TCRP SYNTHESIS 88. Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. A Synthesis of Transit Practice TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transcription

1 TCRP SYNTHESIS 88 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration A Synthesis of Transit Practice

2 TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR ANN AUGUST Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority MEMBERS JOHN BARTOSIEWICZ McDonald Transit Associates MICHAEL BLAYLOCK Jacksonville Transportation Authority LINDA J. BOHLINGER HNTB Corp. RAUL BRAVO Raul V. Bravo & Associates GREGORY COOK Veolia Transportation TERRY GARCIA CREWS StarTran ANGELA IANNUZZIELLO ENTRA Consultants JOHN INGLISH Utah Transit Authority SHERRY LITTLE Spartan Solutions, LLC JONATHAN H. MCDONALD HNTB Corporation GARY W. MCNEIL GO Transit MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY Motor Coach Industries BRADFORD MILLER Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority FRANK OTERO PACO Technologies KEITH PARKER VIA Metropolitan Transit PETER ROGOFF FTA JEFFREY ROSENBERG Amalgamated Transit Union RICHARD SARLES Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority MICHAEL SCANLON San Mateo County Transit District JAMES STEM United Transportation Union GARY THOMAS Dallas Area Rapid Transit FRANK TOBEY First Transit MATTHEW O. TUCKER North County Transit District PAM WARD Ottumwa Transit Authority ALICE WIGGINS-TOLBERT Parsons Brinckerhoff EX OFFICIO MEMBERS WILLIAM W. MILLAR APTA ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRB JOHN C. HORSLEY AASHTO VICTOR MENDEZ FHWA TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS SANDERS APTA SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TRB TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Vice Chair: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX PAULA J. HAMMOND, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA STEVEN T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA LAWRENCE A. SELZER, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOHN T. GRAY, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC DAVID T. MATSUDA, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC TARA O TOOLE, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA *Membership as of December *Membership as of March 2011.

3 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 SYNTHESIS 88 Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains A Synthesis of Transit Practice Consultants JOEY M. GOLDMAN and GAIL MURRAY Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates San Francisco, California Subscriber Categories Public Transportation Passenger Transportation Safety and Human Factors Society Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C

4 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 introduce 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 Federal Transit Administration (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 successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit 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 Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy of Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization 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 identifying 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 TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical 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 programs since As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting 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. TCRP SYNTHESIS 88 Project J-7, Topic SB-18 ISSN ISBN Library of Congress Control Number Transportation Research Board. 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. Such approval reflects the Governing Board s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor 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 clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC and can be ordered through the Internet at: Printed in the United States of America

5 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine 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. On 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. Charles M. Vest 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, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg 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. Charles M. Vest 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 Transportation 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 individuals interested in the development of transportation.

6 TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7 CHAIR DWIGHT A. FERRELL Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority MEMBERS DEBRA W. ALEXANDER Capital Area Transportation Authority, Lansing, MI DONNA DeMARTINO San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, CA MARK W. FUHRMANN Metro Transit Minneapolis/St. Paul ROBERT H. IRWIN Consultant, Sooke, BC, Canada JEANNE KRIEG Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, Antioch, CA PAUL J. LARROUSSE Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ DAVID A. LEE Connecticut Transit, Hartford, CT FRANK T. MARTIN Atkins, Tallahassee, FL BRADFORD J. MILLER Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority HAYWARD M. SEYMORE, III Kitsap Transit, Bremerton, WA FRANK TOBEY First Transit, Inc., Moscow, TN PAM WARD Ottumwa Transit Authority, Ottumwa, IA FTA LIAISON LISA COLBERT Federal Transit Administration MICHAEL BALTES Federal Transit Administration COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs GWEN CHISHOLM SMITH, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate TOPIC PANEL ALAN R. DANAHER, PB Americas, Inc., Orlando, FL DWIGHT A. FERRELL, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority OLIVIA JONES, Star Trans, Inc. in Service to Capital Metro, Austin, TX AMY KOVALAN, Chicago Transit Authority WILLIAM P. MORRIS, University of South Florida, Tampa PAUL O BRIEN, Utah Transit Authority PETER SHAW, Transportation Research Board AARON S. WEINSTEIN, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District JOHN R. DAY, Federal Transit Authority (Liaison) KAY F. NORDSTROM, Federal Transit Authority (Liaison) CHRISTOPHER NORRIS, Canadian Urban Transit Association (Liaison) APTA LIAISON KEVIN DOW American Public Transportation Association TRB LIAISON JENNIFER ROSALES Transportation Research Board Acknowledgments: The research that produced this report was performed under TCRP Project J-7 by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Joey Goldman, Principal at Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates, was this project s Principal Investigator. Mr. Goldman and Gail Murray of Nelson\Nygaard were the key authors of this report. They were supported in this project by Gordon Hansen of Nelson\Nygaard. We are grateful for the assistance provided to us by the members of our Topic Panel. We also appreciate the time and insights given to us by the many transit operators contacted for this research effort. Cover figure: Woman preparing to board bus with baby and collapsed umbrella stroller. (Courtesy of Capital Metro, Austin, Texas)

7 FOREWORD Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Cooperative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-7, Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems, searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE By Donna L. Vlasak Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board The purpose of this synthesis was to document the state of the practice of transit agencies managing capacity on vehicles carrying customers with large items. The synthesis also includes a discussion of vehicle designs to accommodate these various large items. It was accomplished through a literature review, a transit agency survey, and through interviews with survey respondents who had a particular success, innovation, or experience that highlighted issues with large items. Forty-two completed surveys were received from 42 transit agencies, a response ratio of 100%. As evidenced by report results, with the exception of wheelchairs and many types of mobility devices, policies regarding bicycles, strollers, carts, and other large items appear to be developed in response to particular circumstances experienced by the transit agencies. Six transit agencies particular experiences offer more detail about these items, as well as policy considerations. Joey M. Goldman and Gail Murray, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, San Francisco, California, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report, under the guidance of a panel of experts in the subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

8

9 CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Overview, 5 Methodology, 5 Organization of Report, 6 7 CHAPTER TWO CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED TRANSIT AGENCIES Agency Policies, 11 Agency Operations, CHAPTER THREE WHEELCHAIRS Literature Review on Wheelchairs and Wheelchair Accommodation Policies, 16 Survey Results, 18 One Agency s Experience: TriMet, Portland, Oregon Revisiting Wheelchair Policies, CHAPTER FOUR SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER MOBILITY DEVICES Literature Review on Segways, Scooters, and Other Mobility Devices and Accommodation Policies, 23 Survey Results, 24 Segways, Scooters, and Other Mobility Aids on Paratransit, 28 One Agency s Experience: Metro Transit, Madison, Wisconsin Learning Safe Operation of a Segway from a User, CHAPTER FIVE STROLLERS Literature Review on Strollers and Stroller Accommodation Policies, 30 Survey Results, 33 One Agency s Experience: Tri Delta Transit, Antioch, California Creating Space on Buses for Strollers, CHAPTER SIX BICYCLES Literature Review on Bicycles and Bicycle Accommodation Policies, 38 One Agency s Experience: King County Metro, Seattle Three-Position Bike Racks, 41 Survey Results, 42 One Agency s Experience: BART, San Francisco Bay Area Innovations for Bicycle Access on Rail, CHAPTER SEVEN LUGGAGE, CARTS, PARCELS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS Literature Review on Luggage, Carts, and Other Large Items and Accommodation Policies, 48 Survey Results, 50 One Agency s Experience: RoadRUNNER Transit, Las Cruces, New Mexico A Different Way to Define Large Items, 53 General Large Items and Transport Aids (Strollers, Bicycles, Luggage, etc.) on Paratransit, 54 Other Large Items, 55 One Agency s Experience: Marble Valley Regional Transit District, Rutland, Vermont Accommodating Skis and Snowboards, Suitcases and Pets, CHAPTER EIGHT VEHICLE DESIGN Literature Review on Vehicle Design, 58 Survey Results, 60

10 62 CHAPTER NINE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Implementation, Enforcement, Public Information, and Public Perceptions, 62 Survey Responses, 62 One Agency s Experience: OC Transpo, Ottawa, Ontario Developing, Refining, and Enforcing Policies, and Public Outcry, CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSIONS Wheelchairs and Mobility Aids, 71 Strollers, 71 Bicycles, 72 Luggage, 72 Carts, Parcels, and Other Items, REFERENCES 77 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 123 APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES 125 APPENDIX C SUMMARY TABLES OF AGENCY POLICIES 133 APPENDIX D SAMPLE POLICIES

11 STROLLERS, CARTS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS ON BUSES AND TRAINS SUMMARY Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains is a synthesis of the state of the practice by transit agencies in managing capacity on vehicles carrying customers with large items. Items covered in this TCRP Synthesis include wheelchairs; Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids; strollers; bicycles; luggage; and miscellaneous large items such as skis and dog carriers. The synthesis also includes a discussion of vehicle designs to accommodate these various large items. Information was collected through a literature review, an original survey of 42 transit agencies in the United States and Canada that achieved a 100% response rate; and interviews conducted with survey respondents who had a particular success, innovation, or experience that highlighted issues with large items. Among the surveyed agencies, service areas included very small communities and very large regions (from 15 to 3,350 square miles) and annual respondent ridership ranging from roughly 294,000 to 3.36 billion. Agencies included those with fleets of no more than six vehicles to more than 11,000 vehicles at peak operation. As evidenced by the literature review, with the exception of wheelchairs and many types of mobility devices, policies regarding bicycles, strollers, luggage, carts, and other large items seem to be developed in response to particular circumstances experienced by the transit agencies. Of the large items that buses and trains carry in the United States, wheelchairs have the clearest and most universal guidelines for accommodation on vehicles. The federal government has codified specific measurements for wheelchairs on public transport vehicles in conjunction with requirements resulting from passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 80% of the surveyed agencies have a policy in place regarding the accommodation of wheelchairs on transit vehicles. Most of the agencies policies, including those in Canada, reflect ADA requirements with regard to size and weight of wheelchairs that may be accommodated, based on American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America transit-compliant wheelchair WC19 standards. Most agencies that operate buses require their drivers to provide assistance to secure wheelchairs. Several agencies identified concerns about accommodating nonstandard, oversize, or overweight wheelchairs. With an increasing number of transit riders using nontraditional mobility aids or scooters that exceed standard size and weight conventions, many agencies are challenged to accommodate these devices or develop policies that prohibit them. Some agencies are unaware of them until a rider attempts to bring one on a transit vehicle. The Segway and other gyrostabilized two-wheeled devices are allowed on most rail operations, but only 13 of the 40 surveyed agencies operating buses have a policy to accommodate Segways. Several of the agencies that attempt to accommodate these devices express concerns that securements in their existing vehicles are not properly sized for them. Nevertheless, three-quarters of the agencies with scooter or Segway policies in place consider them to be effective.

12 2 The problem of accommodating strollers has grown as their size has increased. As a result of several mishaps and conflicts on board transit vehicles, several agencies have adjusted their stroller policies in the last decade, whereas some agencies have made efforts to better accommodate strollers. One California transit agency created designated stroller areas on its buses. A majority of the surveyed agencies consider strollers to be a significant issue or concern for their operations, primarily owing to worries about safety when strollers block aisles. Most of the policies do not limit the size of strollers, and among agencies with stroller policies, most require strollers to be foldable or collapsible. Although few agencies can point to safety data as the basis for their stroller policies, a majority of agencies believe their stroller polices are effective, but often drivers are inconsistent in enforcing the policies. Agencies that operate rail services allow for bikes on trains at least some of the time or in at least some locations. Although a few transit agencies allow bicycles to be carried inside a bus, most have made efforts to add external bicycle racks (84% of agencies reported that they have external bike racks on at least some of their operating fleet). Agencies sometimes allow bikes inside buses when exterior racks are at capacity, but almost one-half of the agencies that allow bikes inside buses require them to be foldable. Most agencies consider their bicycle policies to be effective. Although more than one-half of the surveyed agencies consider luggage, carts, and other large items to be an important issue, polices regarding these items are not as universal as policies for bicycles, strollers, or mobility devices. Existing policies range from being simple and permissive to very detailed in their restrictions. Several transit agencies have size restrictions or limit the number of grocery bags that may be brought on board transit vehicles. Unlike policies regarding bikes, strollers, and other items, few differences exist between the policies on buses and the policies on rail vehicles. Several agencies restrict passengers to what they can reasonably carry on a vehicle, and a majority of agencies have a policy that requires luggage, grocery carts, or parcels to be stored in a specific location on a vehicle. Most agencies policies afford drivers some flexibility in assisting passengers with luggage, unlike other items. Agencies serving recreational areas have policies regarding skis, snowboards, and surfboards. The synthesis reviews various types of transit vehicles and the modifications that some agencies have made to their vehicles to accommodate large items. Several agencies have ordered new vehicles buses and rail cars that have dedicated space, storage racks, or securement area for mobility devices, bicycles, luggage and other large items. Nevertheless, the majority of agencies surveyed indicated that designated storage/space for large items is not an issue when purchasing new vehicles. Safety for passengers and drivers is one of the primary reasons agencies develop their policies. Risk management practices also impact an agency s policies. Agencies reported injuries that ranged from minor scrapes and pinched fingers to significant accidents. More than one-half of all agencies receive complaints related to bringing strollers, carts, luggage, bicycles, mobility aids, or other large items on vehicles. Nearly one-half of all agencies prioritize one item over another on their vehicles. All of these agencies indicated that persons with disabilities take precedence. Almost one-half of agencies believe their policies regarding bringing large items on transit vehicles could be improved, and many suggest that enforcement is a significant issue. Among agencies that operate buses, 92% of them expect drivers to enforce the agency s policies. Only one-fifth of all agencies believe the agency s enforcement of its policies is very effective.

13 3 Overall, the synthesis provides an opportunity to disseminate information about agency policies and procedures. The analysis suggests additional research that could be carried out to find solutions to some of the questions raised in this synthesis: Equipment tests and other research techniques might be valuable to evaluate oversized wheelchairs, two-wheeled, and other new mobility devices to determine whether they could be accommodated on transit vehicles. Further study could evaluate the potential utility and safety of bungee cords, belts, or other tools that riders may use to secure mobility devices. Research might consider universal securement devices that could accommodate the array of mobility aids and other large items on transit vehicles. Research regarding strollers on transit vehicles might focus on (1) stroller types and size trends; (2) vehicle configurations for best accommodating strollers (i.e., stroller seating area, high-floor versus low-floor); and (3) findings about strollers in vehicle accidents, making a determination on whether children could remain in or be removed from strollers on transit vehicles. Information gathered for this synthesis, both from the literature review and survey, offers little direction for transit agencies in establishing a policy based on child safety findings, pointing to a gap in current transportation research. Further research about bicycles on transit vehicles might include opportunities to evaluate promotion of folding bikes on transit vehicles or for transit agencies to offer bicycles to bus or train riders at transit stops or stations. The examples of bike rental facilities in Stockholm, Sweden; Paris, France; and Long Beach, CA, show that some communities are moving in this direction. Tests may be conducted to examine how the various policies regarding bringing large items (including grocery carts, wheelchairs, and different mobility aids) on board impact riders independence, well-being, and overall mobility. Safety evaluations of large items as hazards or potential projectiles on buses and trains may provide some risk management tools for transit agencies. Current information to help agencies determine policies for items other than wheelchairs, based on passenger safety issues, is limited. An evaluation of vehicle configurations and new technologies might be conducted to determine how to better accommodate luggage, carts, groceries, and other large items. Research might look at capacity and utility of transit vehicles with modular/ flexible spaces versus vehicles equipped with storage areas or racks. Bus operators capacity to enforce agency policies, given their other responsibilities, is another topic noted in this report. Further research might help define a reasonable expectation for bus operators. Given that the overwhelming majority of bus agencies in the survey rely on drivers for enforcement, such research might assist agencies in refining operator responsibilities.

14

15 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains is a synthesis of the state of the practice by transit agencies in managing capacity on vehicles carrying customers with large items. Items covered in this TCRP Synthesis include chapters on wheelchairs; Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids; strollers; bicycles; luggage; and miscellaneous large items such as skis and dog carriers. The synthesis also includes a discussion of vehicle designs to accommodate these various large items. Various riders compete for space on vehicles. The synthesis contains examples of public information materials designed to communicate transit agencies policies that attempt to deal with this competition. Brief case studies illustrate some of the challenges, best practices, and social issues that arise from this competition. The objective was to document the state of the practice on issues identified in the scope: How space is prioritized, particularly among people with disabilities, the elderly, and parents with strollers; Passenger safety issues posed by large items; Transit agency capacity problems in the transportation of large items; Complaints, incidents, and claims by the public relating to large items on transit vehicles; Restrictions, blackout periods, and size limitations imposed by the transit agency; and Communication of policies to the public. METHODOLOGY Three data collection methods were used. First, a review of relevant literature was conducted on each of the types of large items described in the overview. Second, data collection was done using an original web-based survey. Finally, interviews were conducted with survey respondents whose agencies had a particular successful or innovative practice or an experience that highlighted many of the issues with large items. Each chapter about a large item contains at least one agency profile in a brief case study format. Summary of Literature Review Materials examined included articles in journals, newspapers, and industry magazines, as well as transit agency websites. The literature review focused primarily on North American transit properties, but also examined policies in Scandinavian countries. A 2003 article published by the Association for European Transport was also reviewed. Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a large body of literature has been written on the topic of wheelchairs. Because accommodation of wheelchairs is well established in federal regulations, wheelchair policies are essentially standard throughout the industry and were not repeated in the chapter on wheelchairs. Current issues reflected in the report are about the lack of standard securements and wheelchair sizes and about the move toward low-floor vehicles for ease of boarding. There is much less in the literature about other mobility aids. Some recent incidents with Segways that have made the news are documented. According to the reports, the incidents have spurred new policies to handle Segways. Similarly, conflicts involving strollers have made headlines, which are recounted in the literature referenced here. As with wheelchairs, transit agencies are very familiar with carrying bicycles and have developed policies and procedures. The 2006 TCRP Synthesis 62, Integration of Bicycles and Transit, is cited as a virtual bible of information regarding the history and current practices of bike integration on various transit modes. As evidenced by the literature search, policies regarding luggage, carts, and other large items seem to be developed in response to particular circumstances experienced by the transit agencies rather than universally, as in the case of wheelchairs and, for the most part, bicycles. The literature review also recounts how transit agencies and manufacturers are modifying vehicles in an attempt to better accommodate large items on trains and buses. Survey A web-based survey was used to gather data on transit agency policies. The survey was tailored to operations that

16 6 were relevant to different types of agencies those that operated only buses, those that operated only rail, and those that operated both bus and rail. Surveyed agencies were chosen to cover a wide spectrum of services and practices, including size. The review was designed to survey a representative sample of small, medium, and large agencies. Small agencies operate up to 50 vehicles at peak times; medium agencies operate between 51 and 250 vehicles; and large agencies operate more than 250 vehicles. Each of the survey candidates was ed or phoned in advance to explain the goals of the review and to obtain a commitment to fill out the survey. Commitments were received from 42 prospective agencies to complete the survey when the link was ed to them. The response rate among the 42 agencies surveyed was 100%. Fourteen small agencies, 12 mediumsized agencies, and 16 large agencies responded. When percentages or a number of responses are indicated in the question-by-question analysis in the body of this report, it refers to the percentage of responses to that question rather than to the overall survey response rate. In other words, the question reflects the responses of the subset of respondents who answered that question. Agency Profile Case Studies Each of the chapters dedicated to a particular large item wheelchairs, mobility devices, strollers, and so on also con- tains a profile of an agency representing a successful practice or a description of an event that illustrates the complexity of issues in dealing with that large item. These profiles were primarily based on phone interviews or exchanges directly with staff at the highlighted agency. Some information was gleaned from websites and published articles. Profiles were selected based on material that emerged in the literature search or the survey. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT Following this introduction, the report is organized into nine topical chapters. Chapter two describes the characteristics of the 42 surveyed transit agencies. Chapters three, four, five, six, and seven discuss agency policies regarding wheelchairs; Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids; strollers; bicycles; and luggage and other large items, respectively. Chapter eight looks at vehicle design considerations with both a literature review and survey results. Chapter nine discusses policy considerations, including implementation, enforcement, public information, and public perceptions. Chapter ten examines the study conclusions. The appendixes include the survey questionnaire (Appendix A), the list of participating agencies (Appendix B), a summary table of agency policies (Appendix C), and sample policies (Appendix D).

17 7 CHAPTER TWO CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED TRANSIT AGENCIES To sort characteristics, trends, and similarities, and differences efficiently and meaningfully among the 42 transit agencies that responded to survey questions, the respondent agencies are categorized by total relevant fleet size (buses, rail vehicles, and paratransit/demand-response vehicles): Small agencies operate up to 50 vehicles at peak operation; Medium agencies operate between 51 and 250 vehicles at operation; and Large agencies operate more than 250 vehicles at peak operation. The surveyed agencies were chosen to cover a wide spectrum of services and practices, because small, medium, and large agencies have intrinsic differences in operational and management practice. Despite the moderate sample size, the agencies represent a broad range of characteristics that are not necessarily defined by total fleet size: bus, rail, and paratransit vehicles of different types, sizes, and configurations; a mix of small and large urban and rural service areas with different population densities; and significantly different ridership numbers. Figure 1 shows the number of surveyed agencies by size category (n = 42). FIGURE 1 Surveyed agencies by size. Among the surveyed agencies for which data were available, service area ranged from 15 to 3,350 square miles; service area population from 45,500 to 17.8 million people; and annual ridership from roughly 294,000 to 3.36 billion in the years 2007 and Eighty percent of agencies provide paratransit services (n = 40). Table 1 shows characteristics of transit agencies completing the survey, and Figure 2 shows the locations of these agencies. FIGURE 2 Surveyed transit agencies by location.

18 8 TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED TRANSIT AGENCIES Agency/Respondent Information Small Brandon Transit Brandon, Manitoba Downeast Transportation, Inc. Ellsworth, Maine Greater Glens Falls Transit Glens Falls, New York Macatawa Area Express Transportation Authority (MAX) Holland, Michigan City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit Las Cruces, New Mexico Las Vegas Monorail Company Las Vegas, Nevada The T Lawrence, Kansas SunTran Ocala, Florida Ottumwa Transit Authority Ottumwa, Iowa Pullman Transit Pullman, Washington River Bend Transit Quad Cities, Iowa Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD) Rutland, Vermont City of Sioux Falls/ Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, South Dakota Metro Ride Wausau, Wisconsin Square Miles Service Area Statistics Population Density (pop/sq mi) Vehicles in Service Annual Unlinked Trips Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Regular Buses and Trains Wheelchairs Segway/ Scooter Strollers Bicycles Luggage Other Large Items Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Paratransit Vehicles Wheelchairs Segway/ Scooter ,000 1,586 Bus 12 Paratransit 3 Total 15 1,588 51, Bus ,112 N/A 46 59,743 1,299 Bus 5 336,198 Paratransit 1 3,104 Total 6 339, ,764 1,661 Bus 7 185,964 Paratransit ,834 Total , ,590 1,647 Bus ,727 Paratransit 12 58,029 Total , ,785,303 6,376 Rail 32 9,329,974 N/A 30 90,000 3,000 Bus ,938 Paratransit 11 49,733 Total , ,638 1,630 Bus 6 327,623 Paratransit 2 76,769 Total 8 341, ,998 1,515 Bus 9 Paratransit 49 Total , ,860 2,984 Bus 18 1,236,930 Paratransit 5 19,434 Total 23 1,256,364 2, , Paratransit ,000 Bus 27 Paratransit 21 Total , ,000 2,118 Bus ,780 Paratransit ,434 Total 50 1,026, ,513 1,686 Bus ,895 Paratransit 28 32,794 Total ,689 Strollers Bicycles Luggage Table 1 continued on p. 9

19 9 Table 1 continued from p. 8 Service Area Statistics Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Regular Buses and Trains Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Paratransit Vehicles Agency/Respondent Information Medium CyRide Ames, Iowa Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta) Antioch, California Valley Transit Appleton, Wisconsin Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) Concord, California VOTRAN Daytona Beach, Florida Lane Transit District Eugene, Oregon Lee County Transit Ft. Myers, Florida/ Lee County BC Transit Kelowna, British Columbia Laketran Lake County, Ohio Metro Transit Madison, Wisconsin North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, California Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota, Florida Square Miles Population Density (pop/sq mi) Vehicles in Service Annual Unlinked Trips 15 50,276 3,352 Bus 53 4,635,634 N/A Paratransit 3 10,920 Total 56 4,646, ,000 1,200 Bus 57 2,671,505 Paratransit ,564 Total 76 2,730,069 Wheelchairs Segway/Scooter Strollers Bicycles Luggage Other Large Items 1, , Bus Paratransit ,124 Total 82 1,223, ,000 3,356 Bus 106 4,397,978 Paratransit ,887 Total 157 4,564,865 1, , Bus 46 3,318,580 Paratransit ,458 Total 106 3,591, ,272 1,130 Bus 96 11,407,709 N/A Paratransit ,440 Total ,563, ,153 3,729 Bus 49 3,058,843 Paratransit ,168 Total 90 3,188, ,700 1,477 Bus 49 Paratransit 19 Total , Bus ,260 Paratransit ,207 Total , ,181 3,405 Bus ,433,149 Paratransit ,037 Total ,719, ,000 2,089 Bus 138 9,744,558 Rail 30 2,403,975 Paratransit ,979 Total ,337, ,854 1,873 Bus 44 2,300,820 Paratransit ,843 Total 107 2,542,663 Wheelchairs Segway/Scooter Strollers Bicycles Luggage Table 1 continued on p. 10

20 10 Table 1 continued from p. 9 Agency/Respondent Information Large Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Atlanta, Georgia Capital Metro Austin, Texas Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, Illinois Community Transit Everett, Washington Public Transit Division (TheBus) Honolulu, Hawaii Metropolitan Transit Authority Harris County (METRO) Houston, Texas Miami-Dade Transit Miami, Florida Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Montreal, Quebec NJ TRANSIT Corporation Newark, New Jersey MTA New York City Transit New York, New York Square Miles Service Area Statistics Population Density (pop/sq mi) Vehicles in Service Annual Unlinked Trips Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Regular Buses and Trains Wheelchairs Segway/Scooter Strollers Bicycles Luggage Other Large Items Agency Has Policies Regarding Transport on Paratransit Vehicles 498 1,574,600 3,162 Bus ,519,392 Rail ,984,033 Paratransit ,563 Total ,912, ,170,276 2,060 Bus ,339,090 Rail N/A - began 3/10 N/A - began 3/10 Paratransit ,563 Total ,053, ,763,791 11,510 Bus 1, ,199,214 Rail 1, ,137,245 Total 2, ,336, ,381 2,574 Bus ,849,358 Paratransit ,568 Total ,063, ,863 4,008 Bus ,759,895 Paratransit ,835 Total ,593,730 1,285 2,796,994 2,177 Bus 1,027 84,594,867 Rail 17 11,800,912 Paratransit 376 1,418,647 Total 1,420 97,814, ,402,208 7,850 Bus ,458,376 N/A Rail ,127,465 Paratransit 302 1,678,018 Total 1, ,263, ,877,693 9,719 Bus 1,288 Rail 648 Paratransit 67 Total 2,003 3,353 17,799,861 5,309 Bus 2, ,281,953 Rail 1, ,839,656 Paratransit 434 1,278,925 Total 3, ,400, ,008,278 24,948 Bus 3, ,640,956 Rail 5,288 2,428,308,510 Paratransit 1,843 5,437,639 Total 11,064 3,336,387,105 Wheelchairs Segway/Scooter Strollers Bicycles Luggage Table 1 continued on p. 11

