally liked the low-floor aspect of the bus, but they were very concerned about the low number of seats that didn’t require a step up on the lower level.

28

A final opportunity to write additional comments was offered to all staff at the end of the survey. The open comments restated negative and positive comments addressed above. Mulitple surveys stated a belief that security on the upper level was a major issue that needed to be addressed if SFMTA is serious about procuring double decker buses to use in regular service. Multiple surveys also stated that most of the passengers that used the bus gave it positive marks, and a decision by SFMTA to acquire double deckers for use would be an asset to the agency. Part V: Observations by the Report Author: SF Pilot Demonstration During the time the double decker bus was at SFMTA in December 2007-January 2008, the author was a passenger and observed the vehicle in service on seven different in-service trips. The author rode on the bus for at least one trip on each of the routes that were served. In addition to a desire to experience actual bus operations, the author wanted to directly observe some key elements to see if the bus was “up to the task” to handle them. Crush Load Experience On two occasions during the SFMTA pilot demonstration the author observed “crush loads” when the double decker bus had over 105 passengers on the vehicle at one time. The first occasion was a westbound trip in the PM peak on Route 38L. The bus started out from downtown with a heavy load, and by Mason Street it was completely full with about 115 seated and standee passengers. Although it seemed that more passengers could not fit onto the vehicle, a few more were able to board as the bus moved west on O’Farrell Street. MTAP staff located on the upper level confirmed that all seats were occupied, no standees were present, and the author was able to count seated passengers and standees on the lower level. The total ranged between 115 and 120 for the next several stops to Fillmore Street. After Fillmore, the crowding eased slightly. While the bus was full about 4-10 passengers alighted and boarded at each of the stops, but the “passenger flow” was no worse than past observations made on a crush load articulated bus. A question raised by MTAP staff during this trip was, what is the rationale for the prohibition against standees on the upper level? No one at SFMTA had a definitive answer, but the belief is it is a safety issue due to the low ceiling and lack of grab bars for passengers. The second crush load experience occurred on a 1BX trip westbound in the PM peak. Unlike the 38L, the 1BX was completely full during the express portion of its route between downtown and California and Fillmore. At the first stop about a dozen passenger alighted and the crush load was abated. Based on these observations, the author believes the double decker bus performed very well in these difficult conditions. Although it was very crowded, the lower number of standees allowed less congestion and confusion than what previously experienced crush loads on a articulated bus when the bus was boarding and alighting passengers at a stop in similar conditions. So even though the double decker performed worse than an articulated bus on average dwell time (see above), the movement of passengers was more structured and orderly on the double decker during the very crowded conditions. A passenger using a wheelchair could not have boarded under these conditions without

29

forcing other passengers to leave the bus, but the same would have been true for an articulated bus that was as crowded as the double decker was on these two trips. Loading and Unloading Observation – “The Agitator” The experience of observing crush load conditions on the double decker bus allowed the author to carefully watch the boarding and alighting processes for the vehicle in the most challenging conditions possible. The processes observed were similar to those observed at times when the bus was busy (75% of capacity), but not completely full. The passenger flow pattern that emerged was fairly consistent. As expected, passengers entered almost exclusively through the front door, and then started to walk toward the stairwell and / or lower level seats, most of which are located in an area past the rear door. The area between the operator / front door and the rear door (named “the throat” by the author) held 6-8 people. Unless more than 8 people were boarding at a stop, by the time the first passengers boarding had passed through the throat and reached the stairwell, the alighting passengers had exited through the rear door so there was no conflict between those entering and those departing the bus. Passengers almost exclusively exited via the rear door. The offset of the door from the stairwell by about two feet placed the upper level passengers at a disadvantage to access the rear door – as compared to those on the lower level. The end result was that lower level passengers almost always got to the rear door first. Upper level passengers came down the stairs and waited their turn to alight from the bus. It seemed very organized, and was done with minimal or no communication between passengers. At stops where a high number of passengers were boarding or alighting, or a higher number than 10 or so passengers were alighting, the two groups came into conflict with one another at a location near the stairwell. The author nicknamed this area “the Agitator”, because the overall effect of the interaction between boarding and alighting passengers resembled a washing machine agitator. Two streams of alighting passengers - one group from the rear lower level seats and one group from the upper level seats interacted with two streams of boarding passengers: one group wanting to sit in the rear lower level seats, and one group wanting to sit on the upper level. They successfully moved past each other, but in an almost formal way as they “swirled” around a focal point near the stairway, rather than in a haphazard way as the author had often observed on an articulated bus with three doors. Public Perception While the issue of public perception will be addressed in a more comprehensive manner in the Survey Data Collection and Analysis section, a few words are appropriate here. In summary, passengers loved the double decker bus. The positive and enthusiastic response received from passengers when they were told that Muni was considering purchasing transit vehicles of this type was almost universal. Muni was commended over and over for being “smart” and testing the bus in a pilot demonstration. It has been the author’s experience that the only other vehicles that receive this type of public response are cable cars and some historic streetcars (such as the Blackpool Boat Car).

30

Safety and Security (Delinquent Activity / Stairwell / Low Ceiling) Safety and security were important concerns. The double decker bus was equipped with six cameras, and a monitor that showed images of the upper level, the rear door, and stairwell to the operator. It was also equipped with a public address system that could broadcast inside and outside of the bus. Although the cameras provided good views to the operator, they could not see every corner of the bus, and operators could not continually watch the monitor. The physical task of driving the vehicle and collecting fares is the primary focus of the operator. Concerns about unsafe activity on the upper level were comparable to concerns regarding vandalism and unsafe activity that occur in the rear section of articulated buses. The most noted safety and security issue observed by the author was the continuious presence of MTAP staff during the double decker pilot demonstration. One graffiti episode took place, and ironically the author was present on the bus (38L) when it occurred at Geary Blvd. and 33rd Avenue. The offender was detained and arrested. The basic assumption is that double decker buses would operate with only one staff person (operator), because the cost of having a second staff person is not feasible. While the preceding statement is true, if SFMTA were to acquire double deckers for service, it is the author’s opinion that an effort should be made to have uniformed or plain clothes security on the vehicles more frequently than on the other buses in the fleet, because these would possibly become magnets for graffiti taggers and other delinquent behavior during the time they are new vehicles in the SFMTA fleet. Signage in English, Spanish, and Chinese was installed at key locations on the double decker bus to remind passengers of low ceilings, to watch their step, and not to stand in the stairwell while the bus was in motion. The area with the most potential danger was the stairwell between the lower and upper levels. Although well designed with plenty of safety markings and features, the fact remains that it is a stairwell that passengers are required to use – while on a moving vehicle. The author didn’t see anyone completely fall down, but did see passengers slip, mis-step, trip, and struggle on the stairs. The rear facing stairwell was designed as a square with side entrance steps on the upper and lower levels. It is arguably the safest design available. 1A wall at the bottom of the stairwell combined with the last stair down to the main floor requiring a 90 degree turn prevented passengers from falling outside of the stairwell if they did slip and fall. The wall allowed some passengers to regain their balance after they slipped - without ever completing a fall. 1 This statement is based upon the following facts. The likelihood of a rapid deceleration (emergency braking) is much higher than rapid acceleration. A rear facing stairwell results in passengers facing forward as they climb the stairs. The majority of their body mass is below the railing handhold. Sudden braking or stops cause a person to “kneel” into the stairs. Sudden acceleration causes a person to be pushed backward, which usually can be controlled by holding onto a railing. Passengers descending the stairwell “sit down” if the bus suddenly decelerates, and are pitched backward to the rear of the bus if there is sudden acceleration. This last action is the most dangerous because the person is at their weakest ability to grab onto a handrail to hold on as most of their body mass is above the railing handhold. In contrast a forward facing stairwell operates in an opposite manner as passengers face rearward as they climb the stairs. Sudden acceleration causes passengers to “kneel” in the stairwell as they climb the stairs, and sudden deceleration or braking forces them to be pulled forward, which can usually control by holding onto a railing. Passengers descending the stairs will “sit down” if the vehicle suddenly accelerates, but they will be pitched forward – with little to hold onto if the vehicle has to brake quickly, because again, the majority of their body mass is above the railing handhold. Because severe braking is more common than severe acceleration, a rear-facing stairway is safer..

