LIFTS AND WHEELCHAIR SECUREMENT for BUSES AND PARATRANSIT VEHICLES



A COMPANION DOCUMENT TO THE ADVISORY PANEL ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION

GUIDELINE SPECIFICATIONS



Prepared for           



Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board



1111 18th Street, N.W., Suite 501



Washington, D.C.  20036



Prepared by



David M. Norstrom



Gerald A. Francis



Rolland D. King



BATTELLE Columbus Division



505 Kind Avenue



Columbus, Ohio  43201-2693 



Edited by ATBCB Staff



NOTICE  This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) in

the interest of information exchange. Neither the ATBCB nor the United

States Government assumes liability for its contents or use thereof. 

The United States Government does not endorse products, manufacturers,

or private corporations.  Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein

solely because they were considered by the authors as essential to the

object of the report.        



TABLE OF CONTENTS   



SUMMARY  



INTRODUCTION  



DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES   



The Interrelationship of Accessible Equipment and Vehicle Design 



Interior Maneuverability  



Boarding Direction  



The Location of a Lift  



Target Population  



Role of the Driver  



EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS:  SURVEY OF MANUFACTURERS  



Survey Results  



Passive Lifts  



Active lifts  



Securement Devices  



Ramps  



AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH  



INFORMATION RESOURCES                                         



TABLES       



TABLE 1. MANUFACTURERS INVENTORY  



TABLE 2. PASSIVE LIFT CHARACTERISTICS  



TABLE 3. ACTIVE LIFT CHARACTERISTICS  



TABLE 4. SECUREMENT DEVICES CHARACTERISTICS  



TABLE 5. RAMP CHARACTERISTICS  



TABLE 6. TRANSIT OPERATORS 



LIFTS AND WHEELCHAIR SECUREMENT A TECHNICAL PAPER ON ACCESSIBLE

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES: A COMPANION DOCUMENT TO THE INDUSTRY ADVISORY

PANEL ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINE SPECIFICATIONS



SUMMARY  



This technical paper is a companion document to the Guideline

Specifications developed by an industry Advisory Panel sponsored by the

Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA).  The Guideline

specifications, developed by consensus, provide not only industry

recommended minimum dimensions and guidance but discuss many of the

technical issues related to accessible transportation.  The

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance board (ATBCB),

which provided technical assistance to the Advisory Panel, has not

formally endorsed the Guidelines but recognizes their value to the

industry.  



This technical paper discusses some issues not found in the Guideline

Specifications and is intended to stimulate discussion and examination

of important accessible transportation issues. The purpose of the paper

is not to provide definitive answers.  Communities, through local

decision making processes, must decide which of the specific guideline

recommendations should be adopted to ensure the most accessible

transportation to meet the needs of the disabled community. 

Information, and resources to obtain further information, are presented

to assist local entities in this decision making process.  Experience

shows that, with improper planning or implementation, accessible

transportation can appear to be an operational failure. Experience has

also shown, however, that properly planned, implemented, and operated

accessible transportation contributes to a better community.



INTRODUCTION



The purpose of this technical paper is to assist manufacturers,

providers, and users of accessible transportation equipment and

services in making more informed decisions.  For more than a decade

efforts have been underway to make public transportation services more

accessible for transportation of handicapped persons.  Some efforts have

been successful; others have failed.  Technical problems involving

reliability, maintainability and safety have contributed to some of the

failures while operational errors have contributed to others.  The

ATBCB Office of Technical and Information Services has received a

substantial number of requests from Federal, state and local agencies

and the public to provide information on specifications for lifts and

wheelchair securement devices for buses and paratransit vehicles. The

most complete specification was developed by the California Department

of Transportation (Caltrans) as part of an UMTA technical assistance

project several years ago but the specification was incomplete and is

now out of date, The ATBCB, therefore, decided to attempt to develop a

more current, complete specification and make it available as a

technical publication to more effectively answer the types of questions

frequently asked. 



In 1985, the ATBCB entered into an interagency agreement with UMTA in

conjunction with an UMTA-sponsored project to develop such guidelines;

UMTA would undertake the extensive task of developing the Guidelines

Specification and sponsor a major conference on the subject; UMTA would

in turn provide the ATBCB with a technical paper containing a discussion

of issues not specifically covered by the Guidelines themselves, areas

for further research, and a computerized annotated bibliography.  In

return, the ATBCB would provide technical assistance to UMTA, including

use of the ATBCB's extensive technical library and product files, and

ATBCB staff would conduct a workshop at the conference.  