21 Table 1 continued from p San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Oakland, California OC Transpo Ottawa, Ontario Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, Penn. TriMet Portland, Oregon Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, Utah Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Washington, District of Columbia ,762 8,965 Rail ,227, ,725 4,602 Bus 845 Rail 2 Paratransit 91 Total ,300,407 3,967 Bus 1, ,574,756 Rail ,593,575 Paratransit 345 1,773,845 Total 2, ,942, ,466,540 2,555 Bus ,114,973 Rail 85 6,875,263 Paratransit 272 7,847,149 Total ,168,660 1,412 1,744,417 1,235 Bus ,395,624 Rail 64 16,182,145 Paratransit ,242 Total ,056, ,305,693 1,887 Bus 1, ,484,298 Rail ,039,725 Paratransit 452 1,712,709 Total 2, ,236,560 Sources: U.S. Census, National Transit Database, Canadian Urban Transit Association. Note: All data from 2008 except for the following agencies: Las Vegas Monorail Company (2007), Sun Tran (2007), Pullman Transit (2007), Riverbend Transit (2006/2008), BC Transit (2007), Miami-Dade Transit (2007). AGENCY POLICIES Many of the agencies surveyed have policies regarding bringing large items on board buses and trains. The majority of agencies (33 of 42, or 78%) have policies regarding wheelchairs on transit, followed by strollers (30 of 42, or 71%). Policies regarding bringing bicycles on vehicles are in place at only 13 of the agencies surveyed (31%). Although all of the agencies that offer paratransit service have policies in place regarding the transport of wheelchairs, and nearly all (29 of 36, or 91%) have policies regarding accommodation of mobility devices (including scooters and, in some cases, Segways), only one-third of the agencies have policies regarding luggage, carts, and parcels. Only nine agencies (28%) have policies in place regarding the transport of strollers on paratransit, some of which allow for strollers and some of which prohibit them. These policies are discussed in subsequent chapters and a summary table that highlights elements of all agency policies is included in Appendix C. AGENCY OPERATIONS Surveyed agencies operate rail only, buses only, or a combination of services, as shown in Figure 3 (n = 42). FIGURE 3 Surveyed agencies by type of operation. Bus Services Of the 40 agencies surveyed that operate buses (including those that operate buses in addition to rail), 39 (98%) offer local, regular fixed-route bus service. A large group of those surveyed (16 of 40, or 40%) offer express or commuter bus

22 12 services. Of these 16 agencies, 14 (88%) are operated by either medium- or large-sized agencies. Only a few offer bus rapid transit (BRT) services in dedicated rights-of-way (six of 40, or 15%). Of 40 responding transit agencies, 32 (80%) operate paratransit vehicles (Table 2). BART noted that agency staff do not directly operate paratransit but do so through contractors. Similarly, Miami Dade and Metro Ride noted that they have affiliated service. Although they do not operate paratransit directly, a couple of other agencies included paratransit vehicles in the information about their fleet. TABLE 2 DOES YOUR AGENCY OPERATE PARATRANSIT VEHICLES? Yes 32 (80%) No 8 (20%) n = 40. Bus Features fleet of vehicles. Many offer both low-floor and high-floor buses. Only 11 of 39 agencies (28%) operated only one kind of vehicle. Overall, 35 of 39 responding agencies operate lowfloor buses (90%) and 33 operate high-floor buses (85%). Rail Services Sixteen agencies offer some sort of rail service. Although two agencies operate only rail, the other 14 also offer bus service. It is generally difficult to make wide conclusions from (and about) these data, other than acknowledging the great variety among the 16 rail-operating agencies. Nearly a third of them (five of 16 agencies) offer more than one mode of rail. Additionally, a majority feature platform-level entry trains (80%). One-half of the agencies (eight of 16) operate heavy rail service. The survey group includes one monorail operator in Las Vegas, as well as one agency, Capital Metro in Austin, that operates freight service in addition to start-up commuter rail. Table 3 summarizes the types of buses and rail cars operated by surveyed agencies. With regard to regular bus service (regular, local bus service, commuter buses, and BRT), agencies generally have a diverse

23 13 TABLE 3 TYPES OF BUSES AND RAIL CARS OPERATED BY SURVEYED AGENCIES Agency Name Types of Buses and Services Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Types of Rail Service Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Small Brandon Transit Brandon, Manitoba Downeast Transportation, Inc. Ellsworth, Maine Greater Glens Falls Transit Glens Falls, New York Macatawa Area Express Transportation Authority (MAX) Holland, Michigan City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit Las Cruces, New Mexico Las Vegas Monorail Company Las Vegas, Nevada The T Lawrence, Kansas SunTran Ocala, Florida Ottumwa Transit Authority Ottumwa, Iowa Pullman Transit Pullman, Washington River Bend Transit Quad Cities, Iowa Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD) Rutland, Vermont City of Sioux Falls/Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, South Dakota Local bus service Express/ commuter buses Paratransit Low-floor (boarding) buses BRT (dedicated right-ofway) Highfloor buses Metro Ride Wausau, Wisconsin Commuter rail Heavy rail Light rail Streetcar, trolley or other fixed rail service Platformlevel entry trains Low-floor (boarding) trains Highfloor trains Subtotal Small Table 3 continued on p. 14

24 14 Table 3 continued from p. 13 Agency Name Types of Buses and Services Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Types of Rail Service Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Local bus service Express/ commuter buses Paratransit Low-floor (boarding) buses BRT (dedicated right-ofway) Highfloor buses Commuter rail Heavy rail Light rail Streetcar, trolley or other fixed rail service Platformlevel entry trains Low-floor (boarding) trains Highfloor trains Medium CyRide Ames, Iowa Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta) Antioch, California Valley Transit Appleton, Wisconsin Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) Concord, California VOTRAN Daytona Beach, Florida Lane Transit District Eugene, Oregon Lee County Transit Ft. Myers, Florida/Lee County BC Transit Kelowna, British Columbia Laketran Lake County, Ohio Metro Transit Madison, Wisconsin North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, California Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota, Florida Subtotal Medium Table 3 continued on p. 15

25 15 Table 3 continued from p. 14 Agency Name Types of Buses and Services Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Types of Rail Service Height of Vehicle Interior Floor Local bus service Express/ commuter buses Paratransit Low-floor (boarding) buses BRT (dedicated right-ofway) Highfloor buses Commuter rail Heavy rail Light rail Streetcar, trolley or other fixed rail service Platformlevel entry trains Low-floor (boarding) trains Highfloor trains Large Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Atlanta, Georgia Capital Metro Austin, Texas Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, Illinois Community Transit Everett, Washington Public Transit Division (TheBus) Honolulu, Hawaii Metropolitan Transit Authority Harris County (METRO) Houston, Texas Miami-Dade Transit Miami, Florida Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Montreal, Quebec NJ TRANSIT Corporation Newark, New Jersey MTA New York City Transit New York, New York San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Oakland, California OC Transpo Ottawa, Ontario Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, Penn. TriMet Portland, Oregon Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, Utah Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Washington, District of Columbia Subtotal Large Total

26 16 CHAPTER THREE WHEELCHAIRS LITERATURE REVIEW ON WHEELCHAIRS AND WHEELCHAIR ACCOMMODATION POLICIES Of the large items that buses and trains carry in the United States, wheelchairs have the clearest and most universal guidelines for accommodation on vehicles. The U.S. government has codified specific measurements for all components of various public transport vehicles in conjunction with requirements resulting from passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Code of Federal Regulations 2007). In Canada, policies are established in some cases by provincial governments or in transit system bylaws. Transit agencies continue to struggle with many issues related to wheelchair sizes and securements. A comprehensive overview of these issues is found in the 2008 document prepared for Easter Seals Project ACTION, Status Report on the Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and Private Transportation. Table 4 from the Executive Summary gives a snapshot of the issues (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2008). The difficulty of nonstandard securements is echoed in the report A Universal Securement/Restraint System for Wheeled Mobility Aids on Public Transportation Vehicles The Oregon State University Securement System. This report documents the steps taken to develop a standard mobility aid securement system that met a lengthy set of design objectives. The standard requires a mobility aid in the forward-facing position and is made up of two major parts: a capture mechanism which is mounted to the floor of the transit vehicle and an interface unit (trailer hitch) attached to the back of the mobility aid. The 2003 update notes that the Oregon State University standard is not being manufactured, but is still in use in Anchorage, Alaska. Of importance is the acknowledgment that a major challenge in using this system is that the product requires a standard interface and manufacturers aren t producing mobility aids with this standard interface (Hunter-Zaworski 2003). Another document, Discussion Paper: Characteristics of Accessible Bus Rapid Transit, addresses accessibility issues from physical, operational, and system performance perspectives specifically related to BRT (2010). A focus on intelligent transportation systems (ITS) applications in BRT notes that vehicle assist and automation technologies (VAA) precision docking and vehicle guidance could render BRT trips smoother and more secure for wheelchair users. The authors of a TCRP Synthesis examine rear-facing securements and note that [t]he benefits associated with this approach make it particularly attractive for [BRT] systems, given the short dwell times and other needs of high capacity services (Rutenberg and Hemily 2003). The World Bank has also produced a report on this topic citing practices worldwide for accessible BRT systems, and recommends that a cutout of a plan view of a reference wheelchair, to scale with a plan of the bus interior and adjacent stop, should be used to assure an accessible travel path into the bus and then into the securement area. The report suggests that securement areas must be longer than the reference wheelchair to allow for turning motions as the wheelchair is positioned in the securement area (Rickert 2006). Compounding the securement and maneuverability issues is the issue that Americans are becoming bigger and so are their wheelchairs. The U.S.DOT defines the common wheelchair as any class of mobility aid of three or four-wheeled devices that does not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length measured two inches above the ground and does not weigh more than 600 pounds when occupied (Questions and Answers Concerning Common Wheelchairs and Public Transit 2010). However, more overweight Americans will lead to an increased use of larger mobility aids, which will challenge existing ADA specifications and regulations. The report Oversized/Overweight Mobility Aids: Status of the Issue notes that some transit agencies have begun to install larger-capacity lifts, and raises questions over intravehicle maneuverability (Pass and Thompson 2004). Typically, rail cars feature smoother rides than buses, have easy access and egress, and do not have wheelchair securements. Instead, the issues with rail include maneuverability in the cars and level boarding access. Rail Transit Capacity provides a comprehensive overview, noting calculation methods and synthesizing standards and practices across a variety of transit agencies. The report states, However, it is not the size of the chair that is a concern as much as the maneuvering and stowage space. Typically a chair occupies the space of a double seat whose seat squab folds up. Restraints and seat belts may be provided but the smoothness of the ride allows most rail transit systems to omit these. In certain vehicle layouts additional seats have to be removed to allow access to the designated wheelchair location.

27 17 In optimum designs wheelchair space occupancy should be assigned as the space of a double seat 0.8 m 2 (8.6 sq ft) with a 50% increase considered as an upper limit 1.2 m 2 (13 sq ft). No further allowance is necessary for maneuvering space as this will be occupied by standing passengers when circumstances dictate. In several rail transit vehicle designs, capacity has actually increased with the removal of seats to provide a designated space for wheelchairs, or, selectively, bicycles. Where the designated space does not involve a fold-up seat the empty space is frequently used by standing passengers or to store baggage, baby strollers etc. Providing locations to store such potential obstacles away from doorways and circulation areas can assist in reducing dwell times (Parkinson and Fisher 1996). An example of retrofitting existing vehicles to create level boarding for wheelchairs is the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) car refurbishment and rebuilding project, designed to coincide with the progressive opening of the new Green Line from late 2009 to late Super Light Rail Vehicles are being created by inserting new low-floor center sections at the articulation joints of the 115 existing Light Rail Vehicles. These new spaces will be level with newly-raised platforms (DART 2010). Unlike the United States, many other countries do not have legislated requirements to accommodate wheelchairs TABLE 4 FINDINGS FROM STATUS REPORT ON THE USE OF WHEELCHAIRS AND OTHER MOBILITY DEVICES ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION Issue area Issues Recommendations Transit Vehicle and Equipment Design Wheelchair Design, Purchasing, Usage, and Prescription Space and maneuvering on board vehicles constrained spaces Lift and ramp boarding steep angles and reliability Oversized wheelchairs increasing number of chairs that do not fit into minimum ADA vehicle standards Non-wheelchair mobility aids Segways, strollers Other items carried with mobility devices oxygen, large backpacks For manufacturers and mobility-related industries: Develop industry standards or guidelines for wheelchair space layouts, aisle clearances, placement of securement equipment, etc.; to be used by both vehicle purchasers and manufacturers/designers Increase development and real-world (in transit service environment) demonstration of new technologies For transit providers: Encourage standardized wheelchair securement equipment by retrofitting older vehicles with updated equipment, and increase or improve maintenance programs for older wheelchair lifts Routinely involve advisory committee members and drivers in the selection of new and replacement vehicles For wheelchair users: Learn about the dimensions established for wheelchair space aboard transit vehicles For vendors and prescribers: Be cognizant of the dimensions established for wheelchair space aboard transit vehicles, clearly including this aspect in dealings with wheelchair users For wheelchair manufacturers: Develop guidelines for manufacturers to use in making information about transit friendliness of mobility devices accessible and available to prospective purchasers Transit Operations and Training Regulation and Policy Securement issues customer preferences, variety of devices, securement policies, ergonomics, time Transit personnel proficiency and awareness sensitivity, securement skills Training standards and monitoring of service performance inconsistent, little direct monitoring Progress in making WC19-compliant wheelchairs available limited outreach to users Education and dissemination of available resources limited and inconsistent For the industry: Development of a template type of document that can be used by transit systems to educate customers of accessibility features and more Development and dissemination of model training program elements Development of best-practice policies and guidelines for accommodating Segways and other nontraditional mobility devices Development of guidelines on how to implement wheelchair marking and tether strap programs Dissemination of best practices or guidelines for monitoring transit system performance regarding mobility aid accommodations For the industry: Additional research: Examination of barriers to making WC19-compliant mobility devices available to transit users Activities: Development of guidelines for transit providers on how/why to choose mandatory vs. optional rider choice policy for securement Increased coordination of various regulations that affect mobility device accessibility and design

28 18 Specific comments revealed other, non-vehicle-based complexities that affect a transit agency s ability to successfully handle wheelchair-bound passengers. Even in a large metropolitan area, one agency commented, a lot of stops do not have sidewalks, concrete pads, or cut outs that facilion transit vehicles. For example, instructions to passengers in Göteborg, Sweden, say that wheelchairs may be carried if there is sufficient space, but connections are not guaranteed. Similarly, in Aalborg, Denmark, there is space for one wheelchair on its low-floor buses if the space is not already occupied by a pram [or baby carriage]. However, the tourist information notes that buses in most Danish cities, except for Odense, are low-floor or are equipped with a ramp. And in Norrköping, Sweden, all commuter trains and commuter train stations are equipped with ramps for wheelchairs, and passengers are encouraged to ask train hosts if they need assistance. In Helsinki, Finland, A passenger in a wheelchair and one companion are entitled to free travel on public transport in the Helsinki metropolitan area if the passenger has the required pass. Elsewhere in Finland, on Vantaa s internal transport services, all disabled persons using wheelchairs are entitled to travel without tickets on low-floor vehicles. Mobility scooters with separate handlebars are not transported on buses, trams or the metro (Conditions for Travel with Västtrafik 2010). Despite the lack of legislation, countries such as Norway are sensitive to the issue of accessibility. In a paper produced by the Norland Research Institute titled Disability and Transport Experience with Specialised Transport in Norway, the authors comment that most user organizations in Norway agree on the concept of universal design. However, they admit that universal design public transportation accessible to everyone is a long-term project, starting with the transition from conventional to low-floor buses (Solvoll and Armunssveen 2003). SURVEY RESULTS As shown in Figure 4, responses were generally split between agencies that considered wheelchairs to be either not an issue or somewhat of an issue (both 33%). The median response among both medium and large agencies was somewhat important ; the median response of small agencies was that boarding a vehicle with a wheelchair was an unimportant/minor issue. FIGURE 4 Indicate whether bringing a wheelchair on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/challenge for your agency. Of the agencies that indicated wheelchairs are a very important or somewhat important concern, 14 (61%) noted that the delay incurred by the boarding and alighting of wheelchairs onto transit vehicles was a concern (Figure 5). Generally, respondents are also concerned with the limited capacity to accommodate wheelchairs and problems associated with this inadequate capacity such as the safety of the disabled passenger, the inability of the vehicle to pick up the rider when at capacity, and passenger crowding. Challenges and Concerns Respondents were asked to rate to what extent bringing a wheelchair on board a transit vehicle was an issue, concern, or challenge. Before exploring general trends among survey responses, it is worth noting that some respondents may have been confused by an apparent negative connotation of the term concern. This issue became apparent during the data collection phase of the survey outreach, when one agency sought to clarify the question s aims because the agency saw itself as accomplished in dealing with wheelchairs, and thus was not concerned with the issue. On the survey itself, one agency clarified its not an issue response, citing that wheelchairs are governed by law. Another large agency replied that all buses are wheelchair accessible and therefore, despite making the accommodation of wheelchairs a priority, the agency does not consider wheelchairs an issue/concern/challenge. In the United States, policies on wheelchair accommodation are also generally buttressed by the ADA. FIGURE 5 If you indicated that wheelchairs are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency?

29 19 tate wheelchair boarding. Similarly, a midsized agency also noted that many areas in [the] community are not accessible for those using wheelchairs. Another agency acknowledged the issue of the reliability of the ramp used to bridge the gap between a bus stop and the vehicle. Overview of Agency Policies Although one might assume all transit agencies have a written policy regarding the accommodation of wheelchairs on transit vehicles, the survey found that some agencies rely on ADA guidelines and do not adopt a formal policy for the agency s non-paratransit vehicles. Thirty-four of 42 agencies surveyed (81%) have a policy in place regarding the accommodation of wheelchairs on transit vehicles; the other eight do not (Table 5). Although not all Canadian agencies operate accessible vehicles, four Canadian agencies included as part of the study all have wheelchair policies in place for regular buses and trains, as well as paratransit vehicles. Among the smallest agencies in the survey sample, only eight of 14 said that they have an official wheelchair policy. All of the large agencies surveyed have a wheelchair policy. TABLE 7 POLICY LIMITS WHEELCHAIR WEIGHT Yes 38% (11) No 62% (18) n = 29. Of the 10 agencies that indicated size limitations, all but three have limits that correlate with the ADA definition of common wheelchair not to exceed 30 in. in width and 48 in. in length and not to weigh more than 600 lb when occupied. Of the other three not using the common wheelchair definition, one specified that the size as must fit in the vehicle doorway, one indicated a small wheelchair standard of 28½ in. wide by 40 in. long, and the third allows for a wider wheelchair of 32 in. wide by 48 in. long. With one exception, all of the agencies with weight policies match the ADA standard of 600 lb, although one agency allows for an occupied chair of up to 650 lb. One agency indicated that no official policy exists, but it will limit passengers in wheelchairs to a combined 800 pounds, the capacity of its lifts. TABLE 5 POLICIES: WHEELCHAIRS ABOARD TRANSIT VEHICLES (REGULAR BUSES AND TRAINS) Size Yes No Small Agencies 8 6 Medium Agencies 10 2 Large Agencies 16 0 n = 42. Size and Weight Limits 81% (34) 19% (8) Of the agencies that have a policy regarding wheelchairs aboard regular transit vehicles, 18 of 28 (64%) said that their policy does not limit the size of wheelchairs that can be accommodated, and 18 of 29 (62%) said that their policy does not limit the weight of a wheelchair that can be accommodated (Tables 6 and 7). Only one agency that operates both bus and rail service indicated that wheelchair size and weight restrictions apply only on buses and that no restrictions exist on rail. TABLE 6 POLICY LIMITS WHEELCHAIR SIZE Yes 36% (10) No 64% (18) n = 28. Wheelchair Position on Vehicles Unlike some of the other large items reviewed in this synthesis, most policies define where wheelchairs must be placed on buses. Twenty-seven of 34 responding agencies (79%) require wheelchairs to be placed in certain locations on regular transit buses (Table 8). Only two of the 14 responding agencies that operate both buses and rail have a designated location on rail vehicles that must be used by persons with wheelchairs; many of the agencies that operate rail, including BART, have designated areas on trains for wheelchairs but do not require wheelchairs to use them. Likewise, none of the rail operators require wheelchairs to be secured aboard the train, whereas wheelchairs must be secured on almost all of the buses. TABLE 8 POLICY REQUIRES SPECIFIC WHEELCHAIR PLACEMENT Yes 79% (27) No 21% (7) n = 34. Because most buses have a limited number of locations where wheelchairs can be secured, most agencies that operate buses limit the number of wheelchairs allowed per bus. Twenty-four of 30 agencies that operate buses (80%) have policies that limit the number of wheelchairs allowed on board a bus at one time. Presumably, other agencies also have limits, but these are not codified in their policies. For most agencies, the vehicle size and configuration dictates the num-

30 20 ber of wheelchairs that can be secured (ranging from two to four tie-downs, depending on the vehicle type, with two tiedowns being most common) (Figure 6). Only one of 33 agencies (3%) requires wheelchairs to be inspected and approved before use on transit buses. Although only one other agency indicated that inspection and approval is required in the event of questions about size or weight, it is assumed that many transit agencies will require inspection if questions exist about whether the wheelchair conforms to standards. Only one agency, with a fleet that is not fully accessible, indicated that wheelchairs are disallowed on certain routes. Unlike some of the other items being reviewed in this synthesis (e.g., bicycles, strollers, carts), wheelchairs are always a mobility device. As a result, and owing to ADA requirements for the accommodation of wheelchairs and people who use them, many agencies favor wheelchairs over other large items in the event of space constraints on a vehicle. When passenger loads are high on a transit vehicle (bus or trolley), not all agencies have a policy that requires operators to pick up all wheelchair/mobility device users, even when the wheelchair space is available. As shown in Table 9, 20 of 29 agencies (69%) with wheelchair policies expect drivers to pick up passengers when space is available for wheelchairs to be secured. Five of 29 agencies (17%) do not expect drivers to accommodate wheelchairs on a full vehicle. Four small agencies do not have an expectation regarding accommodation of wheelchairs on full vehicles. TABLE 9 DRIVERS EXPECTED TO PICK UP ALL WHEELCHAIR/ MOBILITY DEVICE USERS WHEN THE WHEELCHAIR SPACE IS AVAILABLE, EVEN WITH A FULL BUS Yes 69% (20) No 17% (5) N/A 14% (4) n = 29. N/A= not available. FIGURE 6 Common wheelchair (left) and a large stroller occupy space at the front of a bus (courtesy: CTA). Driver Assistance Among agencies that operate buses, most (20 of 31, or 65%) require their drivers to provide assistance to secure wheelchairs (where applicable). The other 11 of 31 (35%) instruct their drivers that they may provide assistance if requested or needed. In addition to extending the ramp or using the lift (expected of all operators) and securing passengers, operators at 12 of 31 (36%) agencies may assist passengers in stowing their belongings (Figure 7). FIGURE 7 Wheelchairs: Which of the following types of assistance may operators provide (buses) (n = 31)? In dealing with a full bus, a few agencies indicated that wheelchair users have priority in boarding and that other customers will be asked to move back if possible. According to one agency s policy, other passengers may be required to exit a vehicle for the wheelchair to board and then be allowed to reboard if space is available. For trains, one agency indicated that operators are not instructed to ask ambulatory passengers to deboard in order to allow a person in a wheelchair to get on the train. According to the agency, when trains are full, everyone waits including wheelchair users. Although a full transit vehicle can make it difficult for any passenger to board, a bus or trolley with designated wheelchair spaces that are occupied typically means that another wheelchair user cannot board. Transit agencies were asked to define what is required of operators when the wheelchair space is occupied but another individual in a wheelchair wants to board (Figure 8). Several agencies (8 of 23) always dispatch another vehicle, usually a paratransit vehicle, to pick up the passenger in a wheelchair. Others may dispatch another vehicle depending on the anticipated arrival time of the next scheduled bus.