The low ceiling height of 5’7” on the upper level and 6’6” on the lower level (which shrinks to 5’7” at the farthest location on the rear of the lower level) were also safety issues. The author observed passengers bump their heads on multiple occasions. Every SFMTA staff person that rode the bus bumped their head at least once. The low ceiling height on the upper level precluded standees, but during crush loads shorter passengers asked if they could stand in the upper level – and a few may have done so if MTAP staff didn’t see them. They were told no at the time, but the issue remains open and needs to be resolved if SFMTA were to decide to obtain double decker buses.

Above photo shows view dow Center photo shows video ca Right photo show passengers

The tall height of a doubletipping over in certain cirhave a high percentage o500 can safely lean ovedanger of tipping over. Psome other problem befor Ride Quality The ride quality of the ADequipped with a single froassisted by double acting solid on all trips, and exhnear the hinged joint locatride. Ride quality on the movement during turns. diminish. Part VI: Observations In May 2008 the authCommission (SNRTC) stalarge scale on-street serenhanced AD Enviro 500

n stairway

mera screen (arrow) bus operato

on upper level with the low 5’7”

decker bus caused manycumstances. The AD Envf gross vehicle weight at ar 30% off-center while full

assengers are likely to be the bus would tip over.

Enviro 500 double deckernt axle, double rear axle widampeners in the front (2) ibited none of the “bounceion. Passengers commenteupper level was also good Movement on steep up

by the Report Author: Sor met with Southern ff to discuss their experie

vice, and to discuss theirdouble decker buses by sum

r uses to view upper level

ceiling

people to raise the possibility of it iro 500 is carefully engineered to low center of gravity. The Enviro y loaded with passengers without ecome ill from motion sickness or

bus was very good. The bus was th air springs front (2) and rear (4), and in the rear (6). The vehicle felt ” experienced on articulated units d on the quality and stability of the

without any unexpected feelings of grades and downgrades did not

ervice--Las Vegas Nevada Regional Transportation nces with double decker buses in plans to deploy a new series of

mer 2008.

31

32

The enhanced AD Enviro 500 buses are approximately 2 feet longer than the existing basic Enviro 500 buses, and will have two stairways instead of one. The extra stairway will result in a net loss of 1 seat in overall seating capacity. It is expected that the two stairway buses will load more efficiently and unload faster than the existing buses, which will reduce dwell time. At a first glance exterior view, the new longer buses do not appear any different from the older shorter buses. Las Vegas plans to implement the new double decker buses on the Deuce Route that serves Las Vegas Blvd. (The Strip) where they will replace single stairway double decker buses that will be moved to less congested routes. The Deuce Route carries 40,000 passengers daily. Las Vegas plans to implement a second BRT route between downtown and McCarran Airport via Las Vegas Blvd. with service operating in a mixture of exclusive and non-exclusive lanes which uses a single level 42-seat bus made by the Wright Company of Northern Ireland. The double decker buses will provide parallel local service for this BRT concept that is planned to start service in late 2009. Part VII: Vehicle Design Meetings with Alexander Dennis Staff Shortly after the initiation of the pilot demonstration in mid-December 2007, SFMTA staff in Capital Systems Planning and Service Planning met with Alexander Dennis staf to discuss several issues regarding design of the double decker bus, and possible modifications to make it a better fit to SFMTA plans and operations. Based on the outcome of that meeting and the ongoing pilot demonstration, a second meeting was scheduled for late February 2008. Present at the second meeting were the above mentioned groups, plus staff from SFMTA Operations. Buy American and Production Timeline At the current time (spring 2008), Alexander Dennis (AD) is the only “major” double deck transit bus producer that is able to meet Buy America standards for some units of their vehicle lineup, and is in the process of meeting Buy America standards for other units that have not yet been approved. AD production facilities are located in the UK (Scotland and England), with a satellite office in southern California. Small single unit U.S. bus manufacturers or fabricators do exist that can craft a double decker bus, but AD is the only large established producer that has a sizable presence in the North American market (U.S. Canada and Mexico). Van Hool of Belgium, which has double decker buses in its vehicle lineup, has delivered a sizable fleet to AC Transit in Oakland, CA, but no double decker buses have been ordered by AC Transit. The Van Hool buses have been allowed to be purchased without meeting Buy America requirements by not including federal funds in the purchase funds. At this time AC Transit has not yet asked Van Hool for use of a double decker bus to run a pilot demonstration similar to the SFMTA December 2007-January 2008 pilot demonstration of the AD Enviro 500. Given their current production setup in the UK, AD staff stated that buses are generally delivered to a purchaser within 14-20 months from the date or final specifications and placement of order. Durations on the higher end of the timeline or in excess of 20 months are usually the result of more extensive modifications or the addition of any unique features that are made to any production vehicle in their lineup. The cost of the new two-stairway Enviro 500 models recently delivered to Las Vegas was about

