TCRP A-19A(2) [Completed]
Vehicle Guide for Integrating Non-Urban School and Public Transportation Services
| Project Data |
| Funds: |
$163,986 |
| Research Agency: |
Team, Inc. |
| Principal Investigator: |
David Blair |
| Effective Date: |
5/30/2002 |
| Completion Date: |
1/30/2007 |
|
The need for public transportation in non-urban areas is an immediate and serious problem. Many of the nation's non-urban residents live in areas without any public transportation service, and many others live in areas in which the level is minimal. Additionally, national statistics suggest that 1 in 4 households does not have an automobile, and nearly 1 in 3 non-urban residents either has no automobile or cannot drive. This absence of ground transportation concerns many non-urban communities because residents are unable to access health and human services and employment opportunities.
Non-urban communities with little or no public transportation (and the school districts that serve them) face a variety of fiscal challenges. While increasing demands are made for improved transportation services, funding resources are uncertain. To provide necessary mobility to the public, it is essential to fully use the transportation assets and resources available within a community.
TCRP Report 56, "Integrating School Bus and Public Transportation Services in Non-Urban Communities," identified many of the existing opportunities and barriers to improved efficiency in public transportation services resulting from using school buses to provide public transportation during the periods in which they would otherwise sit idle. At the same time, some school districts have demonstrated a willingness to consider use of public transportation systems to increase efficiencies in their student transportation programs.
Each transportation service (school and public transportation) has different operating characteristics, scheduling techniques, funding sources, policies, and a variety of barriers to integrating services. Nevertheless, some communities have effectively used various combinations of public and school transportation assets and resources to improve efficiencies and mobility for the general public. Integrating maintenance, fueling, and storage facilities; altering transportation routes to accommodate both students and the general public; and combining both fleets for joint uses are examples. Although there are stories of successful integration, there are serious barriers, which range from the physical characteristics of the vehicles to the regulations governing school transportation. The most significant barrier identified by TCRP Report 56 was vehicle standards and design criteria. The design of school buses is based on safety standards conceived for school-age children; at the same time, this design is not particularly conducive, and in some cases presents an impediment, to the use of such vehicles by the general public. Public transit vehicles, in contrast, are designed to better accommodate adult passengers.
Although school buses and transit vehicles have developed along separate lines, a "hybrid" heavy duty bus that meets the standards, laws, and regulations applicable to both school buses and transit buses has been designed and built since the release of TCRP Report 56. In addition, the Head Start Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a Final Rule on January 18, 2001, requiring that Head Start transportation be provided in school buses or "allowable alternate vehicles." The "allowable alternate vehicles" are defined as buses that meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to school buses except the stop signal arm and warning lamps. Careful choices made from the newly broadened spectrum of allowable vehicle features have the potential to eliminate or significantly reduce the equipment barrier, thereby enlarging the zone of opportunity for coordinating school and public transportation services.
Research is needed to provide guidance to communities selecting appropriate vehicles for use by diverse rider populations (e.g., general public, school children, Head Start, special needs), and to assess the effects of multiple-use vehicles on policies, operations, maintenance, and funding of community transportation. If the successful integration of school and public transportation systems is significantly facilitated by these new vehicles, the payoff potential for the public in terms of transportation access, bus use, and cost efficiency is high.
The objectives of this research were (1) to develop a selection guide for specifying requirements and features for vehicles for public and school transportation uses in non-urbanized areas and (2) to assess the effects of multiple-use vehicles on policies, operations, maintenance, and funding of participating riders and providers.
Status: This project was cancelled.