31 21 FIGURE 8 What are operators instructed to do when the wheelchair space is occupied, but another individual in a wheelchair wants to board (n = 23)? Wheelchairs Boarding Rail Vehicles Most rail cars operated by North American transit agencies can accommodate a larger number of wheelchairs than buses. Transit agencies that operate rail vehicles indicated that trains can carry between four and eight wheelchairs per car. Most rail operations are much more flexible than bus operations regarding wheelchair size or weight restrictions, designated spaces for wheelchairs, or operator assistance requirements. For four of the agencies that operate commuter rail trains, passengers in wheelchairs require a higher level of assistance than for those agencies that have platform-level boarding. These agencies require personnel or train conductors to activate bridge plates, gap fillers, or ramp extenders for boarding and alighting. In many cases, wheelchair users must notify agency staff to provide assistance and to notify the train operator where they intend to alight. In most other cases, rail staff (operators or agents) may have less interaction with wheelchair users than their counterparts operating buses: rail does not typically require securement, and trains that offer platform-level boarding generally allow wheelchair users to enter or exit through any door. Wheelchair Policy Effectiveness Transit agency representatives were asked to indicate how effective they consider their wheelchair policies to be. As shown in Figure 9, most deemed their policies to be quite effective, with 25 of 29 respondents (86%) ranking their policy a 4 or 5 on a scale, with 5 being very effective and 1 being not at all effective. All agencies, regardless of whether they have a policy governing wheelchairs on transit vehicles, were asked whether they had considered implementing any specific policies about wheelchairs but not done so. Only 36 of the 42 agencies responded to this question, and only six (17%) indicated that they had considered policies that were not implemented (Table 10). FIGURE 9 How effective do you think the agency s wheelchair policy is (n = 29)? TABLE 10 POLICIES REGARDING WHEELCHAIRS CONSIDERED, BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED Yes 17% (6) No 83% (30) n = 36. One agency noted that wheelchair securement on the bus is currently optional, but it is considering making securement mandatory to enhance safety for the rider and other passengers and to prevent tip overs. Another agency considered a policy that would require seated passengers to vacate the wheelchair position for a wheelchair, but the agency determined that this was an unrealistic requirement to make of operators. Three agencies described their concerns about accommodating nonstandard, oversized, or overweight wheelchairs. All agencies had considered new policies explicitly denying these but failed to enact policies with these provisions. One agency purchased larger lifts and does not currently deny service. One agency representative noted [the agency] is not confident that [we could limit large wheelchairs] without opening ourselves up for a possible lawsuit. Another survey respondent expressed concerns about the structural integrity and transportability of wheelchairs in general: They simply are not built for being placed in a moving vehicle. Most will fall apart in a serious accident, but the ADA laws require we transport them. ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: TRIMET, PORTLAND, OREGON REVISITING WHEELCHAIR POLICIES Portland s TriMet is one of few agencies that makes the securement of wheelchairs or other mobility devices optional. The policy was developed with significant input from TriMet s Committee on Accessible Transportation (CAT), a citizens committee created in 1985 with a critical role for providing input on policies and programs for people with disabilities. The optional securement policy has been in place for several years, but owing to concerns about passen-

32 22 ger safety and some instances of wheelchairs tipping over, the agency plans to revise the policy by early 2011 to make securement mandatory. Many of the details presented here were shared by the TriMet manager of procedure development in a telephone interview on April 8, 2010 (T. Fuentes, TriMet, personal communication, Apr. 8, 2010). The revision has the support of the CAT, which originally sought to make securement optional in an effort to be sensitive to riders using wheelchairs, allowing them to maintain their dignity and feel independent. In requesting the revision to the policy, TriMet conducted a review of 32 months of accident data. During that period, 152 incidents involving mobility devices occurred. Forty-six of these incidents involved the wheelchair tipping over or the person using the device being shifted forward in the securement area, leading to their own injury or injuring another customer. TriMet calculated an accident rate of about 1.4 per month. According to staff, accidents with mobility devices have not translated into a major fiscal burden for TriMet, but they are a significant ongoing safety concern. Drivers Are Instructed to Ask the Customer if He or She Needs Assistance The current policy requires operators to ask passengers in wheelchairs or other mobility devices if they would like to be secured, but the decision is up to the passenger. If a wheelchair user declines to be secured, the driver is instructed to send a note to the transit dispatcher. Some CAT members and staff members have expressed concern that because securement is optional and has been so for several years, operators may be neglecting to ask whether riders wish to be secured. Second Time Around Securement was initially required on the buses but then was made optional. Based on the high number of accidents and concerns about passenger safety and agency liability, TriMet s Executive Committee recommended and the CAT endorsed the mandatory securement of wheelchairs and other mobility devices. CAT members identified several issues to be addressed before the forthcoming mandatory securement policy is implemented: Train operators to ensure consistency and sensitivity and include persons with disabilities in the training process. Ensure that appropriate and safe equipment is available on all buses. Address concerns about the time it takes to secure on tightly scheduled runs. Carry out education and outreach efforts to drivers and mobility device users before implementation. Make securement straps available to mobility device users as part of the eligibility certification or recertification process. Order new buses with securement options that allow people with disabilities to have the maximum amount of autonomy over their securement process. Procedures for Buses Unable to Accommodate People in Wheelchairs The use of securement space also has impacted whether passengers with wheelchairs can board transit vehicles. The agency s policy is that priority is given to people who are supposed to occupy the priority seating area, including wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Although in some cases oversized and double strollers have occupied these spaces, making it difficult to load a wheelchair, these spaces are generally used only by mobility devices. Nevertheless, owing to the potential that all wheelchair securement positions could be occupied by wheelchairs when another person using a wheelchair wants to board a bus, TriMet developed a set of comprehensive procedures for operators to follow: If there is no way to board the person due to crush load or all wheelchair securement areas being occupied: 1. Stop and explain the situation to the customer. 2. If the following bus is less than 30 minutes behind, tell the customer when the next bus will arrive, notify dispatch, and resume service. 3. If it is more than 30 minutes before the next bus arrives: a. Collect all information needed to arrange for transport: Get the customer s name. Get the customer s destination. Ask the customer, Can you use a regular cab or do you require a vehicle with lift equipment? b. Notify dispatch and remain with customer. c. Follow dispatch instructions (dispatch will arrange for alternative transportation). d. Inform waiting customer of transportation arrangements and schedule. e. Resume service. This procedure was updated last in 2008 but is similar to procedures that have been in place since the 1980s. The TriMet service area has grown and services have been enhanced, so few routes today have headways greater than 30 min. Although it is rare that a rider might be waiting more than 30 min, TriMet s operators are trained to follow this specific procedure.

33 23 CHAPTER FOUR SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER MOBILITY DEVICES LITERATURE REVIEW ON SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER MOBILITY DEVICES AND ACCOMMODATION POLICIES The use of non-traditional mobility aids is increasing and there is confusion and lack of uniformity in how they are accommodated, according to the 2008 Easter Seals Project ACTION Status Report on the Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and Private Transportation (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2008). The report cites examples such as Segways, orthopedic strollers (pediatric wheelchairs or wheelchair strollers ), scooters, and wheeled walkers with seats. Oxygen tanks can also be categorized as mobility aids when their use is essential for the rider to complete a trip. Figures 10 and 11 show a scooter and a Segway. ing Council composed guidance that states, Transportation providers may establish their own general policies regarding Segways and other devices, just as they do with respect to pets or bicycles. However, when a device is being used as a mobility device by a person with a mobility-related disability, then the transportation provider must permit the person and his or her device onto the vehicle. The council determined that Segways do not qualify as wheelchairs and, therefore, if they exceed ADA size allowances, they do not need to be permitted (U.S.DOT and FTA 2005). FIGURE 10 Mobility scooter (courtesy: H. Cherin, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Segway Policies The Segway, a recent innovation gaining popularity, can be one of the most troublesome to physically accommodate because of its size and problems with maneuverability in a confined space. Although it is not an ADA-protected mobility device, the U.S.DOT s Disability Law Coordinat- FIGURE 11 Segway operating in the street (courtesy: Mauritsvink on File:Segway_Amsterdam.jpg). BART adopted a policy in 2008 when a Segway ran off the platform and onto the tracks, causing a train to hit it and resulting in widespread system delays. Because other manufacturers are entering the market, BART s policy discusses

34 24 the device as an electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD), rather than a Segway. Anyone wishing to use an EPAMD must apply and receive a free permit and carry it with them. EPAMD riders must dismount at the fare gates and push or pull the device. However, people with disabilities can ride the device within the station after an in-person demonstration of their ability to ride. Neither group of riders can ride the device on the platform or in the trains, and all must use the elevator to access the platform. Although people with disabilities can use their EPAMD anytime on BART, others may use it only under the same rules as bicycles, that is, generally during off-peak times or in the reverse commute direction (Cabanatuan 2008). A Segway user of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) system had an accident wherein she lost control of the device, sending it onto the track. BART s Segway policy is very similar to WMATA s, which adopted its policy first in WMATA s policy prohibits Segways, which it calls automatic balancing wheeled conveyances (ABWCs), on its trains during weekday hours of 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. However, ABWC users with disabilities are allowed expanded access with a permit. ABWCs are never allowed on WMATA Metrobuses (Layton 2003). County Connection in Contra Costa County, California, is an example of a suburban bus operator that allows Segways on its vehicles. In its policy the device is referred to as a two-wheeled automatic balancing device (ABD), which is defined as any upright battery powered self-balancing wheeled personal transportation device. Riders who are not disabled may not bring the device on board unless it can be folded and stowed under the seat. Persons using the devices as mobility aids owing to disability, upon medical verification, must go through an in-person orientation at the transit administrative offices, consisting of using the lift or ramp, securement of the device, and safety rules such as turning off power. They will then be issued a blue placard with a wheelchair icon to affix to the ABD, which must be secured in the wheelchair space of the bus (Policy for the Transport of Two-Wheeled Automatic Balancing Devices 2009). Both King County Metro in Seattle and Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) also allow people with disabilities to bring Segways on their buses but require that they be secured in the wheelchair area of the vehicle because of their weight and size (King County Metro 2009). In Denver, the bus driver must visually check that the Segway is secured properly (RTD: Americans with Disabilities Act 2010). Other Mobility Devices The literature is scarce on policies dealing with other types of mobility devices. The following are some specific statements on scooters, walkers, and medical equipment: [Helsinki, Finland] Mobility scooters with separate handlebars are not transported on buses, trams or the metro because they do not fit in the space designated for wheelchairs (Helsinki Region Transport 2010). [Valley Transit, Appleton, WI] Walkers may be brought aboard but should be folded whenever possible and must not block the aisle of the bus. Bicycles, tricycles, wagons, scooters and other wheeled devices that do not qualify as ADA mobility devices, are not allowed inside the bus (Valley Transit 2009). [Link Transit, serving Chelan and Douglas Counties, Washington] Riders may also bring on board necessary medical equipment, which is or may be needed when the rider is traveling on Link Transit. Riders are allowed to use a wheeled cart for transporting carry-on items. Additional examples include mobility devices, walkers, canes, as well as oxygen and monitors. There will be no additional charge for necessary medical equipment (Link Transit 2008). [Denver RTD] Disabled passengers may board with mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, electric scooters, Segways, walkers, and crutches, although such devices should be properly stored, as necessary, outside of the aisle and in the securement area of the vehicle (RTD: Americans with Disabilities Act 2010). SURVEY RESULTS Challenges and Concerns Respondents were asked to rate to what extent bringing a mobility device including scooters and Segways on board a transit vehicle was an issue, concern, or challenge (Figure 12). One major clarification elicited by the responses was that of a distinction between Segways and other mobility aids. Most of the agencies that added comments noted that they had either limited or no direct experience with Segways on their vehicles. Most scooter and other mobility aid-users are persons with disabilities; Segways can function as mobility aids, but are also familiar as transport or pleasure devices. Overall, 36% of all agencies noted that Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids were somewhat of an issue. After that, the other responses were roughly equally distributed, with each hovering around 20%. Figure 13 illustrates potential reasons why Segways, scooters, and other large mobility aids were regarded as somewhat or very much an issue or concern. The top response in this case was concern for the safety of the passenger with the mobility aid. Comments helped clarify the frequency of this response: four agencies noted that, owing to either nontraditional scooter designs or inadequate vehicle facilities,

35 25 there is a lack of effective securement techniques for larger mobility items, which compromises passenger safety. The next most frequent response was boarding/alighting delay, after which were three vehicle capacity-related concerns of equal weight (12 of 25, or 48%). Most agencies with policies regarding mobility devices that have not faced the issue of accommodating a Segway have not updated their guidelines since the 1980s and 1990s. Twelve of the surveyed agencies updated their policies for accommodating mobility devices after 2002, when the Segway was first introduced. Not all of these policies address the Segway: many of them recognize that all mobility devices that conform to size guidelines may be accommodated. TABLE 11 POLICIES: SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER MOBILITY AIDS ABOARD REGULAR TRANSIT VEHICLES (REGULAR BUSES AND TRAINS) Yes 63% (25) No 37% (15) n = 40. FIGURE 12 Indicate whether bringing Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids on your vehicles is considered an issue/ concern/challenge for your agency. Four of the surveyed agencies have never encountered a Segway and indicated that they have not developed a policy for that reason. According to a survey respondent from one agency, the agency does not have a Segway policy at this time. However, if it is a mobility aid device, we would make arrangements, providing that it doesn t affect safety, to assist the customer as best as possible. Accommodating Scooters When agencies that operate buses indicated having a policy covering mobility devices, they were asked whether scooters were allowed on buses. Twenty-one of 22 agencies (95%) allow scooters unconditionally on buses if they meet size standards. The remaining agency, SunTran, requires fourpoint securement for scooters on buses, and the passenger must transfer to a seat. Most agency respondents commented that their agency would allow any manual or battery-powered mobility device that fits on a bus. FIGURE 13 If you indicated that Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency? Overview of Agency Policies People with disabilities have been using scooters, walkers, and other mobility devices for decades. As a result, a majority of the transit agencies sampled (25 of 40, or 63%) have developed policies and guidelines for their accommodation on board transit vehicles (Table 11). Newer to the mobility scene, the Segway has led some transit agencies to develop comprehensive policies regarding the accommodation of these gyro-stabilized two-wheeled devices, whereas some agencies have never encountered Segways, and other agencies have developed policies specifically prohibiting them. Nine of 21 agencies require the scooter to be no larger than 30 in. by 48 in., the size of a common wheelchair. None of the other agencies have specific size limitations or requirements for buses. All of the rail agencies allow scooters, and one agency indicated that the only size limitation is that scooters must be able to fit in elevators to access rail platforms in the train station. Weight limits generally reflect ADA standards of 600 lb. Accommodating Segways Although scooters are universally accepted on board buses, Segways are not. Thirteen of 23 agencies (57%) have policies that allow Segways on buses; the other 10 agencies (43%) prohibit Segways (Table 12). All of the agencies that operate rail allow Segways aboard trains, subject to some limitations. Agencies that allow Segways on board buses generally allow them only for people who use them as a mobility device. Of the 13 agencies with policies to accommodate Segways on buses, only three allow anyone to bring a Segway on board; the others allow them only for people who use them as a mobility device.

36 26 TABLE 12 SEGWAYS ALLOWED ON SOME OR ALL OF BUSES Yes 57% (13) No 43% (10) n = 23. Six of the agencies that operate rail allow Segways on the trains, and they all allow them to be brought on trains by anyone, although some agencies such as WMATA and BART have restrictions regarding the times that Segways can be used on trains by people who do not require them as a mobility device. Most agencies do not require a permit to use a Segway, but three of the 15 agencies (20%) that allow Segways require a permit (Table 13). SunTran riders must have a note from a doctor that says the device must be used so a permit can be issued. CCCTA requires Segway users to go the agency s office to demonstrate their ability to maneuver the Segway on ramps and lifts, and in securement areas. BART offers two types of permits: one for people who use a Segway as a mobility device and one for users who do not have disabilities. TABLE 13 SEGWAY PERMIT ISSUANCE Yes 20% (3) No 80% (12) n = 15. Agency Limitations and Requirements for Mobility Devices Five agencies require an inspection of at least some mobility aids, including Segways and scooters, before they can be used on transit. These include the three agencies that require Segway permits SunTran, CCCTA, and BART as well as Greater Glens Falls Transit and UTA, if mobility devices are to be used on paratransit. Vehicle capacity is the primary contributing factor to whether or not an agency specifically includes a limitation in its policy on the number of mobility devices allowed on a vehicle. Eighteen of 23 agencies (78%) have a policy that limits the number of mobility devices allowed on vehicles, primarily on their buses (Table 15). In most cases, these limits match those of wheelchairs, with most bus operators indicating vehicles have two, sometimes three, wheelchair securement areas that are also to be used for other mobility devices (see Figure 14). Two of the 23 agencies commented that a limit on the number of mobility devices is at the driver s discretion. TABLE 15 THE POLICY LIMITS THE NUMBER OF MOBILITY DEVICES ALLOWED ON VEHICLES Yes 78% (18) No 22% (5) n = 23. Accommodating Other Mobility Devices Twenty-four of the agencies surveyed have policies for mobility aids other than scooters and Segways, and 18 of them (82%) allow other mobility aids on transit (Table 14). Almost all agencies that allow for other mobility aids indicated that walkers are the most common on board vehicles, but canes and crutches were also noted. Some agencies, such as Community Transit, require walkers to be folded or secured with straps. A few agencies specifically noted in the survey comments that any mobility device is accommodated except those powered by gasoline or other combustible fuels. TABLE 14 THE POLICY ALLOWS OTHER TYPES OF MOBILITY AIDS (OTHER THAN SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND WHEELCHAIRS) Yes 82% (18) No 18% (4) n = 22. FIGURE 14 Passenger uses a motorized wheelchair on the bus lift (courtesy: H. Cherin, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Passengers with scooters and other mobility devices must secure these devices in the wheelchair spaces (18 of 24 agencies, or 75%). On trains, where securement is not generally required (or available), the only limitation in most cases is

37 27 space on the train for mobility aids (see Table 15). None of the agencies operating rail services identified a specific limit to the number of scooters, Segways, or other mobility aids on trains. Among the agencies surveyed, only TriMet s policy specifically requires that two-wheeled mobility devices be stored underneath a seat if they cannot be otherwise secured. policy is ineffective. That respondent commented that significant variance in mobility device design makes securement difficult and time consuming and noted that many mobility devices are not designed for transport securement. Driver Assistance Eleven of 21 agencies (52%) require drivers to assist passengers with Segways, scooters, and other mobility devices (see Figure 15). The other 10 agencies that responded noted that drivers may assist passengers with these mobility devices. As shown in Figure 16, of the agencies that operate buses, almost all of them expect operators to offer ramp or lift access and to secure their mobility aid. Only six of the 21 agencies (29%) encourage or allow operators to assist with passengers belongings. FIGURE 16 Segways, scooters, and other mobility devices: Which of the following types of assistance may operators provide (buses) (n =31)? FIGURE 17 How effective do you think the agency s policy governing Segways, scooters, and other mobility devices is (n = 23)? FIGURE 15 Driver assists a passenger using a walker with wheels off a fixed-route vehicle operated by TheBus (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Effectiveness of Policy for Segways, Scooters, and Other Mobility Devices Survey respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of agency policies regarding Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids (Figure 17). Seventeen of 23 respondents (74%) indicated that the agency s policy was effective or very effective. Five rated the agency s policy a 3 ( neither effective nor ineffective ), and one indicated that the agency s Some of the concerns raised by survey respondents were with scooters: that they can be large and difficult to secure on buses. Four of the respondents with policies covering mobility devices commented that their agency had not yet addressed Segways or other two-wheel mobility aids because they had not yet been raised as an issue. Three of these respondents noted that they expect the issue to arise in the future and that their agency will need to amend its policies when the time comes. All agency representatives whether their agency has a policy in place or not were asked if their agency had ever considered implementing restrictions on Segways, scooters, or other mobility devices but had not done so. Nine of the 38 respondents (24%) replied that their agencies had considered restrictions (Table 16). One agency Metro Transit in Madison, Wisconsin had prohibited Segways on all vehicles, but after an on-site demonstration by an individual who uses one as a mobility aid and getting input from the individual on securement recommendations, the agency changed its policy (see the brief

38 28 summary). One large agency that operates buses and trains had very restrictive policies for Segways initially but relaxed them once it was clear they were not significantly impacting operations. Another agency considered a permit program for Segways but decided against it. TABLE 16 RESTRICTIONS REGARDING SEGWAYS AND OTHER DEVICES WERE CONSIDERED, BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED Yes 24% (9) No 76% (29) n = 38. FIGURE 18 Are Segways, scooters, and other mobility aids accommodated on paratransit vehicles (n = 29)? One agency had sought to limit any mobility device that could not be tied down or secured within the vehicle. The survey respondent from that agency commented that sometimes mobility equipment includes notices placed on it by the manufacturer stating that it is not to be used on transit vehicles. SEGWAYS, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER MOBILITY AIDS ON PARATRANSIT Although one might presume that any mobility aid would be accommodated by paratransit vehicles, the survey results illustrate this is not the case. The U.S.DOT provides only guidance regarding Segways, and many agencies have not considered Segways to be mobility aids that are accommodated on paratransit vehicles. The survey results suggest the disparity among answers (near-universal coverage of scooters and other mobility aids versus half accommodation of Segways) is the result of Segways not having been addressed at the federal level in the United States; as a result, some agencies are still developing their Segway policies both on regular routes as well as on paratransit services. Only two agencies commented that their policy for these devices is the same on paratransit as on fixed route services. Many explained, either referencing the act directly or expressing its requirements directly, that they follow the standard regulations set forth by the ADA. Segways are not yet a universal device; one midsized agency explained, we have never been asked to transport a Segway on paratransit. In responding no to accommodating Segways, VOTRAN clarified, We have not [had] requests for Segways. We accommodate other mobility aids, walkers, scooters, etc., as outlined by ADA. Figure 18 presents information about which mobility aids are accommodated on paratransit vehicles. Several agencies also noted the ADA s definition of wheelchairs in common use in reporting their paratransit policies. A Canadian agency (not governed by ADA) added that Scooters, wheelchairs (with occupant) must have dimensions and weight that can be safely accommodated on the vehicle lift. MARTA encourages riders not to stay on their scooter on the vehicle lift, unless necessary. According to the agency s public information, Scooters are often unstable on lift equipment, and they may exceed the ADA allowable dimensions and weight. Some scooters also come with a warning from the manufacturer that they should not be used as seats on moving vehicles. Customers may ride standard scooters on the lift, but it is strongly recommended that our customers transfer to a Paratransit vehicle seat, whenever possible (MARTA 2010). Another common theme in the agencies responses was that of proper securement of mobility aids on paratransit vehicles. Oversize wheelchairs, a small agency noted, can present a problem as they cannot always be tied down with conventional straps. Two agencies mentioned that their policies include driver assistance in the securement process, with one describing the procedure: Drivers must leave their seat to assist and secure [a] mobility device using a 4-point restraint if possible. It added that passengers cannot be denied ridership if we cannot secure. ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: METRO TRANSIT, MADISON, WISCONSIN LEARNING SAFE OPERATION OF A SEGWAY FROM A USER Staff at Metro Transit first became aware of Segways in Madison when, in 2005, a local bicycle shop began to rent them for people to use on the local bike trails. Recognizing that the transit system might encounter passengers at a bus stop expecting to bring them on buses, the agency rented two Segways for staff in operations, maintenance, and administration to try on the vehicles. Staff boarded and alighted on the bus lifts and ramps, tried to navigate them down the narrow aisles of the vehicles, and tried to secure them with the vehicle tie-downs. Based on their tests, staff made recommendations to the Transit and Parking Commission for establishment of a formal policy that would prohibit Segways from being allowed on buses until there was a way to secure them. The policy was passed and remains in place today.

39 29 Three years later, a young man in his 20s with a disability contacted agency staff regarding his need for a Segway as a mobility device and his interest in taking the Segway on the bus to attend school. Although the agency s policy prohibiting Segways was in place, staff invited the man to demonstrate how he used his Segway. According to the Transit Service Manager, He went to Metro Transit s garage and demonstrated agility and excellent control of the device. He showed he could maneuver quickly and safely up a ramp and within a bus. He pulled a bungee cord out of his backpack and secured the device in the wheelchair securement area (Gullickson 4/8/2010). Impressed by what they saw, staff determined there was no reason to deny access to this man. They made an informal allowance to accommodate him and his Segway on buses. Later the same year, after an insurance company audit of the system turned up questions about allowing the Segway aboard the vehicle, agency staff invited the insurance company to meet with the man who used the Segway. Following another demonstration of how he boarded and maneuvered on the bus, the insurance company s attorney agreed that the Segway presented no hazard. The insurance company drafted a new Segway policy for use by its transit agency clients, supporting Metro Transit s accommodation of the Segway-using passenger. Although nobody else has requested to bring a Segway on board Metro Transit buses, the Transit Service Manager notes that Metro Transit will accommodate other persons with disabilities using Segways as a mobility device. The agency had hoped to purchase tie-downs designed for Segways but has been unable to find a manufacturer that produces them.

40 30 CHAPTER FIVE STROLLERS LITERATURE REVIEW ON STROLLERS AND STROLLER ACCOMMODATION POLICIES The problem of accommodating strollers has grown as the size of strollers has increased. No longer just small umbrella strollers, which can be folded and hung over the arm, strollers are now multipurpose, with removable baby carriers and attached pouches for diapers, bottles, and other accessories. Magazine articles and blogs report conflicts between parents with strollers and other passengers. For example, this 2008 posting on a blog dedicated to The T light rail system in Boston describes the conflict: I wavered between who I found more annoying: the woman who brought a ginormous stroller on public transportation or the passengers who steadfastly refused to let her in thus creating a dangerous bottleneck (Ginormous Strollers on T Buses 2008). One example of the struggle over this issue is an incident in October 2008 that created outrage in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, when a bus driver refused to allow a young woman onto the bus with a stroller and then drove off with her twoyear-old child on board (Drudi 2008). Following the incident, OC Transpo s staff proposed a series of recommendations that would provide clear rules about the transportation of strollers on the OC Transpo buses. One of the most controversial rules was prohibiting open strollers, except in empty spaces designated for wheelchairs. If there were no empty spaces, the stroller would have to be folded. Upon cries that this rule discriminated against parents and would be a hardship in winter weather, the OC Transpo transit committee agreed to continue to allow open strollers in the aisles, unless the driver found that the open strollers interfered with the safe movement of passengers (Cockburn 2009). OC Transpo adopted a new Co-operative Seating Area. Royal blue decals displaying new, modern graphics depicting people eligible to use Co-operative Seating are placed on the windows in this area. Although wheelchairs are given priority in the United States, Canadian providers may offer priority to persons using wheelchairs and other mobility devices; people with children that may or may not be in strollers; pregnant women; seniors; people with injuries; and people with invisible disabilities. For this particular agency, people who are eligible for priority seating (such as those with disabilities) will be included in a category within the Co-operative Seating area. The blue decals will extend strips outward for the length of the Co-operative Seating area depicting other types of people requiring special seating. On the actual seats themselves, a graphic depiction of a person standing next to a seat will be woven in the material to indicate the action that is expected from anyone sitting in those seats. As with handicap parking wheelchair symbols, these graphics are likely to encourage people to keep moving back so as to avoid sitting in what would be perceived as a reserved seat (Schepers 2009). Chapter nine contains more information on the agency s experience and policies. In another mishap in New York City in 1995, a stroller was caught in the doors of a train. To remedy the problem, newer cars and some older retrofitted cars have door sensors or closed-circuit monitors to alert the driver and prevent such accidents (Alvarez 1995). The decision about whether to allow boarding of a stroller and whether it must be folded is most often left to the discretion of the driver. For example, the stroller policy at Sioux Area Metro in South Dakota states, if due to the size of the stroller and/or if the stroller is blocking or narrowing the aisle, the driver may deny the passenger a ride (Sioux Area Metro 2008). Victoria Regional Transit System in Victoria, British Columbia, has set clear priorities for the accessible seating area as follows: 1. Customers who use wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility aids 2. Elderly customers and customers with disability or mobility issues 3. Customers with strollers 4. Luggage (in the case of double deckers). However, it is still up to the driver to resolve cases of a conflict. The policy directs the driver to inform the customer of the priorities, and if a customer refuses to respect these

41 31 priorities the driver is to use discretion as to whether a transit supervisor should be contacted to assist in resolving the issue (Victoria Regional Transit Commission 2010). Other agencies have adopted policies that relieve the driver of making decisions about strollers. Two examples are Valley Transit in Appleton, Wisconsin, and Link Transit in Washington State, both of which require that the child be removed from the stroller and the stroller be folded before boarding the bus (Valley Transit 2009). In the province of Ontario, Brantford Transit changed its requirement that strollers be folded and now allows open strollers. However, the policy states, Oversize strollers will not be allowed on the buses. An oversize stroller is anything larger than a single stroller and includes jogging strollers (Brantford Transit 2010). Some stroller manufacturers extol the virtues of their single-seat stroller s ability, at 20 in. wide, to fit easily through doors. This is an important factor on buses, where the aisles are typically 20 to 23 in. wide. Compounding the problem of strollers on buses is the sale of double-seat strollers for parents with a baby and a toddler and even triple-seat strollers that have accompanied the rise of multiple births. For example, a side-by-side stroller can weigh almost 21 lb and have dimensions 39 in. high by 30 in. wide by 31.5 in. deep. A tandem stroller can weigh more than 55 lb with dimensions 52 in. high, in. wide, and 25.5 in. deep. Because of the difficulty of maneuvering large strollers and several children, parents have often fought bus operator requirements that the strollers be folded before boarding. Some operators, such as County Connection and AC Transit in California and Sioux Area Metro in South Dakota, will allow the driver to lower the lift or ramp to board unfolded strollers upon request by the adult passenger. However, Tri Delta Transit in California has gone one step further by removing one set of seats on its 40-ft fixed route buses to create a designated stroller area. We currently accommodate these passengers by deploying the lift to assist them in boarding the bus, said Tri Delta Transit Chief Executive Officer Jeanne Krieg. However, we recognized the difficulty they encounter when required to fold their strollers, and felt there was more we could do to make their experience easier and more enjoyable (APTA Passenger Transport Archive 2006). Tri Delta buses can also accommodate two additional strollers if the wheelchair area is not occupied. A 2008 article in the New York Magazine evaluated nine strollers priced between $150 and $1,000, complete with a street test of each (see Figures 19 and 20). Comments on their ease ranged from complimentary ( Buses and subways a snap; stroller is light enough for hip sling. Great for walk-up apartments, public transportation ) to scathing ( On bus ride, hit a passenger in the head with seat and had to ask another rider to fish MetroCard out of pocket. On subway, actually accepted an assist from a pregnant woman, and for another stroller, Ran over several feet on subway and bus and found climbing stairs unassisted was next to impossible ) (Penn 2008). FIGURE 19 Two double strollers: One child positioned above another (left) and a wide stroller for two (right) on a CTA bus in Chicago [courtesy: (left) J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates; (right) CTA].