33

$750,000 per unit. With upgrades and unique equipment that may be requested by SFMTA, this cost would likely increase by 15%-35% per unit. Longer Vehicle The first issue raised in December was the challenges of producing a 45’ double decker bus. Although SFMTA staff was impressed with the 40’ Enviro 500 model, several issues were present that might be solved by lengthening the bus. Three key issues were: 1) the small number of available accessible seats on the lower level, 2) a desire for consideration of a door on the left side (see two items below) and, 3) a desire for a longer flat floor area to handle standee passengers during crush loads. AD has lengthened the standard 40’ Enviro 500 to 42’ for production of new vehicles to be delivered to Las Vegas, so SFTMA staff asked if the bus could be extended a bit further? The conceptual answer was yes, but the real answer was no. Stephen Walsh, Alexander Dennis Vice-President, stated that for a price, anything is possible, but a further extension beyond a 42’ length would encounter enough problems with modifications to the existing frame and engineering to require almost a complete redesign of the bus from the ground up. Las Vegas has started to take deliver of the new longer buses with two stairways instead of one. Due to creative design, the new double stairway double decker buses only have 1 less seat (82 vs. 83) than the single stairway design. Taller Ceiling Height The AD Enviro 500 model is 14’0” tall. Taller double decker buses (near 15’) exist in service in the UK. In an effort to make the 5’ 7” ceiling height higher on the upper level, SFMTA staff asked if the overall height on the double decker bus could be raised by even a few inches. AD informed us that raising the height is a challenge in several ways. The 14’0” height was selected to be in conformance with U.S. DOT height restrictions. SFMTA could seek a waiver to those restrictions, and could probably obtain such a waiver, but assurances would need to be in place that the service and deadhead routes would have safe clearance around San Francisco. Existing electric overhead used by trolleycoaches, light rail vehicles and historic streetcars is suspended at a height of 18’ above the ground. The larger challenge is vehicle production. Similar to the concerns regarding extending the length to 45’, raising bus height is feasible, but would require production of a custom set of panels, glass, and other parts. This would require extensive engineering and design modifications, and result in substantial costs that would not be present with a standard height double decker bus. AD staff stated that the work could be done, but it would probably require a sizable order (100 units estimate) to make it acceptable to AD and to SFMTA. Left Side Doors The possibility of modifying the existing design of either a 40’ or a 42’ double decker to add a left side door (or doors) was the next issue raised. The rationale behind this question was tied to an alternative in the ongoing Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project that includes the use of center platforms that would require buses with dual side doors. A similar alternative is also present in the Geary Bus Rapid Transit project alternatives.

34

Mr. Walsh could not answer definitively whether the addition of a left door (or doors) was feasible with the Enviro 500 model, but stated he would research the question. At the follow-up meeting in February, Tom Harley, AD’s Chief Engineer, stated that it was feasible to add one left side door to the existing design. Some other changes would be required to adjust the floor layout to assure continued accommodation of two wheelchair securement areas, but this could be done by use of folding jump seats adjacent to the rear right door and the left door. Since only one door would be used at any given time, folding jump seats could block the door that is not in use for that portion of the service route. A second door was not feasible either near the front or in the back. A second door in the middle was theoretically feasible, but its negative impacts included the loss of accessible and regular seating. The loss of accessible seating, which already is less on the double decker than on articulated buses was not found to be acceptable by SFMTA staff. Trolley Coach Mode Operation Given SFMTA’s uninterrupted 60+year history of operating electric trolley coach transit buses, a basic question raised by SFMTA staff concerned the ability and interest of AD to produce double decker trolley coaches. AD is not currently producing, and is not planning on offering a trolley coach double decker bus as part of their regular vehicle lineup in the future. However, Stephen Walsh and Tom Harley both stated that if SFMTA was seriously interested in procuring double decker trolley coaches, AD was willing to research the effort it would take to produce this type of vehicle. AD produced double decker trolley coaches in the past, but the last models went into service around 50 years ago. The two men surmised that production of this type of vehicle would likely require a three-party arrangement between SFMTA, AD and a third party powerplant provider. Skoda was mentioned as a possible third party, but no one at Skoda has been contacted to ascertain their interest, availability, etc. Their mention was just a thought. Another interesting fact that could possibly relate to this issue is that the standard AD design for the Enviro 500 model double decker bus includes air conditioning, with the main hardware being located in the rear of the vehicle immediately above the engine compartment. SFMTA traditionally has not ordered buses with air conditioning, which if followed regarding a purchase of double deckers, would result in an additional large open space adjacent to the engine compartment that could be fitted with other hardware necessary for trolley coach operation. Again, as with questions concerning raising the overall height to achieve a taller upper level and adding in a left side door, modifications of this extent to the basic vehicle design would require a purchase commitment and a fairly substantial assembly line production run to allow AD to recoup design costs and earn a profit. An initial estimate for AD to perform a detailed feasibility assessment would require a one-time up-front commitment by SFMTA of approximately $60,000-$100,000. Hybrid / Zero Emission Operation Options AD has designed a hybrid double decker bus using the Enviro 500 as a base model. The bus is in testing right now, but it is believed that AD will begin taking orders in the

near future. The hybrid bus uses an Allison hybrid diesel system with a ZF transmission. Present at the second SFMTA – AD meeting was John Boothe of ISE Corporation of San Diego, manufacturer of hybrid fuel buses that are either paired with internal combustion engines or with fuel cell buses. London is planning on taking delivery of 5 of the hybrid-fuel cell buses and 5 of the hybrid-diesel buses by 2010. The hybrid-fuel cell bus is noteworthy as it is a zero emission vehicle. Outstanding issues for consideration include the very high cost of individual vehicles ($2 million plus is initial estimate) plus the high cost of maintenance. Part of this high cost is due to the complexity of the vehicle, and of the fuel cell unit which based upon current (2008) technology, requires replacement at least 3 times during the average 12-14 year lifespan of a transit vehicle. Basic Modifications: Cord Stop Request / Visible and Voice Next Stop Information Vent Windows / Wheelchair Lifts / Plastic Seats / Safety Doors / Grab Poles / In addition to questions concerning large changes to the existing Enviro 500 design, AD staff were asked about the possibilities of making several smaller changes, most of which were reflected in passenger comments. AD staff believed it would be possible to use cords instead of buttons, or provide a combination of cords and buttons to allow passengers to request stops. They believed installation of visible and voice next stop announcement information could be accomplished, and they believed the existing format for grab poles could be enhanced to ensure passengers could grab onto a safety handhold when necessary. Wheelchair lifts of the type used on other SFMTA vehicles could be used instead of the type used by the pilot demonstration bus, and it would be possible to equip the rear door with a safety interlock to prevent accidental bus acceleration while passengers were still alighting or were near the bus. Plastic seats could be used in place of the fabric seats, and vent windows could be installed, especially if SFMTA decided against air conditioned buses.

