# The End of an Era for Los Angeles Metro



## rickycourtney (Aug 28, 2014)

On August 30th LA Metro will retire the last high floor bus remaining in the fleet.

Here's the announcement:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/08/26/end-of-an-era-metro-to-retire-its-last-high-floor-buses-on-august-30/

That leaves the agency with a 100% low floor and natural gas powered fleet (the last diesel powered bus Metro owned was retired in 2011).

For those of you who are interested in such things... the bus being retired is #5200, a New Flyer C40HF that was delivered in 2000. May she rust in peace. ;-)


----------



## fairviewroad (Aug 28, 2014)

Interesting link, thanks.

One stat jumped out at me from the press release:

"There were more than 88,000 wheelchair boardings for the entire month."

I know LA is a huge metro area, but that's a huge number of wheelchair users. IME a high-floor lift takes

up to 5 minutes to use, whereas many wheelchair users can board a low-floor bus in less than a minute.

And of course every user also gets off the bus, so that's really 176,000 wheelchair "transactions" per

month.

The accumulated amount of time saved by low floor buses must be staggering.


----------



## SubwayNut (Aug 28, 2014)

In NYC we still have plenty of high floor buses (Orien Vs, RTSs, and different High Floor New Flyer Articulated models). The worst part about the 40-foot (non-articulated buses) is that the wheelchair lift is at the rear door, not the front door. This means the time lost is the lift and the driver walking to and from the front seat to the back of the bus. The other day I was on a bus that really took forever because he was having trouble with the lift (he got it to work after a few minutes of trying), we saw another bus (on the same route) stop ahead of us and I wanted to get off and transfer (I have an unlimited ride card) but the driver had already closed the front door (I think done to avoid fare beaters while the rear door lift is under operation).


----------



## trainman74 (Aug 28, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> That leaves the agency with a 100% low floor and natural gas powered fleet (the last diesel powered bus Metro owned was retired in 2011).


I like the "Nation's Largest Clean Air Fleet" lettering that's been on their buses since that retirement -- wonder if they'll be adding to that to brag about the low floors.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 28, 2014)

trainman74 said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> > That leaves the agency with a 100% low floor and natural gas powered fleet (the last diesel powered bus Metro owned was retired in 2011).
> ...


Believe it or not, Metro has actually had that "Nation's Largest Clean Air Fleet" lettering since 2003.
That's a cool thing to brag about in LA where air pollution has historically been a problem. On the other hand being all low floor is a bit more obscure to people who aren't transportation geeks.

Also considering New York is so late to the game, Metro might also have the nations largest low floor fleet.


----------



## railiner (Aug 29, 2014)

The low floor design also benefits the elderly not needing the ramp, as they only need to climb the one step. And the area above the right wheelwell comes in handy as a "baggage rack", something the transit buses never had......


----------



## jamesontheroad (Aug 29, 2014)

Could someone give me (a limey) a quick explanation of any federal (or state) legislation that might be driving the retirement of high floor buses?

Here in the UK, the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) effectively determined that from January 2015 all buses and coaches used for any kind of public transport or hire must be accessible (i.e low-floor with ramps) with dedicated space for wheelchair(s). If they don’t they will be deemed illegal to operate. Those up to 7.5 tonnes GVW have to be compliant or removed from service by the 31 December this year, over 7.5 tonnes GVW by 31 December 2015 and double deckers by 1 January 2017.

My limited experience (Montréal / Chicago / NYC) of urban buses in North America is that low floor vehicles are less capable in snowy cities. Is this still the case? Is running a mix of low-floor and high-floor buses (say alternate) on one route an acceptable compromise?


----------



## trainman74 (Aug 29, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> Believe it or not, Metro has actually had that "Nation's Largest Clean Air Fleet" lettering since 2003.


That long? Ugh, I'm getting old and all the years are blending together. :wacko:


----------



## SubwayNut (Aug 29, 2014)

jamesontheroad said:


> Could someone give me (a limey) a quick explanation of any federal (or state) legislation that might be driving the retirement of high floor buses?
> 
> Here in the UK, the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) effectively determined that from January 2015 all buses and coaches used for any kind of public transport or hire must be accessible (i.e low-floor with ramps) with dedicated space for wheelchair(s). If they don’t they will be deemed illegal to operate. Those up to 7.5 tonnes GVW have to be compliant or removed from service by the 31 December this year, over 7.5 tonnes GVW by 31 December 2015 and double deckers by 1 January 2017.
> 
> My limited experience (Montréal / Chicago / NYC) of urban buses in North America is that low floor vehicles are less capable in snowy cities. Is this still the case? Is running a mix of low-floor and high-floor buses (say alternate) on one route an acceptable compromise?