42 32 FIGURE 20 Boarding a bus with different types of strollers in Austin, Texas. Two women remove children and fold strollers at a bus stop as they prepare to board a bus. The woman on the left boards with a collapsed umbrella stroller. The woman on the right boards with a larger folded stroller (courtesy: Capital Metro). In a 2003 TRB report Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses, the authors found that Across Europe, the use of urban buses by persons with strollers is greater than the use by persons in wheelchairs (Rutenberg and Hemily 2003). Research by Geraldine Petterssen in a 2009 article published by the Association for European Transport notes that Between 35% and 40% of the European Union s population has reduced mobility and included in that definition not only people with disabilities but also older people and those with heavy shopping, bulky luggage, and buggies. Petterssen concluded that Local bus transport was a lifeline for many parents with young children and accessible buses made it easier to use, reducing isolation and increasing social inclusion (Petterssen 2009). However, her research found that some of the buses are so well used by buggies that additional parents with strollers cannot board.

43 33 In addition, conflicts between buggies and wheelchairs arose for the area designated for these vehicles. As solutions, she cites signage that more clearly denotes what is expected from riders, such as, Please give up this space for a wheelchair user, and provision of additional space. Petterssen quotes from the Good Practice Guide published by Bus Users UK as a trend worth emulating: do not currently consider this to be an issue. This agency, however, is more of an exception than the rule: a clear majority of agencies (27 of 42, or 64%) regarded strollers as being somewhat or very much an issue (Figure 21). Where provided, comments to this question addressed standard agency policies, effectiveness metrics, or accommodations for strollers on a transit vehicle. The tendency by some operators to move away from maximum seating capacity and provide circulating space in the forward part of a bus is welcome, and proper luggage and buggy space, together with obvious and adequate handholds, further assist comfortable movement inside the bus. Beyond these studies in the European Union, this literature search focused on individual transit operations in Scandinavia to illustrate the variety of approaches for handling strollers. In Scandinavian countries, prams and pushchairs (i.e., baby buggies and strollers) are directed by policy to the bus luggage area, which has room for two prams or two wheelchairs. If the bus does not have such an area or if it is full, the parent and child must wait for the next bus. Most transit operators require that the pram or stroller be braked, but in Trondheim, Norway, the child s vehicle can be attached to the mounting strap (e.g., wheelchair tie-down) if it does not have brakes (Team Trafikk 2010). Many Scandinavian city bus systems do not allow prams and strollers that are used to carry goods or luggage instead of children, although Stockholm, Sweden, specifically allows prams for transporting luggage (Stockholm Public Transport 2010). So too does Aarhus, Denmark; however, in Aarhus, prams with children are free but prams used to carry luggage require a separate ticket (Midttrafik 2010). In Helsinki, Finland, buses and trams are equipped with a special pram button by the door, which when pushed makes the doors stay open longer (Helsinki Region Transport 2010). Oslo, Norway, has removed poles by the middle door on its subway system to provide more room, particularly for entry by twin carriages (Ruter 2010). FIGURE 21 Indicate whether bringing strollers on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/challenge for your agency. Indeed, the highest-frequency concern among agencies that consider strollers either a very important or somewhat important concern (answered by 25 of 26 agencies, or 93%) was blocking of aisles/egress (Figure 22). As with wheelchairs and other mobility aids, general vehicle capacity and crowding of passengers were also issues, though not to the same extent (56% and 67%, respectively). One of the few agencies that added a comment to this question noted that problems particularly arise with passengers boarding with stroller[s] that don t fold. SURVEY RESULTS Challenges and Concerns Strollers are a more contentious issue than wheelchairs and other large mobility aids. Whereas policies addressing the former items are primarily governed by federal regulation (the ADA in the United States) or some provincial laws in Canada, stroller policies have developed in an ad hoc manner and face increased scrutiny. A few agencies did not consider strollers to be an operations concern: one agency that marked not an issue clarified its response, stating that many of our customers use strollers and we are comfortable with the approach we take with respect to strollers, so [we] FIGURE 22 If you indicated that strollers are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency? A comment from a medium-sized agency highlights a problem that is not addressed elsewhere: that of language barriers. The agency indicated that a major concern regarding strollers is communicating with Spanish-speaking moms about correct procedures, but this could be relevant for populations speaking other languages, as well.

44 34 Overview of Agency Policies Of the 40 agencies responding on this topic, 31 (78%) have a stroller policy in place. The other nine agencies (22%) have no formal policy regarding strollers, although several of them indicated that their agency considered implementing a stroller policy but did not carry it forward owing to monitoring and enforcement concerns or agency boards not supporting staff recommendations. For example, three agencies proposed policies that only folding/collapsible strollers could be brought on board vehicles but did not implement the policies based on the potential inconvenience to passengers (who might need to purchase new strollers for transit rides) or difficulty of ensuring that drivers would enforce the policy. Although large strollers seem to be a new phenomenon for many transit agencies, several of the agencies surveyed have had stroller policies in place since the 1970s and 1980s. Many of the largest agencies were unaware of when their stroller policy was implemented, suggesting that it they had been in effect for a long time (among the agencies surveyed, the oldest known stroller policy dates from 1976). Smaller agencies, many of which are newer than the large agencies, have stroller policies that were primarily developed in the 2000s. Many agencies are reviewing their stroller policies, and some agencies, such as OC Transpo, updated their stroller policy as recently as Stroller Size Limits and Design Requirements Most of the policies do not limit the size of strollers, and even those that do have only rough size guidelines, with no agency providing specific measurements/dimensions. Of the 31 agencies with policies in place, four (13%) limit the size of strollers (Table 17). New York MTA s policy states that small folded strollers are permitted, although no specific dimensions are provided. BC Transit s policy limits the size based on whether the stroller can be brought inside the vehicle: it must fit through the entrance, must fit in the securement position, and must not block the aisle. TABLE 17 THE POLICY LIMITS THE SIZE OF STROLLERS Yes 13% (4) No 87% (27) n = 31. A majority of the agencies surveyed require that strollers be foldable or collapsible (Table 18). Nineteen of 30 agencies (63%) said that on board their buses, the child must be removed and strollers must be folded. TABLE 18 DOES THE POLICY REQUIRE THAT STROLLERS BE FOLDABLE/COLLAPSIBLE? Yes 63% (19) No 37% (11) n = 30. The policies vary with regard to level of comprehensiveness and enforcement. A couple of agencies indicated the requirements are not published but are understood by agency staff. For example, Greater Glens Falls Transit notes that for practical purposes many strollers need to be folded in order to keep the aisle clear. TriMet s policy is not explicit, but suggests that strollers be collapsed if possible, so that aisles and doors are not blocked. Tri Delta Transit, an agency that offers a stroller area on vehicles, noted that strollers do not need to be folded unless the stroller area is full and the wheelchair securement area is also full. Brandon Transit does not explicitly require strollers to be folded but commented that from time to time, strollers may need to be folded, depending on the capacity of the bus. The primary comment from transit agencies regarding their basis for requiring folding or collapsible strollers is to keep the aisles clear, and according to one agency, strollers must not present a hazard to other passengers. As shown in Table 19, 23 of 31 agencies (74%) require that the baby/child be removed from the stroller on buses (four of the agencies that do not require foldable/collapsible strollers nevertheless require strollers to be empty on buses). One transit system manager highlighted the importance of requiring children to be removed from the stroller on the bus by recounting an incident when a child in a stroller hit a bus windshield during an accident. TABLE 19 DOES THE AGENCY REQUIRE THAT THE BABY/CHILD BE REMOVED FROM THE STROLLER ON THE VEHICLE? Yes 74% (23) No 26% (8) n = 31. Of the 23 agencies that require a child to be removed from a stroller on a bus, seven (23%) indicated that a child must be seated in the parent s lap. The other 16 agencies either allow the child in a parent s lap or on a seat, or do not specify where the child must be seated. Several agency representatives were asked about safety issues in the development of their stroller policies, but few had any data about specific incidents to provide the basis for agency s requirements about where children could be seated. Although requiring

45 35 a child to be removed from the stroller may be the predominant policy, several agencies said enforcement of this policy is a challenge. One representative of a medium-sized agency noted that rules requiring children to be removed from the stroller are listed in the information guide, on the website, and are posted on the buses, but drivers rarely enforce the rule, and parents removing the child from the stroller is the exception rather than the norm. Seven agencies do not require children to be removed from the stroller on a bus. Of these, only two agencies require that children be belted in the stroller and wheels be locked on the stroller. Of the 12 agencies that operate both rail and bus service, only five indicated that they have the same policies on buses and rail cars. Six agencies that require strollers to be folded/ collapsed on buses do not have the same requirements on their rail vehicles. For example, TriMet in Portland requires collapsible strollers to be folded on buses, but children may remain in strollers on rail cars. Likewise, MARTA, WMATA, NJ Transit, Capital Metro, and New York City MTA require strollers to be folded on buses, but do not have the same requirement on their rail vehicles (see Figures 23 and 24). FIGURE 24 Two unfolded strollers on a CTA (Chicago) rail car fill the center aisle (courtesy: CTA). Space Allocation and Limits on the Number of Strollers Although no agency has an official policy that limits the number of strollers allowed on a vehicle at one time, five agencies with stroller policies offered the caveat that strollers could be limited depending on the passenger load on a vehicle. No agency limits the hours that strollers may be brought aboard vehicles. Only two of the 31 agencies have stated limits on the number of strollers allowed on a vehicle when wheelchairs are secured in the vehicle. As a matter of practicality, however, a few agencies acknowledge that they informally limit strollers when wheelchairs are in spaces that could otherwise be used by strollers. Four of the agencies without limits on strollers when wheelchairs are aboard ask that strollers be placed in the wheelchair area on the vehicle. Agencies were asked whether their policies require or request strollers to be placed in a specific location on the vehicle. Twenty of 31 agencies (65%) indicated strollers must be kept in a specific location (Table 20). Figure 25 shows that the largest group of agencies requires strollers to be kept in the wheelchair area or out of aisles and doorways. FIGURE 23 Small umbrella stroller on a New York City MTA subway train (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). TABLE 20 MUST STROLLERS BE KEPT IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION? Yes 65% (20) No 35% (11) n = 31.

46 36 Drivers are not consistent with regard to enforcement of the policies. Most of the conflicts that arise among passengers are the result of inconsistent enforcement by drivers. Policies are vague and rely on the operator s discretion in individual circumstances. Two medium-sized agencies indicated that high numbers of strollers on some routes creates delay and strollers are a significant source of frustration for both drivers and passengers. FIGURE 25 Where are strollers required to be placed (n = 19)? None of the agencies charges a fee for strollers, requires stroller inspection or approval, or issues a stroller permit. Driver Assistance Only one of the agencies indicated that drivers are requested not to provide assistance. Sixteen of the 31 agencies (52%) with a stroller policy in place indicated that their policy does not provide direction regarding driver assistance. One respondent indicated that most drivers are eager to help, but that they are not required to do so. One agency stated that no assistance is required for strollers ; another agency said drivers are only required to assist with wheelchair strollers. Twelve of 31 agencies (39%) said that drivers may provide assistance if requested. As shown in Figure 26, where drivers offer assistance, that assistance generally includes extending a ramp or lift or providing help to the passenger boarding or alighting with the stroller. All agencies, regardless of whether they had a stroller policy in place, were asked whether restrictions regarding strollers were considered but not implemented (Table 21). TABLE 21 RESTRICTIONS ON STROLLERS CONSIDERED BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED Yes 18% (7) No 82% (33) n = 40. Three of the agencies said that conflicts with wheelchairs were a major concern in considering restrictions on large strollers. In all three cases, the agencies give priority to wheelchairs but allow riders to park strollers in the areas reserved for wheelchairs when space is available. One agency said staff had extensive discussions about alternatives, ranging from strict enforcement of the existing policy to removal of seats for strollers and storage of large objects. Ultimately, the agency plans to require perimeter seating (all seats facing the aisle) when placing its next bus order. ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: TRI DELTA TRANSIT, ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA CREATING SPACE ON BUSES FOR STROLLERS FIGURE 26 Strollers: Which of the following types of assistance may drivers provide (buses) (n =12)? Stroller Policy Effectiveness Most agencies responded that their stroller polices are effective. Several agencies reported having few problems, and some agencies said they have few strollers. Agencies that indicated challenges with strollers or their stroller policy noted the following are primary problems: Tri Delta Transit s removal of a two-passenger seat to accommodate strollers on its fixed route buses is a story of detective work to solve a high and growing number of late trips on specific routes and complaints about rude drivers. Tri Delta is officially Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, which describes the area in the California county where it is located. The investigation began with operator reports indicating many lift deployments unsupported by the number of paid disabled fares. In addition, the late trips did not match what the staff knew about the time required to board a mobility device. As the chief executive officer (CEO) said in an April 13, 2010, , Basically: it just didn t seem right (sorry gut instinct isn t very scientific ). Staff started spending more time on the offending routes to watch what was happening and noticed a very high number of strollers. The CEO noted,

47 37 The issue wasn t getting the strollers on and off the bus it was our rule that the strollers must be folded and placed out of the aisle. Some of the folding sessions took several minutes, especially if there were multiple children and/ or lots of packages. Being a former driver of a double stroller I could completely relate to the issues with being forced to unload and fold (J. Krieg, Tri Delta Transit, personal communication, Apr. 13, 2010). room for standing when the bus is crowded and no strollers are on board. Operators were getting into arguments with passengers who did not want to take their children out of the stroller to fold it, and mothers with strollers were complaining about rude drivers. There were also language barriers between the drivers and some Hispanic parents. In addition, other passengers who witnessed the stroller-related events complained, as did passengers whose buses were late. A committee of operators, safety/training, maintenance, planning, and marketing employees met and recommended that strollers could remain unfolded in the wheelchair area as long as there were no wheelchairs on board. If a wheelchair passenger boarded, the stroller had to move. Overall, the CEO reports that this recommendation worked very well. However, a few incidents of disagreements between people in wheelchairs and parents with strollers still did occur. In 2005, Tri Delta staff decided to remove one twopassenger seat from a fixed route bus and label the area for strollers. After a four-month demonstration period, in March 2006 one seat was unbolted from all 40-ft fixed route buses used on Tri Delta Transit s 14 local routes (Figure 27). A static cling transparent sticker is affixed to the window marking the area for strollers (Figure 28). No seat removal was necessary for the commuter coaches and paratransit vehicles. Although initially there was concern from the committee about decreased seating capacity during crush-load periods, passengers actually have more FIGURE 28 Stroller seating area window stickers (courtesy: Tri Delta Transit). Passenger comments at community meetings have been very positive. Based on feedback, a special stop request button has been added in the stroller area. When the stop request button in this area is activated, the operator can position the bus to safely deploy the mobility lift for the stroller at the next stop. In recognition of this community success story, one of the jurisdictions in the service area has honored Tri Delta Transit with a Transportation Equity and Access to Healthcare award. FIGURE 27 Stroller seating area on Tri Delta Transit bus (courtesy: Tri Delta Transit).

48 38 CHAPTER SIX BICYCLES LITERATURE REVIEW ON BICYCLES AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION POLICIES Allowing bicycles on transit extends the feasibility of taking transit by allowing riders to cover the last mile, when the bus or train does not come close enough to the origin or destination for a comfortable walk. Transit is most effective for moderate- and long-distance trips on busy corridors, while cycling is effective for shorter-distance trips with multiple stops. Combining transit and cycling can provide a high level of mobility comparable to automobile travel (Spindler and Boyle 1999). The 2006 TCRP Synthesis 62: Integration of Bicycles and Transit offers information regarding the history and current practices of bike integration on a variety of transit modes, including bus, rail, vanpool, and ferry. The report, partly based on a survey of 56 North American transit agencies, explores the reasoning, formulation, and implementation of bicycle policies. The section detailing bike-on-bus policies focuses primarily on external bike racks; however, the report notes that, if applicable, onboard bike policy is usually determined by context and driver discretion. For rail, the focus turns to onboard policies, including a series of tables that examine transit agencies methods of housing and securing the devices on light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail vehicles. Table 22 consolidates the bicycle accommodation tables from the synthesis. Key passages from the document s Summary follow: [Buses:] The method used by most transit agencies is to mount a bicycle rack on the front of the bus. Front-mounted racks commonly carry two bicycles; however, more agencies are experimenting with racks that can hold three to five bicycles. Customers are responsible for loading and securing their bikes on the racks, and the racks can be folded up against the front of the bus when they are not in use. Some transit agencies allow bicycles to be taken on board the bus. However, many agencies restrict bicycle access in the bus to prevent overcrowding. These agencies often give bus drivers the discretion to decide whether bicycles are allowed inside the bus. Drivers are more likely to allow bicycles inside the bus when the racks are full, at night, or when service is infrequent (when the bus is the last bus of the evening on a particular route or there is a long wait before the next bus). Some commuter buses are equipped with extra storage space for luggage and other packages. Several agencies that responded to the survey allow bicycles to be stored in this space, typically located in a compartment below the floor of the bus. [Rail:] One method of accommodation is to require bicyclists to board designated rail cars and remain with their bikes in designated areas. Agencies reported that between 2 and 16 bicycles could be accommodated per train in this manner, depending on restrictions. Some rail cars have special bike racks or hooks where bicyclists can store their bikes. One responding transit agency provides a designated bicycle car with space for 17 bicycles in each train set ( San Joaquin Regional Rail System ). It is common for transit agencies to prohibit bicycle access on train cars during peak travel times. This is done to reduce congestion on the train and to reduce friction in boarding and exiting the train (Schneider 2006). Disputing the prohibition during peak travel times, bicyclist advocates call for a culture of acceptance for all commuters. A survey sponsored by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition recommends that BART ease or eliminate bike blackout restrictions, communicate existing guidelines/programs more effectively, study the feasibility of a bike car, explore installing bike hooks and priority areas on new cars that BART intends to order, and review the agency s first-car bike prohibition policy (Vi 2009). However, even public officials who support bicycle commuters acknowledge the conflict between crowded trains and bicyclists. On a local radio show, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed his concern about transporting bikes on the subway during rush hour. Mayor Bloomberg, an avid supporter of mass transit (who also carries a legacy of creating bike-only lanes and signals), prefers, for the sake of user comfort and ease, to keep the subway and bicycle modes separate (Barbaro 2009). One issue that bus operators have faced is the limit on the number of bicycles they can carry on the front of the bus. Some operators have modified the racks so that the bikes do not block the headlights, according to TCRP Synthesis 62, whereas others allow bikes only during daylight hours. In California, AC Transit sponsored successful legislation to extend the maximum rack length from 36 in. to 40 in., which

49 39 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF SURVEYED AGENCIES BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION FROM TCRP SYNTHESIS 62 Bicycle-on-Bus Services Front-mounted racks that can hold two bicycles Front-mounted racks that can hold three bicycles Oversized bike racks on the front and back of buses. Each rack carries four or five bikes Bikes may be brought on board the bus at any time AMTRAN (Altoona, PA) Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (Ann Arbor, MI) Brownsville Urban System (Brownsville, TX) Calgary Transit (Calgary, Alberta) Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Orlando, FL) Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, OH) Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, IL) City of Visalia Visalia City Coach (Visalia, CA) Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Fort Smith Transit (Fort Smith, AR) Grand River Transit (Kitchener, Ontario) Grand Valley Transit (Grand Junction, CO) Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HARTline) (Tampa, FL) 1 Kamloops Transit System (Kamloops, British Columbia) Kelowna Regional Transit System (Kelowna, British Columbia) Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA) Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore, MD) Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles, CA) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) Penticton Transit System (Penticton, British Columbia) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) (Clearwater, FL) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (Rochester, NY) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego, CA) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, PA) Space Coast Area Transit (Cocoa, FL) Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (Ithaca, NY) TransLink (Greater Vancouver, British Columbia) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet) (Portland, OR) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) Victoria Regional Transit System (Victoria, British Columbia) Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (Washington, DC) Whistler & Valley Express (Whistler, British Columbia) 2 Broward County Transit (Pompano Beach, FL) Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) (Clearwater, FL) Mountain Express (Crested Butte, CO) Grand River Transit (Kitchener, Ontario) Bikes may be brought on board the bus at driver s discretion and/or under certain conditions Clallam Transit System (Port Angeles, WA) Kamloops Transit System (Kamloops, British Columbia) Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Space Coast Area Transit (Cocoa, FL) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) Table 22 continued on p. 40

50 40 Table 22 continued from p. 39 Bicycle-on-Commuter Bus Services Front-mounted racks that can hold two bicycles Front-mounted racks that can hold three bicycles Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Orlando, FL) Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, OH) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Bicycles stowed in luggage/baggage storage areas Bicycle-on-Rail Services Bicyclists allowed to bring bikes on board and stand in designated areas Bikes stored on racks inside each rail car Bikes stored on hooks inside each rail car Bicyclists allowed on board trains and to stand in designated areas only during off-peak hours Bicycle-on-Heavy Rail Service Bicycles allowed on board trains only during off-peak hours and can only use designated areas in each train car Bicycles allowed on board trains at any time they will fit Bicycles allowed on board trains only during off-peak hours; can use any part of the train Bicyclists allowed to bring bike on board during offpeak hours and on reverse commute direction trains during peak hours Bicycle-on-Commuter Rail Services Bicyclists allowed to bring bike on board in designated areas Up to four bicycles can be tied down in each rail car Bicycles stored on racks or hooks in each rail car Only enclosed folding bicycles are allowed on trains Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) (Oakland, CA) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) Springs Transit (Colorado Springs, CO) Calgary Transit (Calgary, Alberta) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA) 3 Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore, MD) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Regional Transportation District (RTD) (Denver, CO) 4 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego, CA) TransLink (Greater Vancouver, British Columbia) 3 TriMet (Portland, OR) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (Santa Clara, CA) Metro Transit (Minneapolis, MN) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) TriMet (Portland, OR) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA) TransLink (Greater Vancouver, British Columbia) Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, MA) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, PA) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Washington, DC) New York City Transit (New York City, NY) Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore, MD) 5 Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, IL) Bay Area Rapid Transit (San Francisco, CA) Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CA) New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, PA) 3 Orange County Transportation Authority (Orange, CA) Amtrak Capitol Corridor (Sacramento and Bay Area, CA) Caltrain6 New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ TRANSIT) (Newark, NJ) San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (Stockton, CA) 6 Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore, MD) (MARC Train Service) 1 Bicyclists must obtain a permit to use the bus bicycle racks. 2 Racks are in place from mid-april until mid-november, when they are replaced by ski racks. 3 Bicyclists are not allowed to bring bicycles on board during peak hours. 4 Bicyclists are allowed during peak hours if traveling in reverse peak direction only (away from Denver central business district in AM; toward Denver central business district in PM). 5 Bicycles are allowed on board only in designated areas. 6 Designated cars with bicycle racks are provided.

51 41 will allow bus operators to increase the capacity of the racks to carry three bicycles instead of two ( Rack Em Up 2010). The California DOT (Caltrans) provides an example of accommodating bicycles even during heavy commute periods. Caltrans ferries up to 14 bikes on a van across the Bay Bridge from the East Bay to San Francisco during peak commute hours, when BART does not permit bikes on the trains. Bicyclists load their bikes into a van at the MacArthur BART station in Oakland. Although the bicyclists ride BART under the Bay, their bikes cross the bridge to the Transbay Terminal, where their owners can pick them up. The bike shuttle operates during rush hours, four times in the morning between 6:20 and 8:30 a.m. and four times in the evening between 3:50 and 6:15 p.m. The one-way cost is $1 ( Queen of the Road 2010). AC Transit District s buses make this same trip, but the space to load bikes is more limited. However, AC Transit s Transbay buses are available all day, and a nighttime route runs from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. With these transit options, bicyclists can have their bike to ride at each end of their trip. Only one agency that participated in the survey for TCRP Synthesis 62, HARTline in Florida, charged a fee for a bikeon-bus permit. HARTline requires a one-time training session and a $2.50 fee, renewed annually, to bring a bike onto its buses. However, a fee in the Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Norway, is common. Norrkoping, Sweden, charges a fee of 25 krona (about U.S.$3.50) for a single journey, including transfers. Mopeds are always prohibited, and bicycles are not allowed on express buses (Östgötatrafiken 2010). In Oslo, Norway, bikes are charged the same as a child s fare (Ruter 2008). Golden Gate Transit in Marin County, California, has produced a brochure that can serve as an example of comprehensive guidance for bicyclists on transit. This brochure offers an overview of the agency s bike policy with rules and limitations for bike storage, as well as step-by-step picture guides illustrating how to stow bikes on buses. Its 40-foot buses have front-mounted bike racks, whereas the 45-ft models have luggage bay (under-bus) compartments. On Richmond San Rafael Bridge routes, bikes are allowed inside the vehicle but must be secured in (unoccupied) wheelchair positions using the riders own straps. Golden Gate Ferry also allows up to 15 bikes on its vessels (Golden Gate Transit 2010). In attempting to solve the last mile in a commute by transit, bicycle rentals have begun to spring up near transit stations. For example, Bikestation, a not-for-profit company in Long Beach, California, has plans to create a network of bicycle parking facilities along the LA Metrolink line. Its 600 sq ft facility, which opened in February 2010 in the refurbished Claremont Depot transit center, includes bike rentals, bike repair, and parking (Bikestation 2010). According to a 2008 article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, Clear Channel Outdoor has 11 established bike rental schemes throughout Europe in cities, including Barcelona, Stockholm, and Dijon, and was working on a 1,200-bike scheme for Milan (Carpiet 2008). After Clear Channel s bike-sharing program fell through in San Francisco, three of the big bike rental shops in the city have teamed up to form ParkWide, which approached the Recreation and Park Department with a proposal to build a la carte bike rental kiosks around the city, and starting a network of pick-up and drop-off points (West 2010). ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: KING COUNTY METRO, SEATTLE THREE-POSITION BIKE RACKS How does an agency carry more bikes on its buses without violating the motor vehicle law or having the bikes fall off a longer rack? That was the challenge that King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, faced and solved. Metro has carried bikes on the front of buses for more than 30 years. Initially, it responded to residents living on one side of a floating bridge over Lake Washington who needed their bikes on the other side of the lake. Metro installed racks on buses serving the area and used bungee cords to secure the bikes. Over the years it used more sophisticated racks, and in 1994 it installed two-position racks on all its transit vehicles. However, when it responded to growing demand with a rack that could carry three bikes, it faced new problems. Six bicycles fell off the first design of a three-position rack. Bikes could bounce off the spring-loaded J-hook when the driver drove over a rough spot. Metro removed the racks and worked for a year with Sportworks, the manufacturer, on a new design. The bus operators union was also involved in the committee reviewing the new design. A couple of bikes had fallen off on the freeway, and drivers were concerned that they could be cited and fined by the Washington State Patrol for losing their load. The new design, called the Veloporter 3, is a ratchet support arm that is pulled up and over the bicycle to secure it. The rack is 36 in. longer to accommodate three bicycles. For safety, bicyclists can load their bikes from the curb or in front of the bus, never being required to load from the street. According to the manufacturer, the energy-absorbing wheel tray leaves the bike secure and undamaged even after an emergency stop (Sportworks 2010). In the past, Metro secured a change to the Washington Administrative Code that exempted transit buses from the prohibition against mounting racks on the front or back of a vehicle. However, the three-position bike racks presented a new issue. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires that the headlights on a bus not be blocked. Metro performed photometric testing, which proved that the racks met the safety standard.