35

36

Pilot Demonstration Summary: Strengths / Challenges Part I: Strengths and Challenges All SFMTA staff that performed a role in the pilot demonstration were in agreement that the AD Enviro 500 double decker bus had many positive points, and several challenging issues, making a choice to go forward and procure buses, or not go forward a very challenging decision. The strongest positive features of the double decker bus are: 1) the greater seating capacity, 2) the distinctive appearance of the vehicle, 3) the favorable public perception, 4) the smaller footprint it utilizes while in service and while in storage. Double decker buses have a 25%-50% greater seating capacity than articulated buses (71-88 seats vs. 55-57 seats). The deployment of a large number of double decker buses (i.e. 50-100) on Muni routes in San Francisco would mean that thousands of transit passengers that now often must stand would be able to sit down while riding Muni every day. This would equate to millions of passengers over a year of time. Access to more seats is a very marketable factor. The distinctive appearance of the vehicles will gradually fade over time, as perceived by local passengers, but for a “honeymoon” period, the vehicles will be in the spotlight. How long would the honeymoon last? A couple of years? Three or four years? Longer? Any of these possible time periods correspond to unequalled opportunities to attract new riders to Muni and polish the overall image of the SFMTA and transit in general. These benefits should positively impact the ongoing changes proposed by the TEP as they are implemented. Assuming double decker buses are replaced on the same schedule as regular single level buses, the honeymoon period could easily last for 25%-33% or longer of the vehicle life. The potential value to SFMTA appears significant. The branding ability (advertising revenue / iconic value) should fade only slightly during the entire lifespan of the vehicle, and it is possible it may not fade at all. There are several legendary rail transit vehicles that have existed throughout history, and two of the most popular, the cable car and the PCC streetcar, continue to operate in San Francisco. By comparison, no U.S. manufactured buses, excepting the canvas topped tour coaches used in National Parks from the 1930s-1960s (still present in Glacier National Park) have a similar public charm. However, double decker buses, due to their success and widespread use in the United Kingdom and in other locations, such as Hong Kong, enjoy public popularity on a level that approaches classic rail vehicles. The value of a smaller vehicle footprint while in service and while in storage will also not fade during the lifespan of the vehicle. The added value of maximizing vehicle storage at congested SFMTA bus yards is yet another significant positive impact that should not be understated. The TEP process and expansion plans for service in the eastern neighborhoods of San Francisco demonstrate that SFMTA needs to develop greater storage and maintenance capacity for the rubber-tired fleet. The use of a large number of double decker buses would reduce the space needs and “buy time” for SFMTA to

37

address the issue in a rational manner rather than address the issue in an emergency manner. The greatest challenges concerning features of the double decker bus are: 1) the lack of an existing trolley coach product in the marketplace 2) the reduced number of accessible seats (compared to most articulated buses), 3) longer average dwell time at stops, and 4) limits on design modifications (dual side boarding / low ceilings / length of vehicle) The lack of newer modern double decker trolley coaches is another negative issue. If AD were to consider production, it appears certain a third party engine manufacturer would be required to join the team. The development of a trolley coach double decker would likely, although not certainly, mean that SFMTA would once again own and operate an “orphan” vehicle that would not be used by other transit agencies in the U.S. and North America. Replacement parts would likely be more difficult to obtain or be specially ordered, and maintenance would be more expensive. Several principal members of the senior/disabled community in San Francisco were invited by SFMTA to tour the bus and offer comments at a special event in December prior to the bus entering service. A few had neutral comments, but most of them did not like the double decker bus. Although some of their comments concerning tight spaces, especially for wheelchairs, have been addressed in later Enviro 500 models, the facts remain unchanged that the number of accessible seats is about 50% less (7-8) on a double decker bus versus (14) on an articulated bus, and that the upper level seats will not be usable by most members of this group. There were no hard numbers I could ascertain, but Accessible Services staff offered an educated estimate that 20% of Muni passengers are seniors or disabled. The limitations on design modifications are negative because they constrain the ability to soften some of the less appealing aspects of the double decker bus design (e.g. low number of accessible seats / low ceiling height). In an effort to provide the widest passenger platforms, SFMTA is seriously considering the use of dual side access articulated vehicles for BRT service. These require left side boarding and alighting which is a technically feasible modification for the Enviro 500, but a modification that would result in several other undesirable effects to the bus (lost seating / likelihood of passenger congestion). The fourth negative is a longer average dwell time. This directly impacts vehicle speed and slows running times. Using the Van Ness BRT project as an example, if the average dwell time (29 seconds) was recorded at each of the proposed 11 stops, using the double decker would result in 120 seconds more run time than if the route used an articulated bus (18 seconds), and this discrepancy would likely increase if the double decker bus was built with dual side loading – and needed to load / unload passengers from only 1 door on the left side. With fare machines, multi-door boarding (right side only), POP, or some combination of these actions, the dwell time issue may be reduced, but except at low ridership levels, it doesn’t appear to go away. More research would be useful on this question.

38

Part II: Double Decker Bus Placed into a Service Perspective The pilot demonstration and subsequent analysis was a good and useful process to test a new unique transit vehicle and compare it to existing transit vehicles in the SFMTA fleet. SFMTA widely received positive comments from passengers, the press, and other interested parties for undertaking the pilot demonstration. The completion of the double decker bus pilot demonstration in January 2008 and subsequent data analysis did not reveal any obvious fatal flaws that could be cited to end consideration of using double decker buses at SFMTA. The positives and negatives of the double decker bus pilot demonstration have been addressed above, so it is not necessary to repeat that information here. The demonstration and data analysis did reveal a snapshot into the real-life experience of operations of this type of vehicle. It showed there are significant differences between double decker buses and articulated buses in their operation characteristics and ability to carry heavy passenger loads in the transit environment that exists within San Francisco. A key element, perhaps the key element, for consideration among SFMTA staff in making a determination to procure this type of vehicle is whether the service focus for key major transit routes (BRT service or Rapid Network in the TEP) should be focused primarily on speed or based on a combination of speed and passenger amenities. In the former concept, which is decidedly more urban, or similar to metro or subway service, the focus is on passengers taking short transit trips and high passenger volume. Vehicle speed and dwell time are very important. Transit vehicles that fit this niche offer a lower number of seats, more standee room, and a maximum number of doors to speed boarding and alighting. In the latter concept, which is more suburban, or similar to classic “streetcar suburb” service, speed and passenger comfort are evaluated more equally. Transit vehicles that fit this niche offer a higher number of seats, fewer doors for boarding and alighting, and slightly slower dwell times, although the service can still be relatively fast. The latter concept is a good fit for the double decker bus. The former concept is not. If the latter concept discussed above is compatible with a future vision for BRT and rapid network service at SFMTA on at least some routes in San Francisco – then the final conclusion is the AD Enviro 500 double decker bus appears to be a competitive alternative to articulated buses as a vehicle to transport passengers in heavy transit service

39

Report Recommendations To go forward or not – that was the big question – and remains the big question? From the outset of the pilot demonstration, SFMTA staff has worked to collect data to allow a decision to procure or not to procure double decker buses to be made using the best information available. Part I: Four Alternative Courses of Action The issues are complex and the decision will not be easy, but at this time some clear alternative courses of action exist that should be considered by SFMTA management:

1) Perform a second pilot demonstration – with one (or preferably more than one) vehicle. Test the vehicle(s) for a longer period of time and under more challenging conditions.