NYC was really early to adopt wheelchair lifts. The entire fleet then all high floor became wheelchair-accessible in around 1994. Originally the lifts were all in rear doors. Wheelchair accessibility doesn't require low-floor buses, on high floor buses really slow lifts are used that basically come out from the bottom of the steps, extend out to the sidewalk and then the lift is gradually lifted up over the steps (I tried to find a Youtube video and failed). They work similar to lifts in motorcoaches (like on Greyhound's modern fleet) except at separate doors in the middle of the coach and the lift is stored in the luggage bay beneath coming out for use. See my previous post.

For a while the MTA started ordering low-floor 40 foot (normal length buses) but still ordered High-Floor Articulated Buses. It even launched its first attempted BRT route called Select Bus Service, it's POP you pay using a special MetroCard machine on the street and board at any door, using High-Floor Buses in 2009 on the Bx12. They finally got to their senses and ordered low-floor 3 door articulated buses finally starting in 2011 (now all SBS service should be low-floor buses, local routes also run artics that are both low and high floor buses).


----------



## fairviewroad (Aug 29, 2014)

Here's a video of a high-floor wheelchair lift in action:


----------



## SubwayNut (Aug 29, 2014)

I was specifically looking for one at the inefficient back door since we have buses like that in New York.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 29, 2014)

Actually NJT just ordered a bunch of high floor Hungarian busses from the creatively named North American Bus Industries (NABI), a direct spin off and subsidiary of the Hungarian Ikarus concern. They had to specially tool up for the order.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 29, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually NJT just ordered a bunch of high floor Hungarian busses from the creatively named North American Bus Industries (NABI), a direct spin off and subsidiary of the Hungarian Ikarus concern. They had to specially tool up for the order.


Actually NABI is now owned by New Flyer (a Canadian company) so it's no longer a misnomer.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 29, 2014)

Seattle and San Francisco are cooperating on a large order of electric, low-floor buses that are being made in Winnipeg. We're supposed to see the first ones later this fall.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 30, 2014)

High floor and low floor buses are equally accessible as far as the ADA is concerned. There is nothing stopping transit agencies here in the US from buying high floor buses... except common sense.

High floor buses take longer to load passengers (even those who don't use a wheelchair) so therefore buses spend more time stopped. There are very few advantages to high floor buses, the biggest being that they can seat more passengers.

King County Metro up here in Washington was actually the first to buy buses (high floor) with wheelchair lifts (they were very unreliable) but for some reason, like New York, they were very reluctant to buy low-floor buses.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 30, 2014)

There is also disadvantages with low floor buses as well. The risk of bottoming out, fewer seats compared to the high floor bus, and maintenance, performance, and reliability issues. While down here is going low floor no matter what, various companies that shuttle passengers don't appear to be replacing their buses with low floors.

A few have acquired new low floor buses recently, but they're holding onto their older buses. Some have even acquired high floor buses that are between 14-20 years old (Orion Vs and RTS).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 30, 2014)

While low-floors have been replacing high-floor transits for years now, there has been a recent surge of using intercity buses for transit service, like this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjoflakeland/14470681729/sizes/h/. Photo by MJofLakeland.

Personally, I believe these buses are too big and overbuilt for transit service, and I find it surprising that so many transit agencies continue to place orders for intercity buses.

Obviously, these OTR buses have must higher floors than a normal transit and require three to five steps for boarding, in addition to having a narrow "hatch" entrance, only 24 inches wide: https://www.flickr.com/photos/busdudedotcom/9279652099/sizes/l.

Obviously, the hatch entrance is very durable but due to frequently stopping at high idle, these coaches die must faster than in intercity service or maybe transit agencies forget to rebuild them.