52 42 Between August and September 2007, King County Metro conducted a survey to estimate the number of bicycles carried by its fleet. The results showed that Metro buses, trolleys, vans, and vanpools carried an estimated 14,779 bicycles per week during this period (King County Metro 2007). According to this report, transporting bicycles on its vehicles is an essential part of Metro s commitment to intermodal transportation and its contribution to the region s air quality goals (M. Lemeshko, King County Metro, personal communication, May 18, 2010). and accommodating these devices on transit is as much a concern at small agencies as it is at large agencies. One large agency addressed the concern succinctly: it tries to balance customer desire to bring bikes on board with the ability to accommodate them during the peak period. SURVEY RESULTS Challenges and Concerns Figure 29 shows that accommodation of bicycles on transit vehicles, as with other large items, is viewed primarily as a concern (36%). Frequencies of the other three responses hovered around 20% (and two agencies answered that they did not know to what extent bicycles were of concern). Many agencies also added comments in response to this question, clarifying their bicycle policies and limitations. FIGURE 29 Indicate whether bringing bicycles on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/challenge for your agency. One medium-sized agency commented on the appropriateness of the question, deeming it a good concern [we have] more bikers than we have racks for at times! In contrast, a small agency admitted that it has very few requests for bicycles, but even so, new vehicles, when purchased, will come with racks on them. Figure 30 shows specific agency concerns over accommodating bicycles in or on their transit vehicles. Limited capacity was of greatest importance 49% of all agencies identified it as a problem (or 87% of those that indicated accommodating bikes was at least somewhat of a concern). Bicycle usage has steadily increased throughout the nation, FIGURE 30 If you indicated that bicycles are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency (mark all that apply)? Overview of Agency Policies Given the increasing prevalence of bicycles in urban, suburban, and rural areas as a means of commuting as well as recreation, most of the responding agencies facilitated some sort of support for the device. The extent to which each agency accommodates bicycles primarily varies based on operations (i.e., bus versus rail), vehicle capacity, and the size and type of population served. Among the surveyed agencies, the oldest known bicycle policy dates from 1974, around the time of that particular system s inception (BART); however, the policy was amended in The second oldest policy, which prohibits bicycle stowage, dates to 1980 (Ottumwa). In most cases, agencies bicycle policies were established, or in some cases updated, within the past 15 years. Bike Racks Table 23 shows that of the 38 agencies that operate buses, 32 (84%) reported that they feature bike racks on at least some of their operating fleet (n = 38). These agencies feature external bike racks on an estimated average of 90% of their fleet, with 24 of 32 agencies (75%) reporting 100% bike rack coverage on at least fixed route services. One agency, LeeTran, carries bike racks on one supervisor vehicle as well; according to the operations manager, a rack that holds two bicycles on the supervisor vehicle allows the agency to transport bikes if a bus breaks down or if bike racks cannot accommodate demand, particularly on the last trip of the day (Goyette 6/2/2010).

53 43 TABLE 23 DOES YOUR AGENCY OFFER BICYCLE RACKS ON THE EXTERIOR OF BUSES? Yes 84% (32) No 16% (6) n = 38. Most agencies (approximately 80%) employ bike racks that handle two bikes at a time; only six bus-operating agencies feature bike racks of different sizes. Las Cruces RoadRUNNER noted that the agency has experimented with 3-bike racks on two buses, but are finding issues with headlight interference. Two other agencies responded that some buses in their fleet carry three bicycles. One small agency, Downeast Transportation, which operates the Acadia National Park Island Explorer, reported that some of its buses carry four bicycles, [and] the rest carry six bicycles, to accommodate the significant recreational demand. Although the survey did not query the different possible locations of bike racks on vehicles, one agency noted that some buses have bike storage under the vehicle. One of the agencies profiled in the bicycle literature review, Golden Gate Transit, has a similar storage system. Bicycles Aboard Buses Twenty-five of 38 agencies (66%) currently do not allow bicycles to be brought aboard their buses (Table 24). Las Cruces RoadRUNNER noted that prior to two years ago, the policy allowed bikes on buses at driver discretion. This was changed to no bikes because of safety concerns. We are again looking at options for allowing bikes on buses due to capacity problems with the exterior racks. TABLE 24 DOES THE AGENCY HAVE A POLICY THAT ALLOWS BICYCLES TO BE BROUGHT ON BOARD (INSIDE) BUSES? Yes 34% (13) No 66% (25) n = 38. The transit administrator elaborated on the survey comments, noting that now passengers are stranded if the bike racks are full. The agency s Transit Advisory Board will be considering the issue of whether to allow bikes on the buses again. An informal review by staff didn t find agencies that allow bikes on the buses. The city is also looking at investing in bicycle lockers at some location where there might be higher demand, to let people park bikes rather than bring them on the bus. He noted that the city s risk management office has expressed interest in removing all bike racks from the exterior of buses, which is of concern to the transit administrator because he strongly believes in the modal connection between bikes and buses and acknowledges the transit operation may eventually need to look at sacrificing seating space for bikes on the vehicles (M. Bartholomew, Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, personal communication, Apr. 12, 2010). Size Limits Of the 13 agencies that currently accommodate bicycles aboard buses, six require that the bikes be foldable. New York MTA s policy includes an exception to the rule: Folding bicycles are permitted on local buses provided that they are folded and do not obstruct the aisles or doorways. Full (non-folding) bicycles are only permitted on board when buses are being used to replace train service. Three agencies that allow bicycles on board buses describe this as an informal practice: in these cases, accommodating the bike is usually left to the discretion of the driver. One noted that the practice is discouraged because of passenger safety, but still tolerated if the driver deems it allowable; and a few noted that in practice, bicycles are allowed only if the external racks are full and there is available space on the vehicle. Philadelphia s SEPTA has specific regulations regarding allowable bicycle size: bikes are not allowed inside buses unless they are collapsible and fold to the size of a standard piece of luggage. Folding bikes with a tire size greater than 20 in. are too large to accommodate on the bus and could be placed on the bike rack. Managing Bicycles Aboard Vehicles Overall, seven of 13 agencies (54%) allow bikes (foldable or all) to be brought inside on all routes and vehicles at all times (Figure 31). However, some agencies (four of the 13 allowing bikes on board in general, or 31%) noted that bicycles could be brought on buses only during specific times of the day. One stated that bicycles are allowed on board usually only in emergency situations or last trips. Two agencies provide a designated storage area or parking spot for bicycles inside all buses; another two have such a location on some vehicles. The two agencies with dedicated spaces on all vehicles also allow bicyclists to use unoccupied wheelchair spaces for their bikes, as do the other agencies that allow bicycles on the vehicles. The agencies that reported a dedicated spot on some vehicles either have an onboard parking spot on commuter rail (SEPTA), or interior vertical racks for three bikes (Community Transit s Swift BRT). Another agency maintained that folding bikes only must remain in the same space as the customer. Six of 14 agencies (43%) limit the number of bicycles allowed inside a bus or train when wheelchairs are already secured in the vehicle (Table 25). SEPTA stated that there are no limits on rail vehicles, but buses are limited to two standard bikes per bus if wheelchairs are already aboard. MARTA also

54 44 has no regulations on rail if wheelchairs are present, but will not allow bicycles on a bus if wheelchairs are present. FIGURE 31 When may bicycles be brought on board vehicles (n = 13)? FIGURE 32 Bicycles: Which of the following is true about drivers providing assistance (buses) (n =14)? TABLE 25 DOES THE AGENCY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF BICYCLES ALLOWED INSIDE A VEHICLE WHEN WHEELCHAIRS ARE SECURED IN THE VEHICLE? Yes 43% (6) No 57% (8) n = 14. Bicycle Fees and Permit None of the agencies surveyed charges a fare to bring a bicycle on a transit vehicle. Similarly, 15 of 16 agencies that allow bicycles do not require inspection or approval. One small agency, LeeTran, requires approval for folding bikes when they are being placed inside the bus. LeeTran also issues a bicycle permit. According to staff, the permit is a sticker that is placed on approved bikes so bus operators know the bike can be transported. No fee is charged for the bicycle permit. Driver Assistance Not one agency reported that its bicycle accommodation policies required bus drivers to provide assistance (Figure 32). Indeed, half of respondents to this question indicated that the policy explicitly instructs drivers not to provide assistance. Four agencies do not have a policy in place regarding the driver assistance in bicycle accommodation. Three agencies noted that their policy holds that drivers may provide assistance, if requested (see Figure 33). Among these last three agencies, drivers are allowed to provide a few types of assistance. All of the agencies allow drivers to wait in their seat while the bicycle is secured on the exterior or interior, providing verbal instruction to the passenger. Two agencies allow drivers to disembark from the vehicle and provide physical assistance with exterior bike rack operation. Only one agency allows drivers, if requested, to get out of their seat and assist with bicycle storage on board the bus. FIGURE 33 Passenger prepares to load a second bicycle on an exterior bus rack in Honolulu (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard). Bicycles Aboard Paratransit Agencies that operate paratransit services, in addition to regular bus or rail services, generally have policies in place that prohibit bicycles from being brought on paratransit vehicles. It is presumed that bicycles are not considered mobility aids by most paratransit providers and likely few paratransit riders use them. Of 24 agencies that have policies about bringing large items on board paratransit buses, 16 (67%) expressly prohibit bicycles aboard vehicles, about the same proportion of agencies that do not allow bicycles aboard regular fixed route buses. For more information about agency policies governing bringing items other than wheelchairs and mobility devices aboard paratransit vehicles, see chapter seven.

55 45 Bicycles Aboard Rail Of the 42 surveyed agencies, 16 offer rail service and 14 operate rail in addition to buses. Given the many distinctions between the two operations, a summary of respondent agencies bicycle policies on rail service alone follows. In some cases, an agency operates multiple forms of rail service; the accommodation of bicycles solely among these vehicles can vary greatly. STM, Montreal: Bicycle areas are designated during specific hours. UTA, Salt Lake City: Two bicycles may be inside the rail vehicle in the front and two bicycles in the rear. The bicycle passenger must remain standing with the bicycle and hold it upright for the safety of the other passengers. Rail-Only Agencies Two surveyed agencies provide rail service only. Since its opening in 2004, the Las Vegas Monorail has allowed bicycles to be brought on its vehicles at any time. Several of the hotels and destinations it serves have bicycle racks. BART features bike racks at some of its station locations. The agency notes that it has an extremely large bicycle parking program with facilities at almost every station. Systemwide, it can currently park more than 4,000 bikes in racks, lockers, or attended facilities. BART s current policy for bringing bikes on rail vehicles was established in The original policy was established in 1974, but it initially required people to get permits to bring bikes on board and bikes were only allowed off peak and in one car/train. The current policy allows bikes in all but [the] first car and [has] fewer time restrictions. More information about BART s bicycle policies is included at the end of this chapter. Rail/Bus Agencies Fourteen agencies offer both bus and rail services, and five of these noted that their rail bicycle policy differed from their bus bicycle policy. TriMet has a comprehensive light rail bicycle policy that outlines bike accommodation differences between low-floor and high-floor light rail vehicles. MARTA s rail vehicles have no restrictions or limitations, and Capital Metro s rail policy is that bikes occupy the same space as wheelchairs and can remain in the aisles. In response to a question asking for the official policy for accommodating bicycles on rail service, seven of the 14 agencies offered a variety of regulations (and one, OC Transpo, replied that it had no such policy). WMATA posted its official Metrorail bicycle policy (Appendix C); other responses follow: CTA, Chicago: Bicycles may be brought on board a rail car during non-rush/off-peak hours only (see Figure 34). Miami Dade: Bicycles must use the last car. NJ Transit: Bike are allowed off-peak only in the vestibule areas when trains are not crowded. NCTD, San Diego County: Four bicycles are allowed per car. FIGURE 34 Folding bike and a stroller share the space in the doorway on a rail car in Chicago (courtesy: CTA). Bicycle Policy Effectiveness A minority of agencies (9 of 40, or 23%) indicated that they had considered a bicycle policy but not implemented it, or that they had considered revisions to their bicycle policy (Table 26). One large agency considered total prohibition during peak hours but rejected the idea because a more finely graded system of permitted times/trains allows for use of off-peak directional capacity. By contrast, another large agency sought to allow bicycles on rail during peak periods, but the policy was not implemented due to existing and growing congestion. One large agency admitted that Bicycle advocates would prefer more bicycles on board, especially on streetcars and LRVs. TABLE 26 HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS/RESTRICTIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BICYCLES BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY, BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED? Yes 23% (9) No 77% (31) n = 40. A handful of small agencies explored changing regulations regarding their bus bike racks. One considered putting bike racks on new bus purchases, however, the number of riders who bring bikes on board over a year s period is insignificant maybe 8 10 times. Another agency is waiting for grant funding to be available to install bike racks,

56 46 and another looked into replacement of two-bike bike racks with three-bike bike racks, but that would have been cost prohibitive. Despite these reconsiderations, Figure 35 shows that most agencies are pleased with their existing policies. Overall, 17 of 35 agencies (49%) rate their bicycle policy as very effective. The few agencies that give themselves low effectiveness ratings primarily cite overcrowding as a concern. One small agency sees revising its bicycle policy of utmost importance owing to capacity problems with exterior racks. One large agency explained that accommodating cyclist demand for space during peak hours is often a challenge ; another addressed demand: We have an overwhelming number of passengers wanting to take their bicycles on the trains. It overcrowds the trains and is unsafe for other passengers. Expanded use of bicycles will only demand further policy measures to counteract overcrowding. One case stands out as a lesson for future accommodation of bicycles on rail. FIGURE 35 How effective do you think the agency s bicycle policy is (n = 35)? ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: BART, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA INNOVATIONS FOR BICYCLE ACCESS ON RAIL Policies about bicycles on the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) have moved from limited and temporary permission to active encouragement. In October 1974, two years after the opening of the BART system, bicycles were allowed in the rear of the last car only during off-peak hours. Permits were required, and no more than five bicycles were allowed per train. Today, the permits have been done away with, and bicycles are allowed on all cars except the first one on any train. (The first car is kept clear for the operator to exit in an emergency.) However, bicycles are still not permitted on most trains in the peak direction during the peak of the peak commute hours, defined as approximately 7:05 to 8:50 a.m. and 4:25 to 6:45 p.m. The exception is folded bikes, which are allowed on the trains at all times. The prohibition of bicycles during commute hours recognizes the conflict caused by large items taking up space on crowded trains (see Figure 36). Nonetheless, an online survey by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition reported that lifting the blackout period rated high on the improvements its 523 respondents favored (Vi 2009). FIGURE 36 Bicycles block doors and seats on a BART train (courtesy: BART). The mode share of BART riders who are bicyclists, although still small, has increased from 3% in 1998 to 4% in 2008 (BART 2008). The 1% increase is the same as prior BART studies, which showed an increase from 1% to 2% in the period 1987 to The bicycle mode share varies at the 43 stations, with a Berkeley station achieving the highest at 12%. The 2002 BART Bicycle Access Parking Plan attributes this upward trend to be the result of the increased amount of bicycle parking available at stations, improved outreach and major changes in bicycle policies (Wilbur Smith Associates 2002). Since the 1980s, when BART ran test programs that eventually loosened bicycle policies, bicycling has become part of the agency s strategies to achieve a 10% shift in the access mode split by reducing the percentage of parked Single Occupant Vehicles relative to other modes... (Wilbur Smith Associates 2002). Some BART innovations include the following: A Stair Channel (Figure 37) at one of the San Francisco stations, where bicyclists wheel their bicycles onto ramps marked up or down alongside the stairs. The ramp takes the weight off the shoulders, providing assistance for bicyclists who must otherwise carry their bikes at other stations or use the elevator. Bikes are not permitted on escalators; according to the manager of access programs, violators have caused severe accidents to themselves and other passengers, as well as wedging the bike into the escalator while it keeps running. The Stair Channel was funded by a grant; more are planned as additional funds become available (L. Timothy, personal communication, Apr. 9, 2010). Bicycle Priority Area inside the train door marked with an outline of a bicycle (Figure 38). These bicycle areas, installed on 41 cars as a demonstration project with grant funds, have a leaning bar so that multiple bikes can be stacked against the rail. The area was created by removing seats and windscreens by the door. A message is posted allowing strollers and luggage if no bikes are present. Each special car has a decal on the outside and has additional spaces for wheelchairs inside.

57 47 FIGURE 37 Bicyclist uses a stair channel to exit one of BART s stations (courtesy: BART). Electronic Bike Lockers programmed for pay as you go (Figure 39). Bicyclists buy a $20 access card to insert into the electronic locker, which deducts 3 cents an hour to rent it. Electronic lockers will eventually replace keyed lockers to free up available secure bike parking for those on a waiting list. The agency plans to increase the current 200 electronic lockers to 900, and the 1,300 traditional bike racks will also remain. Bike Stations, which offer indoor secure parking, are operated at three heavily used stations for bicyclists. One of the largest in the nation is located in a Transit Village and features a full-service bike repair shop. This and one other are staffed by attendants. The third is a self-service parking system featuring an electronic smart-card access lock system. FIGURE 38 BART is experimenting with bicycle priority areas on its trains (courtesy: Adrienne Johnson: changeyourliferideabike.blogspot.com). Bicycle advocates have been instrumental in shaping BART s bicycle policies. A bicycle advisory committee has been in existence since BART service started in The current BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force reviews proposed bicycle policies and offers suggestions for improvements; discusses problems and complaints regarding bicycles on BART; makes recommendations to BART staff and the Board of Directors; and acts as a liaison between BART and bicycle advocacy groups and associations. The Task Force meets every other month and includes six appointed members, two people from each county BART serves. FIGURE 39 BART passenger swipes her card and places her bike into an electronic locker (courtesy: BART).

58 48 CHAPTER SEVEN LUGGAGE, CARTS, PARCELS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS LITERATURE REVIEW ON LUGGAGE, CARTS, AND OTHER LARGE ITEMS AND ACCOMMODATION POLICIES Although most transit agencies have policies on accommodating wheelchairs, and many have policies on accommodating strollers, polices on luggage, carts, and other large items are not as widespread. Existing policies range from simple and permissive to very detailed in their restrictions. Besides luggage and carts, some policies cover dogs and backpacks, as well as more unusual items such as skis and skateboards. Carts, Bags, and Backpacks Brandon Transit in Manitoba, Canada, is an example of an agency with very specific guidelines to deal with large items. Brandon Transit specifies the dimensions of grocery carts and strollers that can be boarded without folding and those items that must be folded while in the vehicle. Its brochure describes the dimensions for carts as follows: Small/Compact Foldable Carts (Grocery/Laundry) will be permitted UNFOLDED within Transit Buses: 16 in. or less width x 14 in. or less front to back depth. Large Foldable Carts (Grocery/Laundry) will be permitted FOLDED within Transit Buses: 16 in. or greater width x 12 in. or greater front to back depth. The brochure, included in Appendix D, further illustrates the priority area on different types of buses, and, after wheelchairs, gives priority to seniors with carts/walking aids, and only then to parents with strollers (Brandon Transit 2006) (see Figure 40). Of those agencies that state policies about shopping carts, Valley Transit in Appleton, Wisconsin, has guidelines similar to those of agencies with more general policies. Shopping/utility carts are allowed on the bus under the following conditions: Items must not block the aisle. Items must not restrict passenger movement. All items must be controlled by passenger. Passenger must be able to carry the items aboard in one trip. FIGURE 40 Portion of a post by blogger Alan Durning reviews the various shapes and sizes of modern-day granny carts, many of which people bring on transit vehicles (courtesy: Durning 2010). Packages and/or bags must not occupy the bus seat if the bus is crowded. Carry-on items are not allowed in the securement area (Valley Transit 2009). Valley Transit, however, does allow rollerblades, roller skates, and skateboards to be stowed in a bag or held on the passenger s lap. These items are not allowed on the floor where they can roll around while the bus is in motion. Link Transit in Washington State is another agency with specific dimensions of items allowed. Riders may bring the equivalent in size to six plastic or two paper grocery bags or, one piece of luggage not exceeding 24 in. x 17 in. x 10 in. in size and 40 lb in weight in addition to a purse, computer, briefcase or small tote, or one pair of skis/snowboard/fishing

59 49 poles (or like-sized recreational equipment). Operators may not provide assistance if the combined weight of carry-on items exceeds 25 lb. Riders boarding the vehicle with carry-on items exceeding the prescribed standards are required to pay twice the regular fare but cannot bring carry-ons that occupy more than one additional seat. However, riders are allowed to use a wheeled cart for transporting medical and mobility equipment at no extra charge. The policy also lists hazardous materials that may never be brought on the bus and requires articles with an offensive odor to be in a sealed container (Link Transit 2008). Sioux Area Metro in South Dakota allows only as many bags as the rider can carry on and off the bus in one trip without assistance. According to the policy, a wheelchair rider is limited in the number of bags and other grocery items they can store on their chair. The bags need to be safely attached to their wheelchair and not interfere with the proper procedure for securing the wheelchair on the bus (Sioux Area Metro 2008). Handi-Transit, paratransit operated by Winnipeg Transit, is more specific: Owing to space limitations, passengers are permitted only two small bags, which they must be able to carry on themselves and must hold on their laps during the ride. Passengers may be denied transportation if they have too many parcels. If the passenger brings more than the allowable packages, the passenger is given the choice of boarding with only two bags and finding alternative transportation for the remaining packages, or declining the trip. Because backpacks and other bags attached to mobility devices can cause difficulties when securing the mobility device and during transport, if a backpack exceeds the standard length of the mobility device it is attached to, the backpack must be removed (Victoria Regional Transit Commission 2010). The Copenhagen, Denmark, transit system also addresses backpacks, which must be stored in the luggage area, along with luggage, skateboards, and roller skates. Luggage is allowed only at the driver s discretion, when there is space and other passengers will not be bothered (Movia 2010). In Aarhus, Denmark, a passenger may pay a fare to transport luggage or other goods in a baby carriage (Midttrafik 2010). Luggage Most transit agencies vehicles serving local communities, unlike over-the-road coaches, have not been designed to carry bulky luggage. In attempting to address this problem, design or operational modifications are used. MTA in New York City unveiled a pilot program in 2009 to install luggage racks on 10 buses on the seven routes serving Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports (MTA 2009). In Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports, the authors report that at some international destinations (e.g., Hong Kong) remote check-in is being reintroduced as part of new express airport rail links. In these cases, large luggage and other items are stowed in a separate train car. In this 2002 report, airlines also provided remote check-in linked to express rail systems in Madrid and Kuala Lumpur. The report mentions Swiss National Railways as an example of an off-site check-in by a transit company: The largest network of baggage check-in services in operation currently is run by the Swiss National Railways, providing baggage processing from 116 separate railway stations, with full check-in (with boarding pass) at 60 rail stations in This is a service of the national railways, and no airline personnel are involved in accepting the baggage. The Swiss National Railway charges about U.S.$15.00 per bag checked for the service. It is reported that 270,000 travelers a year use this program. After September 11, 2001, off-site check-in in by air carriers in the United States was discontinued as a security measure. When the report was issued in 2002, some airlines were attempting to seek amendments to security measures to reestablish the off-site check-in counters. However, to comply with regulations, the report notes it would be necessary to provide 100% positive baggage matching, and the operator (or its designee) would need to install and supervise the operation of explosive detection systems equipment, which would be operated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. At the time of the report, certified explosive detection systems equipment cost more than $1 million per screening unit (Leigh Fisher Associates et al. 2002). Security does not appear to be a significant factor in agencies policies limiting luggage (or other parcels) on board vehicles. TCRP s Transit Security Update discusses the application of random passenger security screenings but does not discuss where security issues have impacted which large items may be brought on transit. The report notes that in 2004, when Boston hosted the Democratic National Convention, MBTA in Boston was the first transit agency in the United States to implement passenger security inspections. According to the report, the MBTA transit police initiated random passenger bag and luggage inspections, which is now done on a systemwide basis for all MBTA modes except paratransit to deter acts of terrorism and enhance passenger perception of security. Random bag inspections are also carried out by NJ Transit, New York City MTA, WMATA, and other transit agencies (Nakanishi 2009). In Israel, often noted for its security procedures, the government invested in the protection of public transportation against suicide bombers by purchasing special equipment to be used on potentially dangerous bus routes. The government s strategy is to focus on a combination of the close screening of entering passengers and perimeter security at transit hubs. The government is using magnetometers, package screening equipment, and barriers on vehicle doors on nearly 1,000 bus routes (State of Israel Ministry of Public Security 2010).