2) Seek a funding source to purchase a small number (2-12) of double decker buses and give them a vigorous test in service prior to making a decision to procure double deckers in larger numbers.

3) Take steps to purchase a larger number (12+) of double decker buses and plan their deployment into the SFMTA system. Decide that the recently completed pilot demonstration provided enough information to conclude that double decker buses should be a new type of vehicle in the SFMTA fleet.

4) Decide not to consider double decker buses as a service vehicle at this time. Part II: Report Recommendation As the author of this report, and one of the key SFMTA staff that organized and performed oversight of the double decker pilot demonstration, the following actions are recommended as the next steps SFMTA management should consider:

• Look into purchasing or procuring (leasing) a small fleet of the two stairway double decker buses ordered and delivered recently in Las Vegas for additional testing,

• Do not look further into the design of a dual-side door design for the double decker bus, and

• Look into contracting with Alexander Dennis to perform an initial analysis on the feasibility of the production of a double decker electric trolley coach.

The pilot demonstration was a good first step, but more extensive research should be undertaken prior to taking the large step of adoption of double decker buses as an integral vehicle in the SFMTA fleet. Adoption of the proposed recommended actions will allow SFMTA to test the feasibility of any unique SFMTA desired design modifications on the small fleet of vehicles prior to any large future procurement. Assuming the outcome of a more extensive pilot demonstration will be positive, the timing of the small scale procurement should coordinate with revision of a long-term SFMTA maintenance and storage plan, and a long-term fleet plan that would allow double decker buses to be procured in large quantities when the FTA vehicle procurement schedule cycles back to San Francisco in the 2010-2017 time period. If the more extensive double decker bus pilot demonstration is not positive and SFMTA

decides against a large scale procurement of double decker buses, SFMTA should not be in any worse position to procure new articulated buses in the 2013-2017 time period. Topfdt SsDefca Orp PEt SApdsPSvoo

AD Enviro 500 with dual side doors in SFM

he recommendation to continue research intn a desire and a need for SFMTA and AD strior to a determination concerning feasibility

urther research and design on the dual-sideoor on the left side is based on the findings ao be less than promising.

an Francisco has status as a world famoushould be used to help leverage agreementsennis, MTC, FTA and other interested partiextensively test a small fleet with an eye on leet of double decker buses is made. If San Fity after Las Vegas to make a significant invend industry impacts are likely to be felt across

ther staff may have a different recommendateport, and SFMTA management should seearticipated in the pilot demonstration.

art III: A Closer Look at the Four Altach of four presented alternatives has severa

hat are addressed below.

econd Pilot Demonstration lexander Dennis (AD) is able and willing rototype again for another test. A modificatiesel electric hybrid version is available for taff to see if it is possible to borrow more thaerformance issues on the second test canFMTA. Install a farebox on the bus and rathehicle interspaced between service blocks, pn a major trunk route. Limit MTAP support sn the vehicle at all while it is in service.

TA (Muni) paint scheme – artist rendition

o a trolley coach mode of power is based aff to learn more information on this issue and cost. The recommendation to stop door design with placement of a single nd information that show this modification

city and major transit city. This status and work out contracts with Alexander

s that would be necessary if a decision to the possible future acquisition of a large rancisco becomes the second major U.S. stment in double decker buses, the policy North America.

ion based upon the data presented in the k out opinions from all internal staff that

ernatives l finer points worthy of additional analysis

to allow SFMTA to use the Enviro 500 ion of this option would be to wait until a a test. SFMTA staff can check with AD n one vehicle for a test at the same time. be increased to provide more data to er than have it operate as a floating extra lace it into service as a scheduled vehicle taff to one person, or have no MTAP staff

40

41

Purchase a Small Number of Double Decker Buses SFMTA could decide for various reasons that it would be preferable to purchase (lease? or lease – purchase?) a small number of double decker buses to place into service. The rationale behind this conclusion can range from staff that do not believe that a second pilot demonstration, even if it is made more vigorous, will really provide a true review of the performance issues, to staff that believe the bus passed the “truth test” in the initial pilot demonstration, but feel it is better to start off slow and ease into using double deckers for regular service. The funding issues required to purchase a small number of vehicles are certainly less challenging than if a large number were to be purchased, but this doesn’t mean it is easy or that the money can readily be identified. (See footnote 2 below). The issues of maintenance, spare parts, storage location (yard), etc. would all need to be worked out. Beyond these most basic assumptions, the issues of funding are beyond the scope of knowledge of this study. This could also be an opportunity to fine tune the desired performance characteristics of double deckers prior to SFMTA making a larger purchase of this type of vehicle. The buses could possibly be modified to test the feasibility of incorporating design elements that were discussed by SFMTA staff and AD staff at meetings held during the pilot demonstration. It may be possible to include features such as the longer flat standee area, perimeter seating on the lower level, relocated wheelchair securements, and other proposed changes. The concept of studying the feasibility of outfitting a double decker bus to operate as a trolley coach may be something that would be addressed as part of a small purchase. Purchase a Larger Number (12+) of Double Decker Buses This option is mostly self explanatory. If SFMTA management is ready to add the double decker vehicle to the Muni fleet in large numbers, there are several vehicle replacement cycles on the horizon: 20102, 2013, 2014, 2015. Vehicle modifications, similar to those described in the previous sub-section could be undertaken in an early phase of procurement to set standards that are followed by subsequent phases of procurement. There are many large issues here, but some of the biggest include key decisions concerning storage and maintenance. Decide Not to Purchase Any Double Decker Buses This option is also mostly self explanatory. If SFMTA management decides that agency strategic goals and policies would best be served by not choosing to add double decker buses to the Muni fleet at the current time, the study and analysis of double decker buses is over and closed. It would remain closed, until a future time when SFMTA management decided to revisit the issue.

2 This date assumes recent information that there is not an FTA regulation requiring an 18-year lifespan for trolley coach vehicles. Similar to diesel buses, trolley coaches can be replaced after a 12-year lifespan. Thus, SFMTA trolley coaches scheduled for replacement in 2014 could be scheduled for replacement now. Pending review by MTC and other Bay Area operators, a more likely reasonable scenario is that the replacement window could open in 2010.

