Use of Mobility Devices on Paratransit Vehicles and Buses (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 171 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Public Transportation Use of Mobility Devices on Paratransit Vehicles and Buses K.M. Hunter-Zaworski OregOn State UniverSity Corvallis, OR and Uwe Rutenberg rUtenberg DeSign inc. Ottawa, Canada

TCRP REPORT 171 Project C-20 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-28422-6 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activ ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without com pensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 171 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm-Smith, Senior Program Officer Jeffrey Oser, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Maria Sabin Crawford, Assistant Editor TCRP PROJECT C-20 PANEL Field of Engineering of Vehicles and Equipment Elizabeth H. Ellis, KFH Group, Inc., Bethesda, MD (Chair) Desmond R. Cole, SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA Alan R. Danaher, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Orlando, FL Nancy Lynn Dougal, Essex County (NY) Government, Elizabethtown, NY Paul E. Kaufmann, STV Incorporated, Newark, NJ Steven F. Ponte, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, Antioch, CA Richard Ramacier, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, Concord, CA Robert F. Sahm, King County Transit Division, Kent, WA David T. Spacek, Illinois DOT, Chicago, IL Patricia Weaver, Transportation Research Institute, Lawrence, KS Edward A. Wisniewski, Hillsborough County (FL) Dept. of Family and Aging Services, Tampa, FL Selene Faer Dalton-Kumins, FTA Liaison John R. Day, FTA Liaison Robert Carlson, CTAA Liaison Lynne Morsen, APTA Liaison Forrest James Pecht, U.S. Access Board Liaison

F O R E W O R D By Gwen Chisholm-Smith Staff Officer Transportation Research Board TCRP Report 171: Use of Mobility Devices on Paratransit Vehicles and Buses describes the current and emerging issues which limit the use of mobility devices in paratransit vehicles and buses, and includes a separate guidance document to assist transit systems, manufacturers, and transit users in the implementation of potential accessible design and accommodation solutions for the short and long term. This report also addresses potential safety improvements and the level of service of public transport for larger and heavier occupied mobility devices in paratransit vehicles and buses. Regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) implementing the transportation provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) defines a “common wheelchair” as being no more than 30 in. wide and 48 in. long, measured from 2 in. above the ground. In addition to transporting persons using common wheelchairs, the ADA requires transit operators to provide lifts and ramps that are able to accommodate 600 pounds, although transit agencies can choose to provide service for larger wheelchairs with lifts and ramps that accommodate more than 600 pounds. However, some mobility devices may not fit into the layout constraints of paratransit vehicles and buses. Travelers using wheelchairs and scooters can face a serious problem when trying to board a transit vehicle if their mobility device does not fall into the common wheelchair envelope of 48 in. long, 30 in. wide—a problem in both rural and urban areas. Also, the dimension challenge is compounded by the lack of designated, safe attachment points on mobility devices. This, combined with the increased weight beyond the design parameters of common securement systems, can lead to attaching securement devices at points which are not safe or structurally sound to protect the passenger, especially those on scooters. K.M. Hunter-Zaworski of Oregon State University and Uwe Rutenberg of Rutenberg Design Inc., prepared this report under TCRP Project C-20. The primary objectives of this research were to identify and assess the current and emerging issues which limit the use of mobility devices in paratransit vehicles and buses and to develop guidance and options to assist transit systems, manufacturers, and transit users in the implementation of acces- sible design and accommodation solutions for the short and long term. To accomplish this objective, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to identify challenges and opportunities that result from the transport of persons using mobility devices. In addition, a workshop was conducted to engage vehicle lift manufacturers, transit vehicle manufacturers, manufacturers of mobility devices, manufacturers of securement devices, and transit operators who represented entities of various sizes and utilized a variety of vehicle types. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the common issues and potential solutions related to the

compatibility of the individual component designs and the extent to which these component designs interact effectively in a transit application. After gathering this information and conducting surveys, the research team worked to produce a Final Report and Guidance Document that may help the wide variety of stakeholders including: transit agencies; transit users; and manufacturers (of vehicle lifts/ramps, transit vehicles, securement systems, mobility devices, and fare collection systems) understand and address the demands of oversized mobility devices as well as those with larger passenger weights.

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Background 6 Chapter 2 Objectives 7 Chapter 3 Motivation 7 Demographics–Passenger Profiles 7 Age Trends 7 Disability Trends 7 Obesity Trends 7 Traveler Profiles 8 Mobility Device Characteristics 12 Descriptions of Wheeled Mobility Devices 13 Other Devices 14 Mobility Device Weights with Different Occupant Weights 16 Securement Environment 21 Chapter 4 Key Stakeholders 21 Transit Users 21 Transit Agencies 21 Transit Vehicle Manufacturers 22 Transit Equipment Manufacturers—Interiors 22 Lifts and Ramps 22 Seats 22 Securement Systems 22 Fare Payment 22 Wheeled Mobility Device Industry 23 Manufacturers of WC-19 Compliant Devices 23 Funding Agencies 24 Chapter 5 Key Findings 24 Sources 24 Literature Summary 24 Survey Summary 25 Key Findings from the Surveys 26 Workshop Findings Summary 26 Technologies 26 Mobility Device Industry 27 Transit Vehicle 28 Small Vehicles 29 Other Transit Equipment 29 Lifts 29 Ramps

29 Seats 30 Fare Payment 30 Operations 30 Technical 30 Regulations 30 Recent Changes in WhMD Definition 31 Changes of Standards/Regulations 31 Reimbursement for Wheeled Mobility Devices 31 Summary of Phase 1 Findings 33 Chapter 6 New Concepts in Design and Operations 33 Designs of Vehicle Equipment 33 Low Floor Transit Vehicles 33 Ramps 34 Lifts 34 Bridge Plate 35 Securement Systems 37 Fare Payment 38 Transit Safe and Transportable Mobility Devices 38 Transit Safe Mobility Device 38 Transportable Mobility Device 38 Design Concepts for Mobility Devices That Impact Safe Transport 40 Transit Agencies and Transit Industry 40 Characteristics of Accessible and Inclusive Transit Agencies 41 Chapter 7 Research Results 41 Guidance Document Summary 41 Demographics 41 Wheeled Mobility Devices (WhMDs) 41 Challenges 41 Suggestions 42 Transit Agencies 42 Challenges 42 Suggestions 43 Transit Operators 43 Challenges 43 Suggestions 43 Standards 43 Challenges 43 Suggestions 43 Education of Allied Health Professionals 43 Challenges 43 Suggestions 44 Chapter 8 Implementation Plan 44 Research Product 44 Product Market 44 Implementation Challenges 44 Engaging WhMD Industry and DME Dealers 44 Engaging Funding and Insurance Agencies

45 Roadmap to Change Vision of the Future 45 Partnerships 47 Standards 47 Transit Industry 47 WhMD Industry 47 Institutional Change 48 Bibliography 49 Abbreviations and Acronyms 51 Attachment: Guidance Document Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.