60 50 Vehicle Designs for Large Items As transit agencies refurbish vehicles or design replacement vehicles, they exhibit an increasing awareness of the conflicts between accommodating passengers and accommodating their possessions (see Figure 41). For example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) will insert a new low-floor center section in its Super Light Rail Vehicles (SLRVs) to house luggage, wheelchairs, bicycles, and strollers. The platforms will be lowered for easier access and faster boarding by riders with these wheeled objects (DART 2008). Toronto s new Rocket subway cars will have two multipurpose areas for wheelchairs, strollers, bicycles, or large luggage items. An exterior blue light will show the best entrance doors to access these multipurpose areas (Kalinowski 2007). Golden Gate Transit District, which operates 45-foot commuter buses into San Francisco, has compartments under the bus for luggage (Golden Gate Transit 2010). Websites of bus and rail manufacturers highlight features they have included to store large items, such as luggage and shopping bags. The literature search found mention in specific manufacturers marketing materials, including El Dorado National, North American Bus Industries, Van Hool, Volvo, and Bombardier. allowed only in specially marked areas of trains. A child s fare is charged for animals that are not in a cage (Östgötatrafiken 2010). Nevertheless, all U.S. and Scandinavian systems reviewed for this literature search always allow service animals at no charge (Helsinki Region Transport 2010). SURVEY RESULTS Challenges and Concerns Figure 42 shows that many agencies (17 of 41, or 41%) deem luggage, carts, and parcels to be somewhat of an issue, and most agencies consider accommodating these items to be unimportant or not an issue. One agency determined these items to be of high importance because passengers overlooked its posted policies, and cited a few extreme cases of abuse of policy. Most respondents, however, did not comment on their choice. As with specific responses to strollers, all of the agencies that indicated they were very or somewhat concerned with luggage, grocery carts, or parcels cited blocking of aisles/egress as a major concern. Two issues (in frequency of response) echoed responses to questions about other large items on transit vehicles that is, agencies are concerned with vehicle crowding (17 of 22 agencies, or 77%) and limited vehicle capacity (15 of 22 agencies, or 68%). Figure 43 illustrates the issues of concern to the transit agencies. Only one small agency recognized as a concern having to pass up riders when luggage, carts, or parcels cannot fit in a vehicle. Additionally, one large agency noted its concern that baggage can become a projectile. FIGURE 41 This STM (Montréal) bus with three large luggage racks is used on the route serving the airport (courtesy: Jean- Pierre Lajeunesse). Animals In addition to the typical items of carts and luggage discussed, Scandinavian transit operators call out rules for handling animals on transit vehicles. West Zealand and South Zealand, Denmark, allow dogs to be taken in a small container on all buses. In the metropolitan area of Copenhagen, large dogs are allowed only on certain lines, subject to the driver s assessment of whether there is room. They must be on a leash and are charged a child s fare, but a passenger may take only one dog (Movia 2010). Furry animals must be taken to the back of the bus or tram in Norrkoping, Sweden, out of consideration for allergy sufferers. These animals are FIGURE 42 Indicate whether bringing luggage, carts, and parcels on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/ challenge for your agency. Overview of Agency Policies Many passengers carry items with them onto transit vehicles. Depending on the destinations and services that a transit line serves, passengers may bring luggage, small grocery carts, and parcels and packages onto rail vehicles and buses

61 51 (see Figure 44). Of the 40 respondents, 24 (60%) reported having a policy addressing luggage, grocery carts, and/or parcels on regular transit routes. Of these agencies, seven out of 23 (30%) did not know when that policy came to be established. However, among known policy information, the earliest establishment date was Size Limits Fourteen of 24 respondents (58%) reported that their policies limit the size or number of suitcases, grocery carts, or parcels on buses (Table 27). These policies range from general to very specific: some are akin to their stroller and FIGURE 43 If you indicated that luggage, grocery carts and/or parcels are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency (mark all that apply)? bicycle policy in that they ask passengers to avoid blocking aisles/doors, keep a bag on lap or under seat only, or restrict items to within wheelchair bays. Other policies are more specific, whether in quantifiable restrictions or directions for passenger responsibility. Las Cruces RoadRUNNER has a very specific policy of equivalents for carry-on items: eight plastic grocery bags, four paper bags, and determines that small carts are allowed, but do not change the total bag limit. Some items, such as large backpacks, are measured as being equivalent to four paper bags. Las Cruces policy is described in more detail at the end of this chapter. FIGURE 44 Suitcase rests precariously inside a PAAC (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) bus that serves the airport (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Space for Luggage, Grocery Carts, and Parcels on Transit Vehicles Fourteen of 40 (35%) surveyed transit agencies reported that at least some of their vehicles have racks or storage areas for luggage, grocery carts, or parcels. A few of the agencies provided specific estimates of the number of vehicles that have such amenities. Amounts varied from 100% of the fleet (LeeTran), to 50% under-floor storage (NJ Transit), to paratransit vans ONLY have grocery nets across the back (Laketran). BART responded that some cars have been modified through a grant project to have a larger seatless area for bikes/strollers/luggage. This modification may eventually extend to the entire existing fleet, funding permitting. SEPTA and Capital Metro noted that their airport services feature luggage racks. TABLE 27 DOES THE POLICY LIMIT THE SIZE OR NUMBER OF SUITCASES, GROCERY CARTS, OR PARCELS? Yes 58% (14) No 42% (10) n = 24. Another small agency, Ottumwa Transit Authority, limits items to the quantity and size that the passenger can manage alone. Honolulu s TheBus notes that it only allow[s] bags that fit on one s lap or under the seat, which effectively prohibits luggage from being brought on vehicles (see Figure 45). Almost none of the rail operators surveyed limit the size or number of items on their vehicles. Six of the 14 agencies that operate both bus and rail services report that their luggage, grocery cart, and parcel policy is the same for both modes. Capital Metro noted that in contrast to the policy for buses, there are currently no restrictions for luggage or large items on rail. SEPTA commented that its policy is

62 52 generally the same on all modes; however, commuter rail routes make connections with long-distance rail and international flights and thus, conductors have discretion to allow more items (see Figure 46). Vehicle Locations for Luggage, Carts, and Parcels Seventeen of 24 agencies (71%) have a policy that requires luggage, grocery carts, or parcels to be stored in a specific location on a vehicle, and all of these are agencies that operate buses (Table 28). Four of the agencies that operate rail commented that parcels must be kept out of the aisle. A large agency that operates both buses and rail cars implores passengers to make sure their items are placed not to the exclusion of a fare-paying customer. Eleven of the agencies policies require that passengers with items keep them close to their person, and specifically require keeping items out of the aisle. Two agencies note that luggage, grocery carts, or parcels can be kept on lap or under seat. Metro Transit in Madison posted its Passenger Rule #9, Do not block the aisle or restrict passenger movement with large articles, packages, baggage, non-collapsible strollers, and baby buggies. TABLE 28 DOES THE POLICY REQUIRE THAT SUITCASES, GROCERY CARTS, OR PARCELS BE STORED IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION ON VEHICLES? Yes 71% (17) No 29% (7) n = 24. FIGURE 45 Child, led by a woman with a large backpack, squeezes by a grocery cart on a subway train (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Only three of 24 respondents (13%) specifically limit luggage, grocery carts, or parcels on a bus when wheelchairs are secured in the vehicle. Similarly, only one agency limits the number of passengers with luggage, grocery carts, or parcels allowed on a vehicle at one time. This agency explained that a passenger with luggage or carts that would block the aisles or doors, given general or wheelchair capacity limits, would not be permitted onto the vehicle. Limitations by Time of Day or Route Type Only two agencies have policies regarding luggage, grocery carts, or parcels on vehicles during certain hours. MAX recommends that passengers with these items don t ride during peak PM travel times (2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.). Montreal s STM similarly restricts these items during peak hours. A large proportion of responding agencies (21 of 24, or 88%) have a policy that is applicable to all routes and all vehicle types, although some offer caveats that the policy may be applied differently depending on size and capacity of vehicles. One agency noted that if the vehicle is full, passengers are requested to keep large items on your lap. FIGURE 46 Passenger with a suitcase prepares to board a Capital Metro (Austin) bus (courtesy: Capital Metro). Only two agencies noted that certain routes have different luggage and parcel restrictions from most of the others. One

63 53 agency s tourism/commuter routes allow for more baggage/skis, and another notes that vehicles with under-floor storage can accommodate more. NJ Transit s routes with a designated luggage rack allow passengers to bring larger items on their vehicles that serve airports. at peak hours. However, implementing restrictions would be very, very difficult and also counterproductive in a system which serves two airports. Driver Assistance Figure 47 shows that many agencies have policies in place enabling driver flexibility in assisting passengers with luggage. The only agency that requires its drivers to provide assistance is NJ Transit. Miami Dade commented that the operator has flexibility to provide any requested assistance if he/she deems it safe and not against policy. Of the 11 agencies enabling drivers to provide assistance when requested, eight (73%) allow drivers to extend the ramp or use the bus lift, eight (73%) allow drivers to get out of their seat and help carry luggage and other items on or off the bus, and six (55%) allow drivers to get out of their seat and provide assistance with storing luggage on the bus (Figure 48). FIGURE 49 How effective do you think the agency s policy regarding luggage, grocery carts, and parcels is (n =18)? Only one agency out of 40 respondents reported that it had considered amending its luggage, grocery cart, and parcel policy. It offered a thorough explanation of the process: it attempted to limit the number of bags on paratransit vehicles; [the] problem is some grocery bags are so flimsy, it s hard to limit them you penalize the rider when the grocery only puts one or two things in the bags and it costs the agency more to transport a person twice. ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: ROADRUNNER TRANSIT, LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO A DIFFERENT WAY TO DEFINE LARGE ITEMS FIGURE 47 Luggage, grocery carts, and parcels: Which of the following is true about bus drivers (n = 23)? FIGURE 48 Luggage, grocery carts, and parcels: Which of the following types of assistance may operators provide (buses) (n = 12)? Luggage, Grocery Carts, and Parcels Policy Effectiveness Figure 49 shows 11 of 18 agencies (61%) rated their luggage, grocery cart, and parcel policy as effective or very effective (4 or 5). The one agency that gave itself a low score noted that its drivers are inconsistent with enforcement. One agency provided an explanation of its moderate score an apparent disconnect between policy and practice: The service provide[s] transport to grocery stores and other major retailer[s] but the service does not allow bulk items on board. Another acknowledged the difficulties surrounding luggage restrictions in large urban systems: the policy generally works well although luggage is sometimes a problem Many of the agencies surveyed have limits on the number of items that may be brought on board trains and buses, but one agency described a policy that quantifies and compares allowable items, defining them in terms of paper grocery bags, of which passengers are allowed to carry four on regular buses or paratransit vehicles. Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit implemented the policy systemwide based on the policy it originally developed for its paratransit vehicles. According to the transit administrator (M. Bartholomew, Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, Apr. 12, 2010), before 2005 RoadRUNNER Transit never had any specific statements with regard to what was allowed on buses and now that it does, the policy works pretty well. Bartholomew said, Originally, it was unlimited with regard to what people could bring on buses. We had people bringing 25 bags of groceries, 60-lb bags of dog food, lawnmowers all kinds of things. Because of concerns about safety and delays, as well as passenger expectations for driver assistance, RoadRUN- NER Transit did an initial survey to see what other agencies were doing, and discovered most of them required that you keep your belongings on your lap or on your seat. The agency first implemented its policy on paratransit, because most of the problems it faced with regard to large numbers of items were on its paratransit service. The problem was not as widespread on the fixed route buses, though the transit

64 54 administrator admits that on the fixed routes people brought lots of groceries, and they would tip over and roll into the aisle. The city s ADA coordinator then advised the transit operation that the same policies that apply to users of the paratransit system might apply to the general public on the fixed routes. As a result, the transit system worked with its Transit Advisory Board and recommended a detailed set of policy guidelines in 2005, which the city adopted. The RoadRUNNER Transit Bag Limit Policy essentially measures the volume of items that people may bring aboard the system s buses. Riders are limited to eight plastic grocery bags or four paper bags. Four paper bags are equivalent to two suitcases, two duffel bags, or one large backpack. Other items are measured in terms of how they compare to the size of a standard paper grocery bag. The RoadRUNNER Transit Bag Limit Policy is as follows: 10. No carry-on item can interfere with the safe operation of a transit vehicle (RoadRUNNER Transit Advisory Board 2005). 1. Transit customers will be limited to four paper grocery bags or two plastic grocery bags substituted for every paper bag (up to eight plastic grocery bags). 2. Single pre-bagged items that are designed to be carried separately will be the equivalent of one paper grocery bag. (Examples of such pre-bagged items include bulk items such as food, pet food, and lawn care items.) 3. A daypack, briefcase, or package no larger than a grocery sack will be the equivalent of one paper grocery sack [see Figure 50]. 4. Single portable containers such as packages exceeding the size of a paper grocery bag, suitcases, duffel bags, and hiking backpacks and pet carriers will be the equivalent of two paper grocery bags (a maximum of two items). 5. A single standard purse or handbag is not considered a bag under this policy. 6. Passengers or their aides are responsible for handling their own carry-on items. If a passenger is unable to carry these items, it is recommended that the passenger travel with an aide. Dial-a-Ride only: If the passenger requests, Dial-a-Ride drivers will assist in loading and unloading packages between the bus and the curb only. For the safety of our drivers, they will not be required to lift any item over 20 pounds. 7. No carry-on item can create a health or safety risk for other riders. 8. Carry-on items cannot be placed in the aisles of the vehicles. 9. No carry-on item can take up seating space if needed by another passenger for seating. FIGURE 50 A passenger with a daypack boards a RoadRUNNER bus. For carry-on purposes, a daypack is equivalent to one paper grocery bag (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). The transit administrator said that the system has received few complaints, mostly from fixed route riders. The agency had wanted to be stricter and limit items to laps or under seats initially. He said drivers enforce the policy uniformly and that disagreements or problems with the policy are few and far between. Although drivers may assist passengers with their belongings on paratransit, fixed route drivers are instructed not to provide assistance with groceries, carts, and parcels. Small grocery carts are allowed but do not change the total bag limit, and they must be kept out of the aisle. GENERAL LARGE ITEMS AND TRANSPORT AIDS (STROLLERS, BICYCLES, LUGGAGE, ETC.) ON PARATRANSIT General Policies/Expectations Agencies that operate paratransit were surveyed about all of their policies regarding the accommodation of large items, including bicycles and strollers. Two small agencies noted that their policies for large items and transport aids on paratransit vehicles are identical to those for fixed route buses; and one noted that it does not have a written policy for paratransit vehicles. Others, however, have specific regulations and limitations for their paratransit services. Although the survey did not pose questions about specific paratransit vehicles or equipment, it is important to note that agency policies may be different owing to the size and capacity of paratransit vehicles (e.g., vans vs. small buses).

65 55 Several agencies policies delineate the roles of passengers and paratransit drivers, and generally these policies place the responsibility on passengers. One small agency, Pullman Transit, noted that it do[es] not allow items that require the driver to load or unload, like TVs, [furniture], large boxes, or anything [weighing] over 20 lbs. Another small agency, MAX, has a policy that specifies all items must be capable of being carried and handled by the passenger. Additionally, passengers with items that require multiple entering/exiting of [the] bus to load are considered excessive and not allowed. This is the same policy that BART s paratransit provider, East Bay Paratransit, which also provides paratransit services for Oakland-based AC Transit, uses: The driver and the rider need to be able to off load the stuff in one trip. LeeTran s policy is that the driver cannot assist with personal items, although Capital Metro notes the customer must be able to maintain control of [their] items during transport and carry items to the door. Many agencies expect a paratransit passenger to have a personal care assistant or attendant if the passenger needs assistance with carrying items on or off a vehicle. cart. LeeTran s policy for paratransit limits personal items to four parcels and specifies that the driver cannot assist with personal items. SEPTA s paratransit policy is that parcels are limited to two, weighing no more than 50 lbs. each. SEPTA also has specifications for strollers on paratransit: Wheelchair strollers are permitted, but regular strollers are not permitted, as a car seat is required. Although all but one of the other 24 agencies allow strollers, many of the other agencies also define wheelchair strollers as equivalent to a wheelchair or mobility device that can be secured and therefore may be brought aboard paratransit vehicles. OTHER LARGE ITEMS In addition to policies regarding luggage, grocery carts, and parcels, agencies were asked if they had concerns regarding passengers bringing other large items (e.g., backpacks, skis, surfboards, pet carriers) on transit (Figure 52). Restrictions on Large Items Figure 51 illustrates that most agencies have no policies in place that prohibit large items from being brought on board paratransit vehicles, with the exception of bicycles. Sixteen of the 24 respondents to this question (67%) indicated that bicycles are prohibited inside paratransit vehicles, a similar share to those that do not allow bicycles aboard regular fixed transit buses (66%, n = 38). Seven of the 24 (29%) responded that all items including bicycles, strollers, and luggage and grocery carts are allowed inside paratransit vehicles. FIGURE 52 Indicate whether bringing other large items on your vehicles is considered an issue/concern/challenge for your agency. Only one agency said other large items are very much of concern, but it offered no explanation of its choice. Most agencies noted that other large items are unimportant or not an issue for them. Some agencies located in coastal locations and winter recreation areas noted that surfboards, boogie boards, and skis are accommodated in specific ways. FIGURE 51 Does the agency have a policy in place that restricts or prohibits any of the following from being brought inside paratransit vehicles (n = 24)? The size of portable items to be brought aboard paratransit vehicles is an issue. A medium-sized agency noted that personal shopping carts are fine, but not a grocery The specific issue surrounding accommodation of special large items that garnered the highest number of responses for agencies that considered the issue somewhat or very much a concern was that of concern for the safety of other passengers (100%) (see Figure 53). Previously common concerns of blocking of aisles/egress and crowding followed, with both at nine of 12 agencies (75%). Most responses to this question came from small and large agencies; no agencies were concerned that a vehicle must pass up a rider if their other large items could not fit in the vehicle.

66 56 FIGURE 53 If you indicated that other large items are a very important or somewhat important concern, why is it a concern for your agency? Agency Policies Regarding Other Large Items The survey asked whether transit agencies have policies governing bringing other large items on transit vehicles, such as recreational equipment (e.g., skis and surfboards), pet carriers, or backpacks. Fourteen of 38 agencies (37%) have policies of varying degrees with regard to any one of several of these miscellaneous large items (Table 29). Some agencies noted that their large item policies were very broad, ranging from simply using the term large items only in the agency s overall policy (Brandon) to prohibiting any item that is dangerous (Lee County). A few respondents spoke to safety, both storage on the vehicle (unwieldiness) and potential for harm, as being a major consideration in their general large item policy (see Figure 54). LeeTran listed specific safety hazards: Large objects that cannot be safely stowed, explosive devices, car rims, tires, [or] any item that is dangerous. UTA added other items to the prohibited list: No car batteries, no gas powered motors, no gasoline containers, no bags of dripping recycle products (aluminum cans). MARTA summarized the general concern: Our policy speaks to oversized items carried by patrons that can pose a risk of injury to themselves and others, and create a hazard or potential obstruction and risk of injury posed by such items. MARTA added that it prohibits non-luggage oversized items on its system. TABLE 29 DOES YOUR AGENCY HAVE ANY POLICIES IN PLACE REGARDING BRINGING ANY OTHER LARGE ITEMS ABOARD TRANSIT VEHICLES? Yes 37% (14) No 63% (24) FIGURE 54 Although some agencies have policies that may seem unnecessary regarding bringing large items on transit, agencies report that passengers transport many things they would not have expected, such as this lawnmower photographed on BART (courtesy: Patrick Tufts flickr.com/photos/zippy/ /). Some agencies in coastal areas (NCTD and SCAT) have policies that appropriately address recreational items. SCAT s policy prohibits full size surfboards. NCTD s policy allows skis, surfboards, [and] pet carriers, but specifies that the recreational items are allowed if standing and under 6 feet in length. Likewise, Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD), serving ski resorts in Vermont, has policies in place that cover skis and snowboards. UTA operates vehicles that include ski storage areas, such as the one shown in Figure 55. Several agencies responded that their large item policy covers pet carriers. A few agencies noted that although there are no specific policies, pets are allowed at all times in carriers. Most of these agencies do not have any specific restrictions on the size of pet carriers. Only NJ Transit commented that it requires that pet carriers must be on the lap of the customer. Generally, most agencies that have policies in place concerning various large items require that they be stowed out of the way of others, placing the responsibility on the passenger. One medium-sized agency (MAX) specifically noted, however, that its drivers consider the safety of all items being brought on the bus, in addition to requiring that items be secured in some fashion or held/under the control of the passenger. Items that are widely considered to be dangerous (explosives) or too large to properly stow either on a passenger s lap, under seats, or on racks are generally prohibited from surveyed agencies vehicles. n = 38.

67 57 The agency has adapted to modern skiing and snowboarding by allowing passengers whose skis cannot be placed on the racks to bring them inside the vehicle. No interior racks are available, so according to MVRTD staff, skis are typically kept with passengers at their seat, on their lap, or on the floor. Snowboards, which can be especially large, are typically carried by riders to the right rear wheelchair entrance on the bus, where, as long as a wheelchair is not secured, extra space exists for passengers to stow their snowboards. According to staff, the same bus trips are also usually filled with backpacks, and about 50% of the passengers transport a ski bag a large fabric bag with a strap inside of which skis, poles, and boots are stored. The community outreach manager said that sometimes space on the routes gets tight, but because most people are on vacation, they re tolerant of the crowded environment inside the bus. She added that some people even wear their ski boots directly on the bus, and that the agency has no prohibitions against bringing any of these various snow gearrelated items on the vehicles. FIGURE 55 Racks on a UTA (Utah) bus are designed to hold skis and snowboards (courtesy: UTA). ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: MARBLE VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT, RUTLAND, VERMONT ACCOMMODATING SKIS AND SNOWBOARDS, SUITCASES AND PETS MVRTD has been providing public transportation services in the Rutland, Vermont, area since 1976, when it operated as a private nonprofit transportation provider. In 1982, it became the first regional transit district in Vermont. MVRTD currently provides public transit services to all of Rutland County, except for the town of Pittsfield. MVRTD also operates commuter services that extend into adjacent counties, including Addison, Bennington, and Windsor. MVRTD operates three seasonal services designed to serve the Killington ski area. These include commuter service between Rutland and the ski area; daytime shuttles between the ski area base lodge and resort facilities; and night services that link hotels and ski resorts. The buses that serve the ski areas are equipped with ski racks on the exterior and have been for nearly 15 years but according to the agency s community outreach manager, skis have changed shape and snowboards weren t very popular 15 years ago (Coyle 4/9/2010). Although most of the skis transported by riders used to easily fit into the spaces on the ski racks, today s skis are longer, wider, or curved, and cannot be carried on the exterior of the bus. Although the agency has continued to replace vehicles and exterior ski racks, the new racks still cannot accommodate the new skis. Also noted is that overcrowding occurs typically at the end of a ski day, and the agency has up to three buses leaving within 15 min of one another to accommodate large numbers of people transporting their gear. The agency s procedure is for drivers to assess the available space and notify people who are unable to board that another bus will arrive shortly. The driver then notifies the other drivers by radio about how many people are waiting with their gear for the next pickup. The agency s policies are different on the routes that serve the ski areas than they are on the city routes, because rarely are skis carried on the city routes, or grocery carts brought on the buses that serve the ski area. According to staff, several riders have fold-up wire carts and they bring them on the buses. If the buses don t have someone in a wheelchair or mobility cart on board, riders store their carts in the lift area and [parents] tie strollers in the wheelchair securement area. Drivers sometimes use the lift for the stroller. Drivers will assist with grocery bags and suitcases. The agency s official policy on city routes is to allow only one suitcase or one grocery cart per rider. The policy was developed in response to the high volume of riders who began making connections between the bus and Amtrak service, which was reinstated in Rutland in One of the challenges for riders on MVRTD is that some of its policies differ from the policies of neighboring agencies to which it makes connections. For example, MVRTD allows pets in carriers, while neighboring ACTR in Addison County, a service that provides connections to MVRTD, allows dogs not to be caged. According to MVRTD s community outreach manager, over time riders become accustomed to the different policies, and if someone is making a connection, then they may need to learn to bring a pet carrier with them.

68 58 CHAPTER EIGHT VEHICLE DESIGN LITERATURE REVIEW ON VEHICLE DESIGN With the passage of the ADA in 1990, transit agencies in the United States have been required to accommodate wheelchairs in their vehicles. U.S.DOT has assigned specific measurements to all components of various public transport vehicles in conjunction with ADA requirements. Modes include local and intercity buses and vans, light and heavy rail, commuter and intercity rail, and all other forms of transport (e.g., monorails, ferries, automated guideway transit) (Code of Federal Regulations 2007). As older vehicles were replaced, U.S. fleets have now been designed to meet ADA regulations. Many agencies in Canada have also purchased vehicles that meet ADA regulations. As passengers bring more large items onto buses and trains, competition has arisen for space in the wheelchair areas. In addition to creating policies to deal with these conflicting needs, transit operators are struggling to change the design of their vehicles, some by retrofitting their existing fleets, some by rethinking the space when ordering new vehicles. This section of the report focuses on accommodating large items that are not covered by the ADA requirements. Low-floor Vehicles Many agencies are selecting low-floor vehicles to serve not only people in wheelchairs but also the numerous wheeled items that could benefit from this design, such as strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles. The difference between lowand high-floor boarding is shown in Figure 56. Bombardier s promotional material highlights the advantages of low-floor vehicles for its FLEXITY 2 tram. It states, Since urban communities are generally ageing, we have designed the FLEXITY 2 tram with the needs of the less mobile in mind. The low-floor entrance and entirely step-free interior are key features not just for the elderly but also for passengers with pushchairs or heavy shopping bags (Bombardier Transportation 2010). The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) in Charlotte, North Carolina, ordered its new LYNX light rail vehicles with low floors from Siemens Transportation Systems. Its 2006 press release announces arrival of the first vehicles with 68 seats as well as four bicycle racks and space for four wheelchairs (APTA Passenger Transport Archive 2006). Low-floor cars have also been installed for the Denmark/Sweden international rail link serving Copenhagen s Kastrup Airport, in FIGURE 56 A standard high-floor bus in Santa Maria, California (left), has several steps to enter, compared with a low-floor vehicle (right) in Salt Lake City, which has only one step into the vehicle (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates).