Par Thisfact Thestafbetwwellconrole JulieTJ LSuluDonDaisTon END

t IV: Endnotes

report is the record of the project. This report is an unbiased attempt to record the s, observations, and analysis that resulted from the pilot demonstration.

double decker bus pilot demonstration was a success due to the work of SFMTA f and management in several divisions that contributed to the effort that took place een October 2007 and April 2008. All staff that participated receive credit for a job

done, and management is recognized for a proactive and innovative spirit cerning this project. Key staff are listed below, but many others played important s in transforming the concept of a pilot demonstration into a completed project

Kirschbaum Elson Hao Peter Straus ansang Larry Garnes Donald Jordan lagi Aiiva’a Palega, Sr. Chimmy Lee Charles Armstrong Gee Jamie Osborne Judy Tam y Avalos Ted Aranas Adrian Moy y Parra Colin Dana Tom Sheridan

42

43

Appendices A: AD Enviro 500 Fact Sheet B: AD Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 40’ Design C: Contract Agreement between SFMTA and Alexander Dennis for Loan of Enviro 500 Bus D: SFMTA In Service Route Schedule: Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 E: Passenger Survey Form (Full Size) 2007-2008 F: Passenger Survey Data Matrix 2007-2008 G: Passenger Survey Comments 2007-2008 H: Passenger Survey Data / Comments – Senior and Disabled Passengers I: SFMTA Operator and MTAP Survey Data and Comments J Muni Accessibility Advisory Committee Comments: Mtg. 11-15-07 K: Recommendations from the Mayor’s Office on Disability L: Passenger Survey 1990 M: SFMTA Preparation for Double Decker Pilot Demonstration N: BUSRide Article: Las Vegas Double Decks (October 2007) O: AD Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 42’ Design P: Summary of Calgary Double Decker Trial (2003) Q: Artist Renditions of Enviro 500 in SF Muni paint scheme

44

45

Appendix A: Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 Fact Sheet

46

47

48

49

Appendix B: Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 40’ Design

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

Appendix C: Contract Agreement between SFMTA and Alexander Dennis Inc. for Loan of Enviro 500 Bus

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

Appendix D: SFMTA Service Route Schedule: Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008

76

77

78

79

Appendix E: Passenger Survey Form (Full Size) 2007-2008

80

81

82

83

Appendix F: Passenger Survey Data Matrix 2007-2008

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Appendix G: Passenger Survey Comments 2007-2008

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Appendix H: Passenger Survey Data – Senior and Disabled Passengers

114

115

1. Do you use a wheelchair? 2 yes 7 no 2. Do you use a mobility aid other than a wheelchair? 6 yes 2 no 3 cane

If yes, what type do you use?

1 cane & service dog 1 cane & leg braces 3. If you use a wheelchair, please answer the following: 3a. Did you feel safe boarding and exiting? 1 yes 2 no If not, why? “ Foot rest on chair bad turn getting onboard. Poor turning radius onboard vehicle at front.” 3b. Did the ramp slope feel appropriate? 3 yes 1 no 3c. Was the ramp wide enough for you? 2 yes 1 no 3d. Was there enough room for you to maneuver to the securement area? 1 yes 2 no 3e. Was the securement area large enough to accommodate your wheelchair / scooter? 1 yes 2 no 3f. Were the securements (belts, clamp) easy to use? 0 yes 2 no 3g. As the stop request feature easy to use? 0 yes 2 no 3h. Do you have any other comments about the ramp? “ Distance from front of ramp to hand hold is too far” “ Front area turning radius is not adequate for all chairs – needs a back/rear entrance ramp to work” “ The ramp is ok” “Miss hand holds on low-floor bus” 4. If you stepped into the bus, was the vehicle floor low enough to step in comfortably? 7 yes 0 no 5. Were there enough handholds? 5 yes 3 no 6. Was it easy for you to access priority seating? 4 yes 3 no 7. Did you access the upper level of the vehicle? 4 yes 3 no 8. Did you feel safe using the stairs? 1 yes 5 no If not why? “ I have a balance problem even with my service dog” “ I have bad knees” 9. Was it easy to get to a seat? 3 yes 4 no 10. I am using the bus to travel to (check all that apply) 5 work 6 shopping 3 school 6 doctor 5 other

116

10a. Please fill in the MUNI route this bus is servicing on below 1- 38(Geary) 11. I got on this bus at (fill in street name & cross street) 7- Market & Van Ness 12. I will get off of this bus at (fill in street name & cross street) 7-Market & Van Ness 13. I ride Muni 6 often(5+ days a week) 1 sometimes (2-4 days a week) 0 occasionally (1 day a week) 1 rarely (less than 1 day a week) 14. I prefer riding on the: 0 upper deck 5 lower deck 1 either deck 0 standing 15. I have difficulty climbing the stairs 6 yes 16. My age is: 0 under 18 0 18-30 0 31-45 0 46-55 6 56-64 1 65+ 17. I have ridden on a double deck bus before in: 3 London 2 Gray Line in SF 18. Do you have any additional comments about your experience on the bus? “ Lack of headroom makes standing impossible in 90% of the bus” “ I was standing on the bus during a demonstration when the bus did not move. The distance to the disable seats from the front of the bus is very long. Space between call buttons could be a problem for disabled. Not enough handholds. Upper deck roof is low for taller people. The driver will have trouble watching the road and both levels. Space for leg room is narrower in some places.” “Clearance for the front walkers and wheelchairs is not adequate. The seconf floor staircase is too steep, no upper level handholds. Loss of front accessible seating is terrible. Good for EXPRESS bus service routes, but not for rapid or frequent boarding and of boarding activity. Not really a first choice for BRT usage” “ My concern is with the wheelchairs. If they also have a service dog – there is not room for both” “ Take it back to Las Vegas” “ No seats by driver for people with health problems. I do IHSS health care for old people and these people I work for would have trouble getting to their seats before the bus starts moving after a stop. 19. Compare the double decker bus with an articulated (accordion) bus, or if you have not ridden on an articulated bus, compare it with a standard bus

117

Element Double Decker Artic/Std Tie Seats 0 4 0 Aisle width 0 5 0 Headroom (lower level) 1 3 1 Ease of getting on 4 1 0 Ease of getting off 4 1 0 Ease of movement inside 1 4 0 Ride quality 1 0 0 Noise level 1 0 1 View of outside 1 2 1 Feeling of safety 1 4 0 Feeling of being crowded 0 4 1 Size of the bus 1 2 0

118

119

Appendix I: Recommendations from the Mayor’s Office on Disability

120

121

Recommendations from the Mayor’s Office on Disability January 2008 1. We recommend the center door be switched with the first wheelchair position. This

will better align the stair exits with the door so that passenger traffic is not overlapping the wheelchair user side.