Plus wasting most of the cargo hold. And not even mentioning those three axles or that huge powertrain. Riding Denver RTD recently, their massive intercity buses were not even filled to half capacity at rush hour.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 30, 2014)

THE CJ said:


> There is also disadvantages with low floor buses as well. The risk of bottoming out, fewer seats compared to the high floor bus, and maintenance, performance, and reliability issues. While down here is going low floor no matter what, various companies that shuttle passengers don't appear to be replacing their buses with low floors.
> 
> A few have acquired new low floor buses recently, but they're holding onto their older buses. Some have even acquired high floor buses that are between 14-20 years old (Orion Vs and RTS).


While it was certainly true that the early low floor buses had issues, most of those problems have been addressed as the technology matured.
Privately owned transportation companies have the freedom to do whatever they please but there are lots of rules and laws that regulate taxpayer-funded agencies. Chief among them is that the FTA won't allow agencies to keep more than 20-25% of buses in "reserve". If they break that rule, it becomes harder to get grants, so they don't have a lot of freedom to keep a lot of old buses. Also, most agencies aim to retire their buses after 12 years. After that


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually NJT just ordered a bunch of high floor Hungarian busses from the creatively named North American Bus Industries (NABI), a direct spin off and subsidiary of the Hungarian Ikarus concern. They had to specially tool up for the order.


The fact that New Jersey Transit has continued to order high floor buses for so long... boggles my mind.

NABI made a good product and the company was willing to entertain crazy requests from agencies. In addition to the high floor buses for NJT they also made a special 45-foot low floor bus built with composite materials for Los Angeles.

But now that they have been bought out, operations are winding down and I expect that New Flyer will be a lot less open to crazy requests. They seem to be content to give you any bus you want, as long as it's a variant of the one bus they make.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 30, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> THE CJ said:
> 
> 
> > There is also disadvantages with low floor buses as well. The risk of bottoming out, fewer seats compared to the high floor bus, and maintenance, performance, and reliability issues. While down here is going low floor no matter what, various companies that shuttle passengers don't appear to be replacing their buses with low floors.
> ...


Those issues I've listed still happens, even to this day. We have two buses low floor artics (which are due to retire very soon) we can't kneel, because of the way the front door swings out and opens. Part of the door could get caught up on something and that causes issues.

Private companies haven't invested in low floor buses, due to the fact the low floors can bottom out at many hotel entrances. As for keeping buses past 12 years, some are doing just that down here. We have 16 year old D60s and no replacements for them in sight. New York City has hundreds of buses that are past 12 years old.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 30, 2014)

NABI busses are awful unreliable pieces of garbage, and I wish NJT would get their head on straight and start buying Mercedes-Benz Citaros.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 30, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> NABI busses are awful unreliable pieces of garbage, and I wish NJT would get their head on straight and start buying Mercedes-Benz Citaros.


Hahahaha. That's a great joke GML. 
NJT would have to forgo all federal funding to buy a foreign built bus and import it to the US. Plus the Citaro would have to be reengineered to meet US standards.

Daimler already tried their hand at building buses for the US market. They failed. They purchased Orion in 2000 and sold it off to New Flyer in 2013.

The main problem was that while the Orion VII was a nice bus, it was expensive to produce. In order to compete with other bus builders Daimler had to have very narrow margins.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 30, 2014)

The NABI 60 foot BRTs we have aren't doing so well, which is why Lynx is planning to retire them after only four years of service. Nova isn't bad, but are becoming Orion when it comes to delivering buses on time. We haven't ordered from New Flyer, yet.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 30, 2014)

CJ- do you work for Lynx or another bus company?

I know that LA Metro owns a ton of NABI 60-BRT buses... some pushing 10 years old at this point. They're still going strong with no problems (other than the normal problems a 10 year old vehicle has).


----------



## railiner (Aug 30, 2014)

I don't know if he works there, but LYNX is in Orlando.......


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 30, 2014)

NJT buys all their other equipment from foreign manufacturers. The ALPs were all fully built in Germany, and the PL42 is built in France. Delivered whole.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 30, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> CJ- do you work for Lynx or another bus company?
> 
> I know that LA Metro owns a ton of NABI 60-BRT buses... some pushing 10 years old at this point. They're still going strong with no problems (other than the normal problems a 10 year old vehicle has).


