FTA Bus Testing Program –
MAP21
March 28, 2013
Gregory Rymarz
Steve Brady
FTA Bus Testing Program Manager,
Technical Consultant to LTI
Bus Research and Testing Center
Federal Transit Administration
1
Introductions
FTA Bus Test Program Manager:
Gregory Rymarz
Office Research, Demonstration, and Innovation
Bus Test Program Principal Investigator:
Dave Klinikowski
Penn State University
Bus Test Program Technical Advisor
Stephen Brady
Booz, Allen, & Hamilton
2
New Bus Testing Legislation
(e) ACQUIRING NEW BUS MODELS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available under this chapter may be obligated or expended to
acquire a new bus model only if—
(A) a bus of that model has been tested at a facility
authorized under subsection (a); and
(B) the bus tested under subparagraph (A) met—
(i) performance standards for maintainability, reliability,
performance (including braking performance), structural
integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise, as established
by the Secretary by rule; and
(ii) the minimum safety performance standards
established by the Secretary pursuant to section 5329(b).
3
New Bus Testing Legislation
(2) BUS TEST ‘PASS/FAIL’ STANDARD.—Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of the Federal Public
Transportation Act of 2012, the Secretary shall issue a final
rule under subparagraph (B)(i).
The final rule issued under paragraph (B)(i) shall include a
bus model scoring system that results in a weighted,
aggregate score that uses the testing categories under
subsection (a) and considers the relative importance of each
such testing category.
4
New Bus Testing Legislation
The final rule issued under subparagraph (B)(i) shall establish
a ‘pass/fail’ standard that uses the aggregate score
described in the preceding sentence.
Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available under this
chapter may be obligated or expended to acquire a new bus
model only if the new bus model has received a passing
aggregate test score.
The Secretary shall work with the bus testing facility, bus
manufacturers, and transit agencies to develop the bus
model scoring system under this paragraph.
5
Performance Standards
Intent to leverage current published performance standards from
transit and automotive industry where applicable
Where no standards exist – formulate consensus performance
standards based on industry input and demonstrated capability
We expect to develop minimum performance standards for each bus
testing category:
 Maintainability
 Reliability
 Structural Integrity and Durability






Shakedown
Distortion
Static Towing
Dynamic Towing
Jacking
Hoisting
 Safety
 Performance
 Speed
 Acceleration
 Braking
 Fuel Economy
 Emissions
 Noise
6
Minimum Safety Performance Standards
(MAP-21 Section 5329)
(b) NATIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PLAN.—
(2) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The national public transportation safety plan
under paragraph (1) shall include—
(C) minimum safety performance standards for public transportation vehicles
used in revenue operations that—

(i) do not apply to rolling stock otherwise regulated by the Secretary or any other
Federal agency; and

(ii) to the extent practicable, take into consideration—

(I) relevant recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board; and

(II) recommendations of, and best practices standards developed by, the public
transportation industry
 Separate rulemaking action apart from Bus Testing
 May require introduction of “new” bus tests to determine compliance
 TBD
7
Bus Model Scoring System & Weighted Score
Test Category
Test
Score
Weighting
Weighted
Score
Maintainability
xx
0.yy
Reliability
…
…
….
Structural Integrity & Durability
….
…
…..
Safety
…
….
….
Performance
…
…
…..
Fuel Economy
…
…
….
Emissions
….
…
….
Noise
….
…
….
xx(0.yy)
Aggregate Score Sum of weighted
scores
8
Aggregate Score and Pass/Fail
MAP-21 Section 5318 requires the establishment of a
“Pass/Fail” standard based on the aggregate score
Some test results are inherently “go/no-go” (discrete) in
nature where the test score is 100% or 0%
Example: Current “Safety” Test: Pass = Ability to negotiate
lane change at 45 mph
Some test results are continuous in nature where the result
could be graded from 0 to 100% based on a scale derived
from existing bus testing results
Examples: Fuel Economy or Emissions
Conceptually - what should a “passing” score represent?
What should be the weighting of each test category?
9
Final Rule Development
Two years to publish a final rule (due before October 2014)
2013 Path to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)


April – Development of follow-on webinars
May - Conduct multiple “focus group” webinars (tentative dates)
7th - Large bus manufacturers
9th - Mid-size bus manufacturers
14th- Small bus/van manufacturers
17th - Large transit agencies
21st - Small/rural transit agencies
23rd - State DOTs & Procurement officials