2. Provide an exit-entry ramp at the back door for wheelchair use. Make it wider than

36” so that wheelchair users do not have to align with precision when trying to exit the bus. Locating this as the wheelchair entry provides more maneuvering space at the top landing of the bus. The front entry is difficult to maneuver in and is not 36” clear. Having a wheelchair user come through the front door and traversing the narrow path to the center of the bus and then reversing their travel path for exit would require the front half of the bus to be emptied. There is no place for standing passengers to step aside when the wheelchair is exiting.

3. Retain the front entry ramp. The slope of this is more than acceptable. Current US

Access Board regulations for buses would permit 1:8. We did not measure the slope with the bus at regular rest or with the bus kneeling, but in both cases it appears to be 1:12 or less slope. The front ramp is extremely useful for people with ambulatory disability, walkers and crutches.

4. Some of the handrails at the front entry need to be pushed back from the clear

maneuvering space. Wheelchair users and walker users were bumping into them. 5. At the fare box location, we recommend the box be mounted in some other method

than resting on the raised pedestal that is integral to the floor. It would be better to have toe space under the fare box, when a wheelchair user is attempting to exit through the front door. We recommend 12” clear. (MUNI should assume that people will still attempt to exit through the front entry.)

6. US Access Board regulations require a minimum of some of the wheelchair position

to face forward. I thin both positions faced left or right to the direction of the bus, but the securement system on the right side location can pivot. (Author note: I think the forward facing requirement recently changed and is no longer in effect).

7. We recommend jump seats for the wheelchair positions, with the usual notices to

passengers to give these up to elderly and passengers with disabilities. 8. Some additional signage should be provided warning riders of restricted head

heights on this level.

122

123

Appendix J: Muni Accessibility Advisory Committee Comments: Mtg. 11-15-07

124

125

126

127

Appendix K: SFMTA Operator and MTAP Survey Data and Comments

128

129

Double Deck Bus Trial -- December 2007 – January 2008 SFMTA Staff Observer – Analysis Questions: MTAP Staff and Operators Overview: SFMTA staff that participated during the trial of the Alexander Dennis double deck bus are being asked to write comments based upon observations witnessed while the bus was in service. Please answer the following questions. At the end, please write any additional comments and thoughts you have regarding the operation of the double deck bus, and the potential for their use by SFMTA in the future. If you need more space to complete your answers, please write on the back of this paper, or use another sheet of paper. Return complete forms by Friday, February 1, 2008 (see below). Return a completed Analysis Questions to Charles Armstrong, Sulu, or send them via inter-office mail to Paul Bignardi, Transportation Planner – 1 South Van Ness – 7th Floor. Total Returned To Date: 5

1. Describe the 3 greatest benefits passengers received by riding in a double deck bus that you observed during the bus trial?

• A great view of the city (4) • More sitting and standing room (larger seated capacity) (3) • More convenience in boarding and exiting the bus (low floor bus) (2) • Coach suspension ride is much smoother (2) • Passengers loved riding on the upper deck • The bus was clean. ____________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe the 3 most difficult challenge passengers faced by riding in a double deck

bus that you observed during the bus trial? • Stair case in general caused most problems. (3) • Stair case unsafe for passengers exiting from top level while bus is in motion • Wheelchair lift and access is too narrow. • More room needed for wheelchairs. • Inadequate standing room • Passengers stepping down from elevated seats and falling • The hazard of moving to a seat while the bus is in motion. • How would seniors / disabled that are unable to climb the stairs obtain a seat when

the bus is crowded? • Low ceiling heights on upper deck and part of the lower deck • Rear doors do not have sensors - doors can slam shut on passengers

130

Double Deck Bus Trial -- December 2007 – January 2008 SFMTA Staff Observer – Analysis Questions: MTAP Staff and Operators

_________________________________________________________________ 3. Describe the 3 greatest benefits SFMTA obtained by operating the double deck bus

that you observed during the bus trial? • Passengers stated they would ride transit more often if SFMTA would invest in

more double deck buses – increased farebox (maybe) • Passengers searched out the bus to be able to experience a ride on a double deck bus • High levels of positive attention in media • Many new persons who don’t take transit, came out and tried the service Passenger

complaints regarding crowding were minimal – even when crowded – lots of seats • Reduced vehicle length compared to the articulated coaches – this reduces traffic congestion during rush hour, and allows more buses to be stored in a smaller yard space (2) • In my opinion, there are NO benefits to SFMTA _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Describe the 3 greatest challenges SFMTA faced by operating the double deck bus

that you observed during the bus trial? • Monitoring youth activity to prevent vandalism or graffiti tagging on the

upper deck (upper deck front two rows aren’t visible in camera) • Enforcing no eating, drinking or music playing policies on coach • Passenger accidents (stepping off elevated seats, use of stairs, low ceilings) • Avoidance of tree branches and other low items (overhead clearance) (2) • Loading and unloading (dwell time is increased) • Inadequate seating on the lower deck • Problems with senior / disabled seating – and the lack of support for this type of

vehicle voiced by this group ____________________________________________________________________ 5. Describe the most positive event and most negative event you observed while riding

the double deck bus during the bus trial? POSITIVE • Looking at children’s reactions after they rode the double deck bus • Observing the passengers being so happy to ride on the bus (2) • Positive feedback from passengers NEGATIVE • A group of teenagers boarded coach and tagged some seats on the upper deck.

(They were caught and arrested). • Tight fit for a wheelchair in the front section. • No standing allowed on the upper deck

131

Double Deck Bus Trial -- December 2007 – January 2008 SFMTA Staff Observer – Analysis Questions: MTAP Staff and Operators

__________________________________________________________________ 6. Describe the 3 things about the bus design you would change after observing the

double deck bus in service? • Add slip strips on stairs for passengers climbing up and down stairs • Add extra cameras including security for passenger safety vandalism and violence

prevention • Add censors to rear doors to prevent passenger from injury • Operator compartment could be a bit larger • Stairway should be a bit wider (2) • Change the seats – to the more durable MUNI plastic seats • Add a “hill holder” to the transmission or some other way to prevent rollback of

vehicle • Wheelchair access should be wider • I don’t like it. I didn’t even want to see it around in service • Two stairwells – one up and one down – like in Las Vegas • Upper deck ceiling should be taller. ____________________________________________________________ 7. If you were able to see the bus in operation with a full load of passengers (70 or

more) or a crush load (100 or more), describe the reactions and movements of passengers while the bus was very full? Did anyone have problems getting on or off?

Movement would be minimal passengers from second floor would have to be waiting on stairs to exit coach (Becoming a liability) passengers stading in the isles on first floor would have to move forward towards door to let sitting passengers exit causing more congestion. If Transit Assistant is not present to monitor passenger flow this will cause altercations between passengers who are blocking exit from top floor and doors.