Nope, but I do get information about Lynx straight from employees who work there. I also get information about buses being delivered around the Orlando area as well. While that is true about LA Metro have a lot of NABI 60-BRTs, they have CNG models and not hybrids like we do.

By around 2016 or 17, we should be moving into CNG ourselves along with other systems in the state. Right now, our next order of buses are diesels, which are soon to arrive.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 31, 2014)

I've never understood the CNG fad. Diesel is much more efficient.


----------



## Paulus (Sep 1, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I've never understood the CNG fad. Diesel is much more efficient.


Substantial reductions in particulate and CO emissions plus reduced fuel expenses. There's also the side benefit of CNG engines running significantly quieter than diesel engines.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Sep 1, 2014)

CNG is also cheaper per gallon. However, implementing it again (Lynx had it in 94) is a pain. It takes about 2-3 years to have a CNG fueling station running, on top of getting permits and all of that stuff.

Right now, we have 51 (subject to change) CNG buses on order. They will arrive whenever the CNG fueling station is up and running. The order includes six CNG motorcoaches from MCI.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 1, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I've never understood the CNG fad. Diesel is much more efficient.
> ...


My experience with fossil fuel prices is that chasing lowest cost is a capital waste. Natural gas and oil trade places every few years. The rest is utter nonsense. SCR diesel is practically as clean and much more durable. And INFINITELY safer.


----------



## neroden (Sep 1, 2014)

fairviewroad said:


> The accumulated amount of time saved by low floor buses must be staggering.


Yes, it is. There's something else which isn't quite obvious: taking a wheelchair on a high-floor bus is such an enormous pain that wheelchair users will call paratransit, get a taxi, or drive a private car if they possibly can. On a low-floor bus, they'll actually ride the bus.
The costs of paratransit are exceedingly high, and everything that an agency can do to get people off of paratransit and into the regular system saves a bundle.

In LA, there are a lot of wheelchair-accessible taxis, but not all of them are.

NYC is doing an absolutely appalling job in every way on wheelchair access (basically no taxis in NYC are wheelchair-accessible, although a recent court settlement should change that) and is easily the worst major city in the US in this regard. And their lack of willingness to do the right thing costs them a lot of money.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 1, 2014)

Remember that when LA Metro switched to CNG in the mid-1990s diesel powered vehicles belched out a thick cloud of black smoke every time the driver hit the accelerator. It was also a time when Los Angeles seemed to be perpetually covered by a thick layer of smog.

You're right California was instrumental in getting regulations put into place that forced Diesel engine manufacturers to clean up their act with things like SCR and EGR. But before those technologies matured, the state was instrumental in installing CNG fueling stations in the early 2000's. That's why many school buses, city work trucks, garbage trucks and city buses are all CNG powered. At about the same time the SCAQMD banned all cities from buying buses powered by diesel.

The result of all of this investment and regulation? Despite a still growing population... LA's air is markedly cleaner.

At this point... LA Metro could go back to buying "clean" diesel buses... but why? The agency and state has already made the investment, installing CNG fueling stations and removing diesel fueling stations. It would be really expensive to switch back to diesel for no major benefit.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 1, 2014)

For wheelchair users low floor buses are also more reliable.

On a high floor bus if a wheelchair lift breaks... they're SOL. If they're waiting for a bus and the one that arrives has a broken lift... they're forced to wait for the next one. If they're on the bus... a repair crew has to be called out and the bus taken out of service on the spot for all passengers.

On a low floor bus if the wheelchair ramp breaks... the driver can simply operate it manually, continue on the route and write it up when they get back to base that night.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't want to say all diesel vehicles without EGR or SCR would pump out a thick cloud of smoke. The four-stroke Detroit 60 powered motorcoaches sure didn't. It appears that some transit drivers are too aggressive from having to drive in and out of congestion all the time, so when then see a gap, they stomp on the accelerator and pump out the black smoke. Or it was a two-stroke 6V92TA.