June - Begin drafting NPRM
July - Finalize NPRM
Aug - Publish NPRM
10
Question For Bus Buyers
Do you review the test reports prior to procuring vehicles? Why?
For those who do not, what kind of data would make the test
reports more useful.
Are there additional categories of testing that would benefit you?
Are there other performance/acceptance test that are conducted by
the bus buyer prior to final acceptance?
For those buyers who read the reports, have you come across
report data that would render a bus unfit for public transit service?
Under MAP-21, FTA must establish new pass/fail criteria – what
test data would render a bus unfit for public transit service?
Under MAP-21, FTA must also establish a weighted, aggregated
scoring system for evaluating a vehicle. In reviewing the eight test
categories, which one(s) should be the most heavily weighted?
11
Question For Transit Vehicle Manufacturers
What test outcomes would render a bus unfit for public
transportation service?
What would constitute an “inherent defect?”
What other tests or performance measures do buyers employ
before taking final acceptance of a vehicle?
If a bus is designed for a special purpose and cannot perform the
full battery of tests but is capable of meeting its designed purposes,
should that bus be eligible for FTA funding?
12
Question For All
Under MAP-21, FTA must establish safety performance standards
for transit vehicles, are the current FMVSS standards adequate to
establish safety standards for public transportation vehicles?
What FMCSA requirements for motor coaches should also be
applied transit?
What other state or local standards are being used to supplement
gaps in Federal standards?
How urgently must FTA adopt a new set of public transit vehicle
safety standards?
How extensive must a cost-benefit analysis be before FTA can
adopt new safety standards?
13
Structural Integrity and Durability
Shakedown – No permanent deflection greater than 0.05 inches
Distortion – All doors, emergency exits must remain operational
Towing – No deformation or failure of towing structure at less than
1.2 times curb weight
Dynamic Towing – Can be towed with a standard wrecker
Jacking – Can be lifted with the jack
Hoisting – Bus was stable when supported on jack stands
Durability – No uncorrected class I failures subject to review
No uncorrected class II failures
Cumulative Maintenance Time – Graded result and a maximum limit
14
Reliability
No uncorrected Class I failures
No more than two uncorrected Class II failures
MTBF ?
Other metrics
15
Maintainability
Primary metric: Hours to remove and replace all key
components
Inability to remove a key component = Failure?
16
Fuel Economy
Fuel Economy Vs. Fuel Consumption ?
Average results across the Manhattan, Orange County, and
UDDS emissions duty cycles
Express all results in a common metric (units energy per mile)?
Bus Test Weight (curb, SLW, GVW, or…)?
Fuel Consumption per unit passenger?
Minimum & Maximum Score
17
Fuel Economy Buses Tested 2010-2012
Fuel Consumption mpg/scfpm
70
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
18
Emissions
Separate results into GHGs and Criteria Pollutants?
Relative weighting between pollutants?
Group results for all Fuel Type together?
Normalize results by GVW or passenger capacity?
List emissions types
Best Score/Worst score
19
Emissions CO2 Buses Tested 2010-2012
CO2 gm/mi
6000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
20
Emissions CO Buses Tested 2010-2012
CO gm/mi
60
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
50
40
30
20
10
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
21
Emissions THC Buses Tested 2010-2012
THC gm/mi
8
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
22
Emissions NMHC Buses Tested 2010-2012
NMHC gm/mi
0.7
1001
1003
1005
1007
1009
1011
1014
1016
1101
1103
1105
1107
1109
1111
1113
1115
1117
1119
1201
1203
1205
1207
1209
1212
1214
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
1002
1004
1006
1008
1010
1012
1015
1017
1102
1104
1106
1108
1110
1112
1114
1116
1118
1120
1202
1204
1206
1208
1211
1213
23
Emissions NOX Buses Tested 2010-2012
NOX
25
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
20
15
10
5
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
24
Emissions PM Buses Tested 2010-2012
Particulate Matter gm/mi
0.035
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
Manhattan
Orange County Bus
UDDS
25
Safety
Double lane change maneuver – 45 mph maintain stability
GVW < all max load ratings (GVWR, GAWR, wheel, tires)
FMVSS – must meet all applicable
Seating Configuration – test bus must be a suitable transit bus
configuration
NFPA 52 as applicable?
Other value added standards?
26
Braking
Braking distance – high friction 45-0 mph (0.3g, 194 ft)
Stay within a 12 foot lane during split coefficient test
Parking brake – hold on 20% upslope/downslope for 5 min
27
Braking Distance Buses Tested 2010-2012
Stopping Distance ft - 45 mph dry
180
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1014
1015
1016
1017
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
45ft Dry
28
Acceleration, Gradeability, Top Speed
Acceleration: 0-30 mph in 18 seconds
Gradeability: - Maintain 40 mph on 2.5%
- achieve and maintain 15 mph on 10%
Top Speed: Measured top speed
29
Noise
Stationary internal: < 80dB
Acceleration from standstill : < 80dB
Interior Vibration: Not Unacceptable
Cruise to acceleration (exterior): <83dB
Accelerating from Standstill exterior: <83dB
Stationary Low Idle: <65 dB
Stationary High Idle:< 83dB
Stationary Full Throttle: <83dB
30
Thank You
Gregory Rymarz
Office of Mobility Innovation
Federal Transit Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., Room E43-302
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-6410
gregory.rymarz@dot.gov
31