69 59 order to accommodate bikes, wheelchairs, and persons with baggage (Leigh Fisher Associates et al. 2002). Modifications Not only for new car orders but even when vehicles are being retrofitted, low-floor vehicles are being recognized for their efficiency when boarding wheeled vehicles. For example, designed to coincide with the progressive opening of the new Green Line from late 2009 to late 2010, DART s Super Light Rail Vehicles (SLRVs) car refurbishment and platform rebuilding project will expand system capacity and accessibility. The SLRVs are created by inserting new low-floor center sections at the articulation joints of the 115 existing light rail vehicles. These new spaces will be level with newly raised platforms and will be able to house wheelchairs, bicycles, luggage, and strollers (DART 2008). Other transit agencies are making more modest modifications to respond to the needs of passengers with large items. Toronto undertook a CAN$650,000 modification project that offered more room for standing passengers on its streetcars. As part of the renovation, the stanchion pole near the entrance was removed on many of the vehicles to make boarding easier for passengers with strollers and bundle buggies (Kalinowski 2007). Subsequent to the opening of its line to the San Francisco Airport in 2003, BART removed seats near the vehicle doors to make more room for luggage, in addition to bicycles and strollers. As a further modification to promote bicycling, a report prepared for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition recommends studying the feasibility of a bike car and exploring installation of bike hooks and a bike priority area on new cars that BART is planning to order (Vi 2009). The New York MTA is an example of a bus operator that has made modifications for luggage. The agency announced a pilot program in 2009 to install luggage racks on 10 buses on the seven routes serving Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports (MTA 2009). California s Tri Delta has also made bus modifications, in this case to accommodate an increasing number of strollers. By removing one set of seats, each bus has room for two strollers (with room for two more if the wheelchair area is unoccupied). In response, ridership of those with strollers jumped, and the agency received a plaque from the Transportation Equity and Community Health organization in recognition of the move (APTA Passenger Transport Archive 2006). Tri Delta s experience is discussed in chapter five. Considerations for Ordering New Vehicles A TCRP report on Rail Transit Capacity notes, Commuter rail cars are generally designed with the maximum number of seats possible, although this tradition is changing somewhat where wheelchairs and bicycles must be accommodated (Parkinson and Fisher 1996). This statement is borne out by the bicycle design considerations for the new Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Authority (SMART) in California, approved for funding by voters in In planning SMART, a 70-mile passenger rail system, directors confirmed staff recommendations that the trains, running in two-car sets would have room for 24 to 36 bicycles and fold-down seats where the bike racks are. There will also be some work tables, luggage racks, Wi-Fi and reading lights. The seats about 32.5 inches apart, a standard for commuter rail but more room than in typical airline coach class (Norberg 2010). Seat spacing that is not cramped is in alignment with a finding by the Easter Seals Project ACTION report Oversized/Overweight Mobility Aids: Status of the Issue. This brief synthesis offers an overview of the problems posed by an increase in obesity rates in the United States, which will affect the nation s transit systems in a variety of ways. For example, more overweight Americans will necessitate an increased use of larger mobility aids, which will challenge existing ADA specifications and regulations and thereby affect future design of transit vehicles. According to the report, Because accessible transit vehicles are designed to accommodate mobility aids that can fit within a 30 x 48 clear space, problems can arise when passengers using mobility aids that exceed these dimensions (i.e., very large wheelchairs and scooters, reclining chairs, gurneys, Segways) need to use bus lifts, safely engage securement devices, and maneuver through a transit vehicle (Pass and Thompson 2004). The report further describes the following: The U.S. Access Board defines the required clear space (envelope) for a wheelchair or mobility aid as a minimum 48 inches long and a minimum 30 inches wide, measured at 2 inches above the floor or platform surface, and extending to a height of 30 inches minimum above the floor or platform surface. The minimum clear width at the floor or platform surface is 28 ½ inches. These requirements were based on research conducted in the late 1970 s. However, the accessibility standards in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom now have a larger envelope than the U.S. standard. Preliminary findings from ongoing research conducted by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Universal Design at Buffalo supports larger clearances. Their data shows that a clear floor space as large as 33 x 56 inches may be needed to accommodate people with the largest space needs (Pass and Thompson 2004). Indeed, another Easter Seals report, Status Report on the Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and Private Transportation, points out that there is no set of national standards for vehicle interior design and warns that problem[s occur] when new vehicles are purchased and different seating layouts or other features are selected, without full understanding of the relationship between components (Nelson\Nygaard 2008).

70 60 The TCRP report Bus Rapid Transit: Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines posits how to optimize vehicle design for accessibility and efficiency. Easy and rapid passenger boarding, alighting, and circulation are still basic BRT vehicle requirements to minimize dwell times. Distinct BRT vehicle interior layouts usually involve large standing/circulation areas around doors. These aid boarding, alighting, and circulation and also function as storage areas for baby carriages, strollers, shopping carts, and wheelchairs and, in the process, support the image of a quality system that meets the needs of the entire community (Levinson et al. 2003). Agencies that completed the survey were asked whether designated storage/space for large items is an issue when the agency purchases new vehicles. Most agencies do not consider space/storage issues (Table 30). Although affirmative responses were narrowly distributed among agencies of all sizes, 30 of 39 agencies (77%) do not consider designated storage for large items when reviewing the designs and considering the purchase of new vehicles. It can be noted, however, given a few of the comments to this question, that respondents did not consider the term large items to include wheelchairs. Manufacturers are responding to transit agencies needs in their new designs. For example, Alstrom s AGV offers a wider width for better access by those with reduced mobility (see Figure 57). The modular design can be customized for specific needs, such as more or less space for bicycles. Bombardier has produced a multilevel car for NJ Transit with upper and lower seating levels as well as an intermediate level at each end of the car for wheelchairs, bicycles, or luggage. (Harnack 2009). FIGURE 58 Perimeter seating in a Bombardier CX-100 car in Singapore (courtesy: Mailer Diablo, Copyright 2006 Mailer Diablo on CX100.JPG). TABLE 30 IS DESIGNATED STORAGE/SPACE FOR LARGE ITEMS A CONSIDERATION OF YOUR AGENCY WHEN PURCHASING NEW VEHICLES? Yes 23% (9) No 77% (30) n = 39. FIGURE 57 Pittsburgh s light rail vehicles have a wide aisle that accommodates standees and large items (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). Bombardier is the manufacturer for Toronto s 234 new subway cars, dubbed the Toronto Rocket. Each car is to be equipped with two multipurpose areas (12 per train) that are designed to house wheelchairs and, if not occupied, other mobility devices, strollers, bicycles, or large luggage items (Toronto Transit Commission 2010) (see Figure 58). SURVEY RESULTS Of the agencies that consider storage and space, one midsized agency admitted we ve actively discussed it but did not end up purchasing the vehicle with a seating layout showing forward facing seats removed for stroller/large item[s]. Agency staff concluded that they may pilot other seating plans in future productions. One large agency detailed its considerations: Better organization of space would be more user friendly and minimize conflicts between different users; bicycle storage and wheelchair spaces are considerations. I m not aware of plans for luggage racks. Another large agency noted that it does not consider storage space for purchases of buses and other transit vehicles, but there is some consideration on commuter rail. Agencies that indicated that they do not consider storage space when purchasing new vehicles variously cited the effectiveness of current policies and vehicles, or a lack of demand or need (see Figure 59).

71 FIGURE 59 Standard bus seating configurations offer limited space for large items (courtesy: J. Goldman, Nelson\Nygaard Associates). 61

72 62 CHAPTER NINE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT, PUBLIC INFORMATION, AND PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS This chapter addresses issues from the survey that are common to many types of large items brought on board transit vehicles.the information summarized is in response to questions about why agencies developed the policies they have, agency responsibilities for enforcement of the various policies, and what transit agencies are doing to provide information to the public and, in some cases, address public concern or outcry. This chapter concludes with a case study of OC Transpo s experience with developing and enforcing its stroller policies, and the challenges the agency faces in an environment of vocal transit users and significant press coverage of events surrounding the development of its policy. SURVEY RESPONSES Impetus to Develop Policies Regarding Large Items on Vehicles Different types of circumstances led to the development of the policies agencies have in place regarding bringing large items on transit vehicles. When asked why they developed their policies, several agencies offered broad reasons. Safety for passengers and drivers was one of the primary concerns, but some respondents gave specific accounts of extreme circumstances that demanded adoption of a comprehensive policy: Large numbers of grocery bags and other items that were a burden to drivers and presented safety risks to other passengers; Clients on a paratransit service who expected drivers to load and unload, and transport large items into clients homes; Carts and multiple grocery bags tipping over; and A child s stroller being thrown in an accident. Large and midsized agencies, for the most part, identified broader reasons for developing their large item policies. One large agency operating bus, rail, and paratransit service put it succinctly: Passenger safety, insurance issues and dwell time at stops were all considerations in developing a large items policy. Another large agency noted that a risk and safety assessment concluded large items on the buses should not be permitted as they restricted the movement of passengers during evacuation. One large agency noted specific events that influenced its decisions in one case. According to a survey respondent, some customers tried to move big objects like a sofa or a fridge via transit. Sometimes, policies regarding safely managing large items on platforms and aboard transit vehicles are drafted and implemented in the wake of accidents or safety-related incidents. In the survey, 11 of 37 (30%) agencies indicated that they experienced an accident or incident regarding large items either on or in the process of boarding transit vehicles (Table 31). TABLE 31 HAS YOUR AGENCY EXPERIENCED ANY SAFETY- RELATED INCIDENTS OR INJURIES RELATED TO BRINGING STROLLERS, CARTS, LUGGAGE, BICYCLES, MOBILITY AIDS, OR OTHER LARGE ITEMS ON VEHICLES? Yes 30% (11) No 54% (20) Don t Know 16% (6) n = 37. Medium and large agencies reported the majority of incidents ranging from scraped shins [and] pinched fingers, tip-overs of mobility devices injuring other riders, and claims of injury due to tripping over luggage or mobility devices on the bus, to an example where a train passenger attempted to board by inserting a stroller in a closing door. Sometimes, the introduction of new technology into existing public realms may lead to mishap. BART, for one, crafted its Segway policy after an out-of-control [device] rolled onto the tracks and was hit by a train. Contemporary news reports supplement this incident, explaining that no one was aboard the Segway when it rolled off a platform and was hit by a train but that the accident caused significant delay. One small agency explains that it pays careful attention to maintaining its regulations: Strictly enforcing the clear aisle and managing passengers own parcels policies has helped avoid incidents. Nevertheless, the policies have not always stopped complaints.

73 63 Twenty-three of 37 agencies (62%) reported that they have received complaints related to bringing large items or transport aids aboard their vehicles (Table 32). Their approximate totals of yearly/monthly complaints varied widely. Six of the 23 yes respondents noted in the comment field that they did not know the related data. Five of the 17 agencies that provided detailed responses tallied one or fewer complaints per month. Four of the agencies noted between two and six complaints monthly, and a few agencies said they receive only between two and five complaints per year. Likely as a result of their size, larger agencies log more complaints. One large agency has an average of 10 complaints per month related to bringing large item on vehicles, although another agency reports between 20 and 50 complaints per month. Three agencies noted that most of their complaints were related to bicycle accommodation. TABLE 32 HAS YOUR AGENCY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS RELATED TO BRINGING STROLLERS, CARTS, LUGGAGE, BICYCLES, MOBILITY AIDS, OR OTHER LARGE ITEMS ON VEHICLES? Yes 62% (23) No 24% (9) Don t Know 14% (5) n = 37. Effectiveness of Agency Policies Twenty-five agencies (69%) indicated that their policies on bringing different large items aboard transit vehicles are organized in a complementary, nonconflicting, comprehensive manner (Table 33). Asked to evaluate these policies using a few effectiveness metrics regarding whether policies are appropriate, fair to consumers, reasonable to enforce, maximize convenience, and balance the agency s needs with operational realities, respondents agencies overall were positive in their assessments. Figure 60 shows the responses, in which roughly 57% and 71% of respondents indicated that each metric applied to all large items covered by our policies. TABLE 33 DOES AGENCY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF COMPLEMENTARY, NONCONFLICTING POLICIES REGARDING BRINGING DIFFERENT LARGE ITEMS ON BOARD VEHICLES? Yes 69% (25) No 25% (9) N/A 2 n = 36. Some respondents clarified their responses of somewhat and not for any for some of the metrics. One large agency noted that vague policies lead to inconsistent application from operator to operator and customer confusion, and therefore ranked each metric as somewhat. Another large agency marked that it was somewhat able to maximize convenience for consumers, explaining that bicyclists would like to use the system during peak hours to cover the last mile of their trip. Due to [crowding] concerns, we are not able to change our policy. We are trying to address the need through other planning and programs. Once established, policies adopted by transit agencies are not always deemed effective. Figure 61 summarizes agencies assessments of the effectiveness of their policies. FIGURE 60 Evaluation of agency s policies regarding bringing large items on board vehicles (n = 35).

74 64 Although 86% of wheelchair policies were deemed effective or very effective (rated 4 or 5), only 61% of policies governing luggage, carts, or parcels were rated 4 or 5. Thirteen percent of agencies deemed their stroller policies less effective or not at all effective (2 or 1). Even when the agencies consider their policies to be effective, only 21% believe the enforcement of the policies addressing large items is very effective, and 31% rate their enforcement as neither effective nor ineffective (3). Many agencies have policies in place but acknowledge that enforcement of the policies has been unsuccessful, uneven, or impractical. must move the stroller if a passenger with a mobility device boards. A large agency noted that its bicycle rules on rail [imply] that wheelchairs would have priority over bicycles though it s not specifically stated. Only a few agencies provided additional information about how they deal with multiple large items (and possible conflicts) on transit vehicles. One small agency described a hypothetical rare situation: the driver may call for a paratransit vehicle to provide assistance or a paratransit driver may ask for fixed route driver assistance. Another small agency explained that in many cases, drivers that have completed their shift [on the last trip of the day] will stand-by to take any additional passengers with luggage and/or strollers that will not fit on the scheduled bus. Seventeen of 36 respondents (47%) felt that their policies regarding bringing large items on transit vehicles could be improved; of the rest, five believed that the current policies were already effective, and 14 said they did not know (Table 35). FIGURE 61 Summary of agencies assessments of the effectiveness of their policies. Although most agencies indicate that their policies are complementary and nonconflicting, some of the policies themselves are intended to manage conflicts on board vehicles by prioritizing one type of large item (or user group) over another. Nineteen agencies (49%) prioritize one item over another on their vehicles (Table 34). All of these agencies indicated that persons with disabilities take precedence. Of these, 16 specifically mention that wheelchairs are the number one priority. A few agencies are less specific, variously noting that mobility devices have a priority or that disability trumps non-disability related items. Most likely, the majority of these policies are informed by the ADA, which prioritizes transit accommodation for disabled passengers and their accompanying items. TABLE 34 DOES THE AGENCY PRIORITIZE ONE TYPE OF LARGE ITEM OVER ANOTHER? Yes 49% (19) No 51% (20) n = 39. A few agencies provided examples of what must occur in the event of conflicts among large items. One midsized agency s passengers using the securement area for their stroller TABLE 35 DO YOU THINK YOUR POLICY/POLICIES COULD BE IMPROVED? Yes 47% (17) No 14% (5) Don t Know 39% (14) n = 36. Those that believed that their policies could be better offered myriad solutions ranging from expanded publicity of existing policies to both targeted and nonspecific improvements. One small agency explained the policies are okay but the agency could [improve] education and consistent enforcement. Two other agencies were confident with their policies, but suggested that improved vehicle design could render their services more efficient and flexible. One midsized agency suggested that improvement would manifest as buying vehicles that can accommodate more wheelchair bays due to the growing demand. A few agencies saw continual policy improvement as a prime responsibility. One small agency explained that as a rule, policies should always be reviewed as new items come out on the market and perhaps the policy can be tweaked to be more inclusive. Another small agency added, Our policies can be improved through passenger contact or recommendations. We are restrictive only when we absolutely must be or [when] safety is a concern. We are always open to new ideas in event we missed something. Another agency suggested more rigorous planning: it deemed that its policy probably should address some contingencies should they occur.

75 65 Other respondents noted specific areas for improvement. One large agency suggested that securement should be mandatory for mobility devices on buses and another proposed being more specific about items allowed, and making this information available to the riding public. A small agency confirmed the scope of the survey: We would like to see what others do with our two biggest areas: elderly and young moms with little ones. Finally, one agency expressed a particularly thoughtful concern by noting that consistent enforcement tempered by good judgment is always difficult. More than one-half of the surveyed agencies (21 of 38) consider their large item and transport aid policies to be models for other agencies. Only five respondents said that they did not consider their agency to be a model (Table 36). Of those that responded yes, two agencies provided the reasoning behind their answers. One, a medium-sized provider, noted that it is a model for others in particular for strollers and Segways. The other, a small agency, explained that the staff researched stroller policies online before writing ours, and because of that, they were able to avoid some mistakes other agencies experienced by being a little more flexible with our policy. So far it has worked out well. A few of those that did not consider their agency to be a good model also added comments. One large agency noted that for other agencies, its own overly complex rules would be inappropriate and difficult to enforce. Another large agency remarked that it has many routes with high ridership and high turnover. [Our] policies would only be appropriate for similar properties. TABLE 36 DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR AGENCY TO BE A GOOD MODEL WITH REGARD TO POLICIES/STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING LARGE ITEMS ON BOARD TRANSIT VEHICLES? Yes 55% (21) No 13% (5) Don t Know 32% (12) n = 38. Agency Enforcement of Policies A majority of respondent agencies indicated that their bus drivers are expected to enforce the agency s large item policies (Table 37). The handful that marked no added clarification of their situations. One small agency noted that although some drivers try to enforce [the policies] ultimately supervisors and management enforce. A medium-sized agency listed transit supervisors as the frontline for enforcement, and one large agency commented that its own police or supervisors serve as policy enforcement entities. TABLE 37 ARE BUS DRIVERS EXPECTED TO ENFORCE THE AGENCY S POLICIES? Yes 92% (33) No 8% (3) n = 36. Agencies that operate buses were asked specifically about bus driver roles and responsibilities in the enforcement of all of their policies. As shown in Figure 62, 32 of 36 (89%) agencies expect their drivers to deny boarding to passengers with items that are not permitted on the vehicles. Additionally, 25 of 36 (69%) expect their operators to deny admittance to passengers with large items when they are concerned about vehicle capacity. A smaller proportion of agencies (12 of 36, or 33%) expect their bus drivers to ask patrons with large items to leave the vehicle when a passenger with a wheelchair is boarding. Respondents were split about nonitemized restrictions and bus driver policies. FIGURE 62 Expectations of bus drivers: Are bus drivers expected to do any of the following (n = 36)? Generally, agencies noted that drivers have the ability to deny boarding to passengers if the large items they intend to bring aboard are of a dangerous nature; as elsewhere, several respondents indicated that safety was the primary concern. Four agencies indicated that if confronted with an unusual situation involving a large item, drivers are expected to either consult with a supervisor or call the dispatcher, especially in cases reported by one agency where they feel they have a potential safety issue. One small agency explained that drivers have to deny boarding to passengers whether they have large items or not when the buses are full to capacity. Many agencies that operate rail enforce their policies through transit police (12 of 17 agencies, or 71%) or train operators (9 of 17, or 53%). Figure 63 shows policy enforcement personnel for rail operations. Three agencies marked the other category and clarified their responses. Two indicated that supervisors enforce the

76 66 agency s large item policies on rail, and the other indicated that there is no enforcement. FIGURE 64 On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is very successful and 1 is not at all successful, how successful do you think the agency is at enforcing its policies (n =39)? Public Information about Agency Policies FIGURE 63 Rail: Who is responsible for enforcing the agency s policies (mark all that apply) (n =17)? Generally, all respondent agencies indicated that they felt at least moderately successful at enforcing their large item policies, with 27 of 39 (69%) rating their enforcement as effective (4) or very effective (5). Figure 64 shows that only about 20% of surveyed agencies rated their enforcement as very effective. Some of the agencies that rated themselves highly did so because they have not had much experience in dealing with large items. One small agency rated its enforcement as effective but also commented that it s hard to know because we encounter few situations with large items. Another small agency with the same rating wrote, we simply do not have a high demand for passengers bringing on large items. However, many of the comments qualified the effectiveness of the policies and enforcement in dealing with large items. One agency that rated itself very effective noted that the agency s drivers are consistent and fair and apply all policies evenly. Additionally, several agencies provided detailed answers, some of which follow: The biggest problem is saying no to the person in a wheelchair or walker with a package who struggles to manage it alone. The second big problem [is] with the young mom with a toddler and one in the stroller. The drivers struggle with these. It is difficult to enforce rules against bicycles on trains at peak times in peak directions and also on rules against bicycles on crowded trains; It depends. Bike policies are probably enforced fairly well by Station Agents upon station entrance/exit. Once on the train however, policies would need to be enforced by the train operator who would only see the bicyclist if he/she was on the first car (which is prohibited). Vague policies open to interpretation and no consistent application from operator to operator creates confusion for the customers. Although the majority of agencies distribute information about their large item policy in brochures and on their websites (31 of 39 agencies, or 79%), a significant number (26 or 67%) also post the information on the vehicles (Figure 65). The surveyed agencies and the ways they communicate their policies are shown in Table 38. FIGURE 65 How is information about the agency s policies provided (n = 39)? Agencies were asked if they have any information brochures specifically about bringing certain large items on transit vehicles (Table 39), and 16 of the agencies indicated that they do (43%). As shown in Figure 66, wheelchairs and bicycles are the most frequent brochure topics among the agencies that produce such informational material. One small agency noted that although it does not produce brochures about specific large items, its bus schedule explains how to use bike racks. FIGURE 66 Agency prepares brochures specifically about which items?

77 67 TABLE 38 PUBLIC INFORMATION TOOLS BY AGENCY Information is: Agency Small Brandon Transit Brandon, Manitoba Downeast Transportation, Inc. Ellsworth, Maine Greater Glens Falls Transit Glens Falls, New York Macatawa Area Express Transportation Authority (MAX), Holland, Michigan City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, Las Cruces, New Mexico Las Vegas Monorail Company Las Vegas, Nevada The T Lawrence, Kansas SunTran Ocala, Florida Ottumwa Transit Authority Ottumwa, Iowa Pullman Transit Pullman, Washington River Bend Transit Quad Cities, Iowa Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD), Rutland, Vermont City of Sioux Falls/Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, South Dakota Metro Ride Wausau, Wisconsin Medium CyRide Ames, Iowa Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta), Antioch, California Valley Transit Appleton, Wisconsin Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), Concord, California VOTRAN Daytona Beach, Florida Lane Transit District Eugene, Oregon Lee County Transit Ft. Myers, Florida/Lee County Type of Service Posted on vehicles Posted at stations/ stops Posted on agency website Bus Printed in brochures Provided via spoken announcement at a stop or on a vehicle Provided in another way Bus (3) Bus Bus (2) Bus Rail Bus Bus Bus (1) Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Table 38 continued on p. 68

78 68 Table 38 continued from p. 67 BC Transit Bus Kelowna, British Columbia Laketran Bus Lake County, Ohio Metro Transit Bus Madison, Wisconsin North County Transit District (NCTD) Bus/ Rail Oceanside, California Sarasota County Area Transit Bus Sarasota, Florida Large Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Bus/ Rail Authority (MARTA), Atlanta, Georgia Capital Metro Bus/ Rail Austin, Texas Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Bus/ Rail Chicago, Illinois Community Transit Bus Everett, Washington Public Transit Division (TheBus) Bus Honolulu, Hawaii Metropolitan Transit Authority Harris Bus/ Rail County (METRO), Houston, Texas Miami-Dade Transit Bus/ Rail Miami, Florida Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Bus/ Rail Montreal, Quebec NJ TRANSIT Corporation Bus/ Rail Newark, New Jersey MTA New York City Transit Bus/ Rail New York, New York San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Rail (4) District (BART), Oakland, California OC Transpo Bus/ Rail (5) Ottawa, Ontario Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Philadelphia, Bus/ Rail (6) Penn. TriMet Bus/ Rail Portland, Oregon Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Bus/ Rail Salt Lake City, Utah Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Bus/ Rail Authority (WMATA) Washington, District of Columbia (1) Provided one-on-one to passengers as needed. (2) We rotate policies through our website homepage, often depending on time of year. (3) Employees at our Village Green hub relay information to passengers as they board the buses. Drivers also give information at other stops. (4) We have a bike rules car card that is posted on some vehicles. Stations where bikes are not allowed at all during commute hours have unofficial signs posted at the entrances. If someone is in violation of the bike policy, e.g., a bike on the first car, the train operator will probably make an announcement. (5) Refers to website and Transit By-Law. (6) This is part of a Passenger Etiquette Campaign, and the emphasis is on cooperation and courtesy.

79 69 TABLE 39 DOES THE AGENCY HAVE ANY BROCHURES SPECIFICALLY ABOUT USING/BRINGING ANY OF THE LARGE ITEMS SPECIFIED IN THIS SURVEY ON BOARD VEHICLES? Yes 43% (16) No 57% (21) n = 37. A number of respondents also sent along links to their online information. One agency has a video library on its website offering instructional videos about How to Ride the Bus, including one on stroller use. Another noted that in many cases information is on the web, but not necessarily in printed material. ONE AGENCY S EXPERIENCE: OC TRANSPO, OTTAWA, ONTARIO DEVELOPING, REFINING, AND ENFORCING POLICIES, AND PUBLIC OUTCRY Prelude to a Policy Shift On Saturday, October 4, 2008, an OC Transpo bus driver stopped to pick up passengers waiting near a shopping area in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada among them, two mothers with children in strollers. One of the mothers was traveling with her two children: a seven-month-old infant in a stroller, and a two-year-old toddler walking alongside. Upon the bus s arrival, the driver stated that he was restricting entry to only one of the passengers with a stroller. Apparently, although in the words of the toddler s mother, the bus was pretty much empty, the driver thought that more than one additional stroller could cause capacity issues (Gonczol 2008). According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, the mother told the driver they should both be allowed to board and said that she wanted to speak with his supervisor. The driver refused, prompting other passengers to argue that both women should be allowed to board. Ultimately, upon the irritated passenger s attempt to lift the stroller on the bus, the driver reiterated his no answer, and quickly closed the doors. What the driver did not realize was that the woman s two-year-old had gotten on the bus as soon as the doors opened, and was now separated from her mother. After significant onboard outcry, and with the help of another hopeful boarder running alongside the bus, the driver stopped the vehicle about 300 meters down the road. Upon allowing the toddler to alight, the driver simply shut the door and continued on his route (Gonczol 2008). The incident was ultimately a watershed event, prompting public outcry, an accumulation of complaints, and a distillation of calls for equity among users of OC Transpo transit operations. The mother received an explanation from OC Transpo within days of the incident but was not satisfied; and she was unsuccessful in her efforts to have the driver fired. The Ottawa Citizen reported the city s response: City of Ottawa said [that] the driver was immediately suspended, and scheduled for retraining. The newspaper quoted the city s explanation of the official regulations: There is no policy, per se, that restricts the number of strollers. However, drivers do, on occasion, restrict the number if they feel they are blocking the aisles or if the bus is too crowded or whatever (Gonczol 2008). Refocusing on the Issue Editorial response to the incident was mixed. One reader wrote that she found that strollers have become a major headache for bus drivers and other passengers. She continued that she was fed up with tripping over [strollers] while trying to get seated before the bus starts. Her letter drew particular attention to the fact that OC Transpo s policies were either not well defined or not well publicized: What happens if a person in a wheelchair wants to get on and the bus is packed with strollers? Who has priority? Do a couple of strollers have to get off? (Swallow 2008). Another reader, a mother who uses a stroller to transport her infant daughter, offered a different perspective. Because she is reliant on public transit, she said, she has encountered numerous scenarios involving either bus driver sympathy or apathy toward her situation. Some of the drivers graciously wait as I find a seat before leaving the stop, she wrote, while others have taken off at an alarming speed as soon as I step on the bus, making it very difficult to get situated. She concluded that drivers need to think about how they should be treating their customers, and that OC Transpo [should make] their stroller policy clearer to the public (Delisle 2008). A local columnist writing for the Ottowa Citizen also pressured OC Transpo into clarifying its policy. She cited Vancouver s TransLink as a model for a stroller policy, praising its specific pronouncements of priority rankings and stroller size. How can an organization this vital to the city s well-being, she questioned of OC Transpo, be unable to figure out where to put a stroller? (Egan 2008). OC Transpo Proposes a Policy Update In response to the outcry, OC Transpo made a comprehensive effort to update its policies on priority seating rules and stroller usage. The intent of the new stroller policy, a staff report read, is to provide a method for operators and riders to better manage the front area of the bus in a safe and consistent method. Because the updated policy incorporated a number of parameters investigated at other transit agencies, key excerpts are quoted here:

80 70 Stroller Eligibility: An open stroller occupied by a child will be allowed on the bus if: It is capable of being folded It is capable of being safely stowed It will not interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of passengers within the transit vehicle, It can be wheeled, or (when folded) carried, through the aisle without contacting the seats. Strollers that are not occupied by a child must be folded and stowed upon boarding. (OC Transpo 2009) The new policy also specified that open strollers carrying a child must be placed in a wheelchair position, best if facing to the rear with wheels locked. The policy addresses several contingencies as well: for example, if a person using a wheelchair boards and needs that position, the customer with the stroller will be expected to fold and stow the stroller and hold the child. Furthermore, double strollers are required to fit all the required parameters for single strollers, other than being able to be folded. A double stroller will only be allowed on board if a wheelchair position is available. All of these actions are to be done without assistance. The new policy was designed to be implemented in a trial period, in conjunction with general priority seating updates, and OC Transpo planned significant public outreach in support of the policy (OC Transpo 2009). Reaction and Rejection of the New Policy Ultimately, however, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation put it, Bus-riding moms win Ottawa stroller fight. The corresponding article reported on the city s transportation committee s November 2008 consideration of the new policy: More than a dozen moms armed with babies and strollers rolled into Ottawa city hall to protest rules that would have restricted bulky strollers on transit buses, it summarized. And in the end, councilors backed down (CBC News 2009). The mothers argument was tied to the practical necessities of following the new rules, and incorporated concerns of social justice and limited opportunities. First, several protestors noted that even folding a stroller would be a difficult task: Where do you put the infant if you are folding your stroller? one mom asked. Do I need to hand my child over to a stranger while I fold my stroller if there s no room for me on that bus? Other attendees worried that they would lose access to basic mobility and related opportunities if not allowed to travel with their children in strollers. One young mom who travels with her child in a stroller noted that OC Transpo s bus service, by giving her access to college, has helped me to give back to the community and [be] a successful person. Ultimately, the transportation committee found that the policy was unrealistic. OC Transpo thus maintained its original policy, wherein transit drivers decide the size and number of open strollers that can be on board at one time (CBC News 2009). Refining the Status Quo OC Transpo subsequently sent the issue to other city organizations for review, including the seniors and accessibility advisory committees. The two committees, according to a February 2010 Metro article, suggested changes to the policy with regard to the co-operative seating area on OC Transpo buses. Stroller users again rejected the changes, arguing that parents were being discriminated against because strollers [should] not be allowed in the aisle, but that shopping carts were fine. A transport official responded, saying that they originally restricted shopping carts, but the advisory committees requested that restriction[s] be lifted (Wieclawski 2010). A press release from the Ottawa City Council s February 24, 2010, meeting details the new stroller policy agreement: Caregivers carrying a child in a stroller are asked to put the stroller in a space designated for wheelchairs if there is one available. If a wheelchair position is not available, open strollers are allowed in the aisle unless they interfere with other passengers or with the safe movement of transit users. If this happens, the operator may ask the customer to fold the stroller. (This is current practice.) If an open stroller is in a wheelchair area and someone with a wheelchair requires that space, the stroller will be required to move. As always, customers can fold and stow their strollers upon boarding. By doing so, they can sit in the Cooperative Seating area with their child on their lap (Ottawa City Council 2010). In late March 2010, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the City Council had amended the new policy, requiring OC Transpo staff [to] be offered training with regard to dealing with conflicting needs and that drivers having received such training be accorded the necessary authority to deal with the circumstances that arise. The newspaper noted that despite the fallout surrounding the stroller incident that inspired the controversy, the [new] policy does not explain what happens to an open stroller on a route that becomes more crowded as the ride progresses (Stroller Policy Amended to Add Training Clause 2010).