With the heavy load, the passengers didn’t have enough room to hold on safely, but they still managed to get on and off safely. Yes, the crowding of passengers going down the stairs from the upper deck to leave the bus, and passengers attempting to go to the upper deck caused congestion.

132

Double Deck Bus Trial -- December 2007 – January 2008 SFMTA Staff Observer – Analysis Questions: MTAP Staff and Operators

_____________________________________________________________________ 8. Operators ONLY: Describe any unique things about driving the double deck bus

that made it a different experience from driving a single deck standard or articulated bus?

• The bus had a pleasing visual quality about it. Passenger commented that either when sitting upstairs or downstairs, the view was very nice.

• Smooth turning action. A good view from the operator compartment – better than several other SFMTA buses.

• Night driving was a challenge – darkness made it harder to spot low overhanging obstructions in time to avoid them.

• It seemed top heavy. _____________________________________________________________________ 9. MTAP ONLY: Describe the “group” of passengers -- youth, senior citizens,

parents, high school kids, disabled, women, men, or any other group you can describe -- that liked the bus the most, and describe the “group” of passengers that disliked the bus the most?

The group of passengers we encountered were a mixture of age groups. No specific age group was more common than any other. More woman thab men used the coach, and many women where with toddlers. Most passengers with small children like coach for the reason that it provided a nice view. The group that disliked the coach the most were seniors and person with disabilities since there are not enough seats for them there (7 vs. 10+ in an articulated bus). I didn’t have anyone dislike the bus. Most everyone was very happy to ride the bus. Some seniors liked the bus, but others didn’t because the senior / disabled seats were fewer, and they were located farther from the operator and front door. _____________________________________________________________________ 10. Write additional comments here. Not providing additional security to monitor passengers’ activity and flow will become a big issue. Doors need automatic sensors when passengers are exiting the coach to prevent accidental closures while a passenger is in the process of alighting from the bus. The experience of driving the double decker was very pleasurable and it would be nice to see them in service. In my opinion, 1-2 additional staff are needed to monitor the upper deck because the operator cannot view the camera video constantly while also driving the bus. If operated “off-route”, the second person can be useful to watch for overhead obstructions. ____________________________________________________________________

133

Appendix L: Passenger Survey 1990

134

1990 Double Decker Bus Pilot Demonstration Muni tested a double decker bus provided by Gray Line Tours (Leyland Olympian) for three weeks in January-February 1990. The double decker bus was operated on the 38L- Geary Limited and 42-Downtown Loop routes. The vehicle had a seated capacity of 83 (33 lower level / 50 upper level). It was equipped with only 1 door, and it was not a low floor design. The overall height of the vehicle was 13’9”. It was designed as a tourist bus, so it was not equipped with rear doors that could open and close quickly. Public opinion of the bus was highly favorable, but in 1990 there were no U.S. manufacturers of double deck buses, so plans for Muni to procure this type of vehicle did not move forward. A short report by Muni planner Carl Natvig titled Double Deck Bus In-Service Demonstration February 1990 Test was produced. The 1990 pilot demonstration occurred in the pre-APC era, so Muni had two traffic checkers ride the bus to observe speed / delay / dwell time performance. Their consensus was the stairway had little effect on dwell time. Fewer standees allowed fast and easy passenger flow to the exit door. Similar to the 2007-08 test, boarding was often slow at times due to passenger confusion, as many passengers didn’t know the double decker was in service as a Muni bus. No injuries or falls were recorded during the three week trial.

135

136

137

Appendix M: SFMTA Preparation for Double Decker Pilot Demonstration

138

139

Summary - SFMTA Advance Preparation for Double Decker Pilot Demonstration Discussion of testing a new double decker bus at SFMTA was an issue that received renewed interest as part of planning efforts underway connected with the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) and the two Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) studies for the Van Ness and Geary corridors. The Van Ness BRT study effort that is being jointly managed by staff at SFMTA and our sister agency, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) completed an initial feasibility study in December 2006. In early 2007 a formal environmental review process began, and preparations were also made to submit a funding request to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in fall 2007 to obtain federal funds at a future date to complete the environmental review process and begin preliminary engineering on the project. The FTA submittal required analysis of many issues, including identification of operations equipment needed to operate the BRT service and analysis of maintenance and vehicle storage. Thus the vehicle issue, which was also present in the environmental review work, was front and center in the planning process. An initial analysis showed SFMTA was challenged regarding adequate space to house and maintain a large number of articulated buses (approximately 80-100) required to outfit the Van Ness and Geary corridor projects. As an alternative to possibly ease the tight space issue, use of a double decker bus was raised by several SFMTA staff, and a pilot demonstration was arranged with AD, the manufacturer of double decker buses in Las Vegas, NV. The agreement to perform a pilot demonstration was reached quickly, and the bus, the AD Enviro 500 prototype, was delivered to San Francisco in late November. Once on site several minor modifications were done to prepare the bus for service, and several other actions were undertaken prior to having the bus enter into service. Several decisions on relatively mundane issues were made: install a farebox (NO), install a radio (NO), use a handheld radio similar to cable car operators (YES), install automatic passenger counter equipment (YES), install a hubometer (YES), issue the vehicle an SFMTA identification number (YES – 2692), install warning signs in Chinese and Spanish (YES), install MUNI logos on the outside of the vehicle (YES), install the software needed to operate the headsign (YES). Drivers and mechanics were selected to receive a basic training in maintenance, and the bus was assigned to be stored and maintained at the Flynn Division. In an effort to formally record passenger views on the double decker bus, a passenger survey to be distributed onboard to actual SFMTA riders was drafted. The survey was translated into Spanish and Chinese, and a partner survey with questions specific to the disabled community was also created. The surveys were designed so they could be dropped into a collection box on the bus or mailed back to SFMTA using a postage permit held by SFMTA that negated survey respondents of the need to pay postage. Finally, prior to the start of on-street service, a press event with the double decker bus was held on December 4th at City Hall hosted by SFMTA staff, led by SFMTA Executive Director/CEO Nathaniel Ford, with an appearance by San Francisco Mayor Gavin

140

Newsom, and a special tour and question and answer session that was open to the Press was held on December 7th at SFMTA headquarters for the SFMTA Board of Directors, the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Committee and the Muni Accessible Advisory Committee (MAAC).

141

Appendix N: BUSRide Article: Las Vegas Double Decks (October 2007)

142

143

144

145

Appendix O: AD Enviro 500 Full Size Vehicle Graphic Cutaway Diagrams – 42’ Design

146 146

147 147

148 148

149 149

150 150

151 151

152 152

153

Appendix P: Summary of Calgary Double Decker Trial (2003)

154

155

156

157

Appendix Q: Artist Renditions of Enviro 500 in SF Muni paint scheme

158

159

160