Altoona bus testing consistently shows far lower MPG in cities than on the highways. Frankly I think everybody should just buy E40LFR electrics for urban use. The regenerative braking would save energy.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Sep 1, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I don't want to say all diesel vehicles without EGR or SCR would pump out a thick cloud of smoke. The four-stroke Detroit 60 powered motorcoaches sure didn't. It appears that some transit drivers are too aggressive from having to drive in and out of congestion all the time, so when then see a gap, they stomp on the accelerator and pump out the black smoke. Or it was a two-stroke 6V92TA.
> 
> Altoona bus testing consistently shows far lower MPG in cities than on the highways. Frankly I think everybody should just buy E40LFR electrics for urban use. The regenerative braking would save energy.


The E40LFR was discontinued last year.... Two stroke engines like the 6V92TA or 6V71N, depending on how you maintain them you can get buses that don't smoke at all. Of course not everyone maintained those engines to good standards and so, they belched out black smoke (or in some cases white smoke).


----------



## Paulus (Sep 1, 2014)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I don't want to say all diesel vehicles without EGR or SCR would pump out a thick cloud of smoke. The four-stroke Detroit 60 powered motorcoaches sure didn't. It appears that some transit drivers are too aggressive from having to drive in and out of congestion all the time, so when then see a gap, they stomp on the accelerator and pump out the black smoke. Or it was a two-stroke 6V92TA.
> 
> Altoona bus testing consistently shows far lower MPG in cities than on the highways. Frankly I think everybody should just buy E40LFR electrics for urban use. The regenerative braking would save energy.


BEV is probably a better bet, adding trolley wires is going to be an expensive hassle with NIMBYs everywhere while you can just slap in a battery electric bus anywhere pretty much.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2014)

BEV or trackless trolley, I don't really know, but at least better than driving fossil-fuel-burning vehicles in cites that are already heavily populated and with that poor MPG, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The two-strokes always burned more fuel and pumped out more pollution that the pre-EPA four-strokes. But then they added EGR and SCR so now the four-strokes burn fuel like two-strokes but have much less pollution. Seems like the Volvo D13 and Detroit 13 are quite good though.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 1, 2014)

The E40LFR was discontinued last year but replaced by the functionally identical Xcelsior XT40.

Trolleybuses are great, but they have some pretty big drawbacks. It's a huge capital investment to string up all the wire, the coaches cost more (and don't last any longer) they struggled to take turns at more than 5 mph (making them best suited for straighter routes) they can't run express routes since it's difficult for trolley buses to pass each other. That being said trolley buses are unrivaled in their ability to climb hills and they have lower operating costs in the long run.

At the end of the day, what trolleybuses are really good at doing is running urban routes in extremely hilly areas. That's why they have been used extensively in Seattle and San Francisco.

Battery electric buses are showing promise for use in cities where the other benefits of trolley buses aren't needed.

There are currently two schools of thought with these buses… Some have fairly large batteries that are designed to last the entire day while others have fast charge systems that can give a bus enough juice to go 17 miles (the length of a normal run) in about 10 minutes (the length of a normal layover).


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 1, 2014)

Many of us in Seattle like trolleybuses a lot, for lots of reasons. There's a lively discussion on the Facebook trolleybus group.


----------



## railiner (Sep 2, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> For wheelchair users low floor buses are also more reliable.
> 
> On a high floor bus if a wheelchair lift breaks... they're SOL. If they're waiting for a bus and the one that arrives has a broken lift... they're forced to wait for the next one. If they're on the bus... a repair crew has to be called out and the bus taken out of service on the spot for all passengers.
> 
> On a low floor bus if the wheelchair ramp breaks... the driver can simply operate it manually, continue on the route and write it up when they get back to base that night.


I agree with what you say.

As for being "SOL"....our buses have manual backups for the electric hydraulic pumps in case of failure. It is a pain to operate, but you can use a "jack handle" to manually raise, lower, extend, and retract our lifts. I don't know whether transit buses have this feature.....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 2, 2014)

Railiner, do you guys have Ricon, Braun, or Stewart & Stevenson lifts?


----------



## railiner (Sep 3, 2014)

The 'J's have the Stewart and Stevenson. The Prevost's have the Ricon. Not sure about the Van Hool's....have to get back to you on those....and the D4505's, which I normally never see in The Port


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 3, 2014)

Is there any preference between them?


----------



## railiner (Sep 3, 2014)

The Ricon's are much easier to operate....The S&S seem to jam up more frequently. And the J's have the "Q" type floor fastener's for the belts....also hard to operate....


----------