81 71 CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSIONS Although the information described in the various literature reviews and the survey results focuses on policies in place and the effectiveness of these policies, this topic has much to do with how staff and riders interact with one another. When someone boards a transit vehicle, he or she typically looks for a place to sit or stand. The process of entering a bus or train and finding a place may go unnoticed on most transit vehicles: other than a greeting, the operator is not required to do anything special, and other riders may only need to step aside for a new passenger. However, when a passenger boards with a large item or uses a mobility device, operators and other transit riders are impacted. Luggage, carts, or strollers require other passengers to move away or help make room. Wheelchairs or scooters require operators to use a ramp or lift and passengers to clear the designated tie-down area. As the survey responses reveal, large items can cause delays, conflicts among passengers, and more responsibility for the operator. As a result of the complexities surrounding large items on transit vehicles, many agencies have developed policies to guide what may be taken on board a vehicle, how many items may be carried, where items may be stored or used, and the agency s role in terms of providing direction and assistance. The information presented in this synthesis covers a broad range of policies and issues as they have been addressed by a selected group of representative North American transit agencies. Although the information obtained from the survey cannot be used to generalize policies at all transit providers or how these policies are applied, the findings highlight the complications associated with large items on transit vehicles and that a human element exists. Many agencies adopt policies with strict guidelines, but operators are challenged to enforce them and in many cases develop solutions based on the specific circumstances. Thus, this synthesis presents frequencies of responses to survey questions and is supplemented by extensive commentary from agency representatives. The survey of 42 transit agencies (100% response rate) evidenced the variation among policies in accommodating large items on transit vehicles: almost all agencies have regulations in place regarding wheelchairs on vehicles, but many agencies have never encountered a Segway and therefore have no policies that address them, and nearly one-quarter of the agencies have no policies regarding carrying luggage or carts on board transit vehicles. Even if an agency has a policy in place, some policies make allowances for items (i.e., any type of stroller is allowed) whereas other policies offer strict prohibitions (i.e., only folding strollers stowed under a seat are allowed). Generally, rail operations are less restrictive in terms of what types, dimensions, or quantities of large items passengers may carry on board, while buses, with limited capacity and dedicated securement areas for wheelchairs, have more restrictive policies. The data collected and summarized in this synthesis highlight considerations for many of the large items reviewed. WHEELCHAIRS AND MOBILITY AIDS With ADA law in the United States, most agencies have significant direction with regard to developing policies to accommodate wheelchairs. Because mobility aids include a large class of assistive devices, some of which are also used as recreational vehicles (e.g., Segways), agencies have had difficulties defining what they can safely accommodate on their vehicles. Several agency representatives commented that clearer guidance at the federal level and incorporated into the ADA would make it easier to develop appropriate policies for what passengers could carry on transit vehicles. Safe transport of mobility devices is a priority, but some agencies feel that they are unqualified to make a determination about whether certain devices are suitable for transit, as demonstrated by survey responses about the structural integrity and transportability of wheelchairs in general. Tiedowns and securement systems are designed primarily for wheelchairs; several agencies struggle trying to secure Segways, as well as certain types of common scooters, because their vehicles are not equipped properly or securement technologies have not caught up with new devices. Based on the survey comments, when agencies collaborate with people with disabilities either on an individual basis or through their advisory committee(s) to develop new policies or refine existing policies, they usually consider their policies to be more effective as a result of this collaborative approach. STROLLERS Transit agencies are less comfortable with their stroller policies than with wheelchairs and mobility aids. The Ottawa

82 72 example (chapter nine) illustrates the complexities of managing strollers and the impact that a vocal ridership group mothers with children can have on a transit system s policies and reputation. Efforts by some transit agencies to limit strollers to those that fold or to specify a stroller s allowable dimensions for transport have been questioned by rider groups as unjust, possibly even discriminatory against parents, often low-income women. Although some agencies have reached out to riders with strollers by creating strolleronly areas or providing both written and oral information in the languages spoken by mothers on transit, others have had difficulty addressing their challenges. Among the stroller policies that transit agencies have deemed most effective are those that minimize an operator s involvement: strollers must fit through vehicle doors and be kept out of aisles. Platform-level boarding on trains, along with new technologies in bus ramps, have made it easier for riders to bring large strollers on board vehicles: easier boarding may be a disincentive for carrying small, collapsible strollers. Helsinki s pram button to keep doors open longer or Portland TriMet s button on its MAX trains to activate bridge plates are examples of simple technology enhancements that allow more time for safer boarding and alighting. The results of the survey and the literature review are inconclusive with regard to whether a child in a stroller is safer than a child taken out of a stroller, and different agencies have policies that reflect the two different perspectives. The dissimilarity of the two types of policies points to the value of additional research on this topic. BICYCLES Exterior racks or underbody storage compartments on buses allow transit agencies to offer an amenity to bicycle users without the complications of bringing bicycles on board vehicles. Nevertheless, some agencies bus routes have exterior bike racks that are at capacity, forcing them to allow bikes on buses or to retrofit vehicles with larger racks. Likewise, most rail operators have policies that make accommodations for bikes inside vehicles. Some have created designated bicycle areas or installed bicycle mounting racks or hooks. Commuter rail operated by some agencies includes cars designated for transporting bicycles. However, owing to high passenger loads, several agencies restrict bikes at peak hours or in peak directions. Some solutions have been tried. An innovative program, such as Caltrans Bay Bridge operation, is an example of supplementing limited rail capacity by operating bicyclecarrying vans between rail stations. Rented lockers at bus and rail transit centers allow users to secure bicycles when they transfer to public transit. Many agencies have not yet explored the potential for accommodating or even encouraging portable, folding bikes on buses and trains. As communities grapple with last mile transit solutions (providing local feeder bus services or other modes that connect transit hubs with riders destinations), bicycles can play an important role in a multimodal solution. LUGGAGE Most transit riders do not transport luggage on a daily basis. Thus, local riders with luggage are often leaving town or returning home from another city, and many passengers with luggage are visiting from elsewhere. Visitors with luggage may be unaware of the agency s policies governing luggage in advance of trying to board a transit vehicle. To address the needs of persons with suitcases and support efforts to keep aisles clear, several transit agencies have experimented with luggage racks on bus routes or trains that serve an airport (e.g., MTA in New York City and Boston s MBTA Silver Line). Other agencies, such as TheBus in Honolulu or SamTrans in San Mateo County, California explicitly prohibit luggage on some bus routes that serve the airport, not only for capacity purposes but in some cases owing to private competition. Luggage racks may be suitable for routes that serve airports, but for most transit services, open space solutions offer greater flexibility, allowing more standing passengers or general capacity for large items. CARTS, PARCELS, AND OTHER ITEMS Three groupings of transit agency policies generally exist regarding carts, parcels, and other items on buses and trains. Concerned that policies limiting grocery bags or carts might unfairly impact transit-dependent riders, the first group of agencies allows as much as the rider can carry in one trip without assistance (e.g., Ottumwa Transit Authority and Sioux Area Metro). Many of these are smaller agencies that acknowledge some flexibility exists in how the driver accommodates these riders. A second group of agencies defines specific size limits or restricts the number of bags or parcels on transit (e.g., Link Transit or Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit), based on what an agency deems reasonable for an individual to carry by himself or herself. The third group of agencies has policies that rely on individuals to maintain control of their carry-on items on their lap or under their seat, effectively limiting the quantity or size of items that may be brought on board. Several of these larger agencies acknowledge that operators have a lot of different duties, and measuring carts or counting bags adds yet another responsibility.

83 73 Most transit agencies respond to changes in societal priorities by implementing new policies or adjusting existing ones. Wider and taller strollers, sometimes accommodating two children and allowing for storage, are designed to address the demands of families that use them. Large suitcases with wheels allow travelers to independently transport their belongings to airports and train stations. Dollies and grocery carts mean transit-dependent individuals are not restricted to their neighborhood market, and can carry purchases from big-box retailers on buses and trains. New devices offer independence to people who previously had limited mobility options, but many of them come in nonstandard shapes and sizes. With greater numbers of aging adults in our society, many with mobility aids, or more parents using transit with their children, transit agencies will be pressed to adapt their vehicles and policies. Agencies implement policies to address shortcomings, such as capacity of existing equipment, or to ensure the safety of passengers and staff. Depending on community priorities, vehicle types, services offered, or ridership demands, some agencies are more constrained than others. Nevertheless, some agencies consider themselves more successful than others in developing policies (and enforcing them) to help them cope with these constraints. This synthesis provides an opportunity for agencies to share their policies and procedures, while illustrating that no single set of policies will be appropriate for all. Further opportunities for research include the following areas: Equipment tests and other research techniques might be valuable to evaluate oversized wheelchairs and other new mobility devices to determine whether they could be accommodated on transit vehicles. Further study could evaluate the potential utility and safety of bungee cords, belts, or other tools that riders may use to secure mobility devices. Research might consider universal securement devices that could accommodate the array of mobility aids, as well as other large items, used on transit vehicles. Research regarding strollers on transit vehicles might focus on (1) stroller types and size trends, (2) vehicle configurations for best accommodating strollers (i.e., stroller seating area, high-floor versus low-floor), and (3) findings about strollers in vehicle accidents, making a determination on whether children could remain in or be removed from strollers on transit vehicles. Information gathered for this synthesis offers little direction for transit agencies in establishing a policy based on child safety findings, pointing to a gap in current transportation research. Further research about bicycles on transit might include opportunities to evaluate promotion of folding bikes on transit vehicles or for transit agencies to offer bicycles to bus or train riders at transit stops or stations. The examples of bike rental facilities in Stockholm, Sweden; Paris, France; and Long Beach, California, show that some communities are moving in this direction. Tests may be conducted to examine how the various policies regarding bringing large items on board, including grocery carts, wheelchairs, and different types of mobility aids, impact riders independence, well-being, and overall mobility. Safety evaluations of large items as hazards or potential projectiles on buses and trains may provide some risk management tools for transit agencies. Current information to help agencies determine policies for items other than wheelchairs, based on passenger safety issues, is limited. An evaluation of vehicle configurations and new technologies might be conducted to determine how to better accommodate luggage, carts, groceries, and other large items. Research might look at capacity and utility of transit vehicles with modular/flexible spaces versus vehicles equipped with storage areas or racks. Bus operators capacity to enforce agency policies, given their other responsibilities, is another topic noted in this report. Further research might help define a reasonable expectation for bus operators. Given that the overwhelming majority of bus agencies in the survey rely on drivers for enforcement, such research might assist agencies in refining operator responsibilities.

84 74 REFERENCES Alvarez, L., Car s Lack of Safety Devices Faulted in Subway Mishap, New York Times, Oct. 27, APTA Passenger Transport Archive, CATS Receives First Light Rail Vehicle, APTA Passenger Transport, Aug. 7, 2006 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. APTA Passenger Transport Archive, Tri Delta Transit Creates Stroller Area on Buses, Passenger Transport, May 29, 2006 [Online]. Available: [accessed March 12, 2010]. Barbaro, M., Mayor Opposes Bikes on Subway, New York Times, Mar. 21, 2009, p. A18. BART, 2008 Station Profile Report, 2008 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 11, 2010]. Bikestation, New California Bikestations Create Network, Urban Transportation Monitor, Mar. 8, 2010 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 11, 2010]. Bombardier Transportation, FLEXITY 2 LRVS, Bombardier Transportation, Berlin, Germany, 2010 [Online]. Available: docs/flexity2.pdf [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Brandon Transit, Policy: Strollers, Carts (Grocery) and Large Items on Transit Buses, Brandon Transit, MB, Canada, Oct. 31, 2006 [Online]. Available: 2/6ff636c b cf/$FILE / Stroller.Cart%20Policy.October%2031.pdf [accessed Mar. 10, 2010]. Brantford Transit, Stroller Policy: Update to the Brantford Transit Stroller or Bundle Buggie Policy Brantford Transit, Brantford, ON, Canada, 2010 [Online]. Available: public_transit/transitnewsevents/pages/strollerpolicy. aspx [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Bus-riding Moms Win Ottawa Stroller Fight, CBC News, Nov. 18, Cabanatuan, M., Incidents Prompt BART to Consider Segway Rules, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 13, 2008 [Online]. Available: articles.sfgate.com/ / bay-area/ _1_segways-disability-access-devices [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Carpiet, L., Washingtonians Soon to Share City Bikes, Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, 2008 [Online]. Available: html. Accessed March 11, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, Policy for the Transport of Two-Wheeled Automatic Balancing Devices (ABDs) on County Connection (CCCTA) Vehicles, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, Nov Cockburn, N., Transit Committee Stands Pat on Strollers, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 Transportation, Subtitle A ( Edition), Part 38 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, 2007 [Online]. Available: www. fta.dot.gov/documents/part_38-pdf_all_ _ edition.pdf [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), Facts: SLRV Super Light Rail Vehicles Factsheet, Dallas, Tex., Oct. 12, 2008 [Online]. Available: default.asp [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Drudi. C., Editorial, Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 11, 2008, p. D1. Federal Transit Administration, Discussion Paper: Characteristics of Accessible Bus Rapid Transit, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Civil Rights, Questions and Answers Concerning Common Wheelchairs and Public Transit, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C [Online]. Available: www. fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3894.html [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Ginormous Strollers on T Buses, Universal Hub blog/forum, Boston, Mass., Jan. 10, 2008 [Online]. Available: www. universalhub.com/node/12244 [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Golden Gate Transit, Bike to Transit: It s Easy with Golden Gate Transit and Golden Gate Ferry, Golden Gate Transit, San Rafael, Calif. [Online]. Available: www. goldengatetransit.org/services/documents/bikebroch. pdf [accessed Mar. 11, 2010]. Harnack, L., Accommodating More Riders, Mass Transit, June 2009, pp Helsinki Region Transport, Passenger s Guide: Good to Know, Helsinki Region Transport, Helsinki, Finland, 2010 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010].

85 75 Hunter-Zaworski, K.M., A Universal Securement/Restraint System for Wheeled Mobility Aids on Public Transportation Vehicles The Oregon State University Securement System, Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, Apr. 1992, Updated by the Federal Transit Administration and Easter Seals Project ACTION, Washington, D.C., Feb [Online]. Available: projectaction. e a s t e r s e a l s. c o m / s i t e / D o c S e r v e r / 9 5 O S U. pdf?docid=18803 [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Kalinowski, T., Streetcars to Add Space for Standees; TTC to Remove 4 Seats to Boost Standing Room, Toronto Star, Dec. 3, 2007, p. A11. King County Metro, Metro Bicycle Count Survey, December Layton, L., New Wheels Run Afoul of Metro; Disabled Woman on a Segway Challenges System s Rules on Access, Washington Post, Washington, D.C., May 10, Leigh Fisher Associates, M.A. Coogan, and MarketSense. TCRP Report 83: Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Levinson, H. S., et al., TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit: Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Link Transit, Carry-On Policy, Link Transit, Chelan and Douglas Counties, Wash., 2008 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. MARTA, Paratransit Mobility Guide, MARTA, Atlanta, Ga., 2008 [Online]. Available: Files/Using_Marta/Mobility_And_Accessibility/ Mobility_Guide/paraguide.pdf [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Midttrafik, Travel Requirements for Central Traffic, Midttrafik, Aarhus, Denmark, 2010 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Ministry of Public Security, Security on Public Transportation, State of Israel Ministry of Public Security [Online]. Available: SecurityOnPublicTransportation. [accessed June 3, 2010]. Movia, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2010 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. MTA, New York City Transit Pilots Luggage Racks for Bus Routes Serving the Airports, Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York, N.Y., Oct. 12, 2009 [Online]. Available: NYCT169 [accessed Mar. 10, 2010]. Nakanishi, Y., TCRP Synthesis 80: Transit Security Update, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Status Report on the Use of Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Devices on Public and Private Transportation, Easter Seals Project ACTION, Washington, D.C., Mar Norberg, B., SMART Sets Guidelines for Rail Cars, Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, Calif., Mar. 17, Östgötatrafiken, What Can I Take with Me? Östgötatrafiken, Norrkoping, Sweden, 2010 [Online]. Available: aspx [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Parkinson, T. and I. Fisher, TCRP Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 55. Pass, A., and K. Thompson, Oversized/Overweight Mobility Aids: Status of the Issue, Easter Seals Project ACTION, Washington, D.C., 2004 [Online]. Available: projectaction. easterseals.com/site/docserver/wheelchair_synthesis_ final.pdf?docid=7803 [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Penn, F., This Is How We Roll, New York Magazine, Jan. 27, 2008 [Online]. Available: nymag.com/shopping/ features/43312/ [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Petterssen, G., Priorities for the Use of Bus Transport by Disabled People, Older People and Parents with Young Children in Buggies, Association for European Transport and Contributors, London, United Kingdom, 2009 Queen of the Road, Contra Costa Times, Apr. 14, 2010, p. A4. Rack Em Up, Contra Costa Times, Feb. 28, Regional Transportation District, RTD: Americans with Disabilities Act, Regional Transportation District, Denver, Colo., 2010 [Online]. Available: com/accessibility.shtml [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Rickert, T., Bus Rapid Transit Accessibility Guidelines, World Bank, Washington, D.C., Dec [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. RoadRUNNER Transit Advisory Board, RoadRUNNER Transit Bag Limit Policy, RoadRUNNER Transit Advisory Board, Las Cruces, N.M., Jan. 20, Rutenberg, U. and B. Hemily, TCRP Synthesis 50: Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Ruter, Stroller, Bike, etc., Ruter, Oslo, Norway, 2008 [Online]. Available: Barnevogn-ski-og-sykkel/ [accessed Mar. 12, 2010].

86 76 Schepers, N., Report to Transit Committee, City of Ottawa, ON,, Canada, Nov. 10, Schneider, R., TCRP Synthesis 62: Integration of Bicycles and Transit, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Sioux Area Metro, Stroller and Grocery Carry-On Policy: Sioux Area Metro, Sioux Falls, S.D., 2008 [Online]. Available: grocery_stroller_policy. [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Solvoll, Gisle and Roar Armunssveen, Disability and Transport Experience with Specialised Transport in Norway, Norland Research Institute, Spindler, S. and J. Boyle, Bikes on Transit, 1999 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 11, 2010]. Sportworks, [Online]. Available: [accessed May 20, 2010]. Stockholm Public Transport, Behavior Code, Stockholm Public Transport, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Team Trafikk, Good Bus Habits, Team Trafikk, Trondheim, Norway [Online]. Available: no/ [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. *Timothy, L. to Gail Murray, April 9, Toronto Transit Commission, Overview and Key Features, Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, ON, Canada [Online]. Available: www3.ttc.ca/about_the_ttc/projects_and_initiatives/new_subway_train/overview_ and_key_features.jsp [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation Disability Law Guidance Use of Segways on Transportation Vehicles, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Sep. 1, 2005 [Online]. Available: Research/Segways.pdf [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Valley Transit, Valley Transit Carry-on Policy, Valley Transit, Appleton, Wisc., 2009 [Online]. Available: www. appleton.org/departments/transit/about/carry-on%20 brochure_2009.pdf [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Västtrafik, Conditions for Travel with Västtrafik, Västtrafik, Göteborg, Sweden, 2009 [Online]. Available: [accessed Mar. 12, 2010]. Vi, T., Bicycles on BART Survey and State of Bicycle Access and Amenities on BART Report, Livable City, San Francisco, Calif., 2009, 59 pp. Wilbur Smith Associates, BART Bicycle Access and Parking Plan, 2002 [Online]. Available: BART_Bicycle_Access_Parking_Plan.pdf [accessed Mar. 11, 2010}.

87 77 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire

88 78

89 79

90 80

91 81

92 82

93 83

94 84

95 85

96 86

97 87

98 88

99 89

100 90

101 91

102 92

103 93

104 94

105 95

106 96

107 97

108 98

109 99

110 100

111 101

112 102

113 103

114 104

115 105

116 106

117 107

118 108

119 109

120 110

121 111

122 112

123 113

124 114

125 115

126 116

127 117

128 118

129 119

130 120

131 121

132 122

133 123 APPENDIX B List of Participating Agencies Small Agencies Pullman Transit Pullman, WA Transit Manager Marble Valley Regional Transit District (MVRTD) Rutland, VT HR and Community Outreach River Bend Transit Quad Cities, IA Executive Director Ottumwa Transit Authority Ottumwa, IA Transit Administrator Downeast Transportation, Inc. Ellsworth, ME Operations Manager City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit Las Cruces, NM Transit Administrator City of Sioux Falls/Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, SD Transit Planner The T Lawrence, KS Public Transit Administrator Metro Ride Wausau, WI Transit Director SunTran Ocala, FL General Manager Brandon Transit Brandon, Manitoba Manager of Transit Services Macatawa Area Express Transportation Authority (MAX) Holland, MI Customer Service Representative Greater Glens Falls Transit Glens Falls, NY Transportation Director Las Vegas Monorail Company Las Vegas, NV Marketing & Communications Specialist Medium Agencies Valley Transit Appleton, WI General Manager BC Transit Kelowna, British Columbia VP Business Development & CIO Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota, FL Operations Manager/Fixed Route Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta) Antioch, CA Chief Executive Officer Metro Transit Madison, WI Transit Service Manager Lane Transit District Eugene, OR Operations Field Supervisor Laketran Lake County, OH Director of Communications Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) Concord, CA Director of Administration Lee County Transit Ft. Myers, FL/Lee County Operations Manager VOTRAN Daytona Beach, FL Assistant GM of Operations/Maintenance CyRide Ames, IA Operations Supervisor

134 124 North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, CA Director of Service Planning Large Agencies Public Transit Division (TheBus) Honolulu, HI Chief, Public Transit Division Community Transit Everett, WA Transportation System Planner San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Oakland, CA Manager of Accessible Services TriMet Portland, OR Manager Procedure Development Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Atlanta, GA General Superintendent of Bus Transportation OC Transpo Ottawa, Ontario Manager, Transit Marketing and Customer Service Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Washington, DC Manager, Access Planning & Policy Analysis Metropolitan Transit Authority Harris County (METRO) Houston, TX Senior Director Transportation NJ TRANSIT Corporation Newark, NJ Senior Director, Customer Resources MTA New York City Transit New York, NY Deputy General Manager Miami-Dade Transit Miami, FL Assistant Director Société de transport de Montréal (STM) Montreal, Quebec Section Chief Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, PA Director, Customer and Business Development Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, UT Rail Services-Ops Planner Capital Metro Austin, TX Assistant Director of Transportation Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, IL GM, Safety & Risk Compliance

135 125 APPENDIX C Summary Tables of Agency Policies

136 126 Table continued on p. 127

137 127 Table continued from p. 126 Table continued on p. 128

138 128 Table continued from p. 127 Table continued on p. 129

139 129 Table continued from p. 128 Table continued on p. 130

140 130 Table continued from p. 129 Table continued on p. 131

141 131 Table continued from p. 130 Table continued from p. 132

142 Table continued from p

143 133 APPENDIX D Sample Policies

144 134 Community Transit: Mobility Devices Policy

145 135

146 136 CCCTA: Segway Policy

147 137

148 138

149 Sioux Area Metro: Stroller and Grocery Policy 139

150 140

151 MAX: Stroller and Shopping Cart Policy 141

152 142 Valley Transit: Policies for Carry-ons

153 143

154 144 Brandon Transit: Strollers, Carts, and Large Items Policy

155 145

156 146

157 147

158 148

159 149

160 150 TransLink (CMBC): Stroller Policy

161 151

162 152 Sound Transit: Bicycle Policy

163 153

164 154 Golden Gate Transit: Bicycle Information

165 155

166 156 SEPTA: Bicycle Information

167 157

168 158

169 WMATA: Bicycle Policy and Information 159