During 1986, UMTA formed an Advisory Panel to examine technical issues

and develop national Guideline specifications for lifts, ramps, and

wheelchair securement devices.  The Advisory Panel contained members

from all segments of the accessible transportation industry including

vehicle manufacturers, transit and paratransit operators, lift and ramp

manufacturers, wheelchair manufacturers, user groups, and the federal

government.  A member of the ATBCB staff provided technical assistance

to the Advisory Panel.  Although the ATBCB has not formally endorsed

the Guideline Specifications, it is recognized that the specifications,

which UMTA published in early 1987, will contribute  to efforts to

improve accessible transportation.   



The Guideline Specifications address performance and use of accessible

equipment but focus on technical and performance requirements.  In

addition to the conference proceedings, four sets of Guidelines were

produced: 



Guideline Specifications for Passive Wheelchair Lifts  



Guideline Specifications for Active Wheelchair Lifts  



Guideline Specifications for Wheelchair Securement Devices  



Guideline Specifications for Wheelchair Ramps.    



Passive lifts are lifts that when stored allow unimpeded use of the

vehicle entrances in which they are located.  Active lifts are lifts

that when stored may interfere with the use of the vehicle entrances in

which they are located and that when being raised or lowered operate

primarily outside the body of the vehicle.  



The specifications are available from the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS) and the UMTA Office of Bus and Paratransit Systems. They

contain minimum technical specifications and supporting rationale.  The

rationale sections are a source of information on various issues

affecting accessible transportation.  Such issues include:  



-interrelationship of accessible equipment and vehicle design;



-interior maneuverability;  



-boarding direction;  



-location of a lift;  



-target population; and  



-role of the driver  



These issues are further discussed in this technical paper. The focus of

the discussion here is not on presenting answers, since such answers

will have to be determined locally. Rather, the intent is to provide

information and identify areas that should be considered when local

officials and representatives of the disabled community are planning and

implementing accessible services. This paper does not contain detailed

technical information. Many reports exist that discuss different

aspects of accessible transportation.  This paper is intended as a

guide to the identification of issues, to sources of information, to

resources for technical assistance, and to areas for further research. 



DISCUSSION OF SELECTED TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES   



The detailed discussion of non-technical accessibility issues was not

appropriate in the Guideline Specifications because of the need for

clarity and readability.  The six issues listed in the preceding

paragraph were deemed by ATBCB to warrant more detailed review and are

discussed under the following headings.  



The Interrelationship of Accessible Equipment and  Vehicle Design



One of the continuing issues in accessible transportation is the

interrelationship between the design of a vehicle and the design of

equipment for accessibility.  Standard heavy duty  transit bus designs

have evolved over the years and vary from one bus manufacturer to

another.  This presents a variety of configurations into which

accessibility equipment must be integrated.  Bus design change is slow

and configurations are not converging enough to give hope for

standardization that will permit all buses to accept a single lift

design.  The interrelationship of vehicle and accessible equipment is

also a concern with smaller vehicles.  The sizes and types of vehicles

used in paratransit cause a number of problems related to lift rigidity,

lift location, maximum platform length, lift storage, securement

location, and vehicle axle loading.  Moreover, in the vast majority of

cases, the lift and vehicle manufacturers are not the same,

complicating the design process.   



The design factors that are important to the installation and use of

accessible equipment include:   



-lift platform dimensions;  



-wheelchair dimensions and weight;  



-vehicle dimensions;  



-approach angle of a vehicle (i.e., the front overhang clearance from

the roadway); and  



-interior seating and ancillary equipment location   



A specific example of lift platform dimensions is used in the following

discussion to illustrate the issue of the design.  Current bus designs

limit platform widths, especially in front-door large- bus passive-lift

application. Assume a public transit operator desired a wide platform

(e.g.  32 inches) to accommodate a larger population of wheelchairs. 

Specifying a 32-inch lift could have several consequences.  It could

cause some manufacturers to offer a rear door lift as an option.  It

could mean that some manufacturers would not bid because they could not

install the wider lift in the front door or any lift in the rear door. 

It could also result in some manufacturers redesigning a lift and/or

the front section of their bus to accommodate a wider lift.  Further,

assume a transit provider wants a wide lift and due to operational

considerations wants the lift to be in the front door.  Such

requirements could stimulate manufacturers to redesign the lift and/or

the front door of their buses or could result in limited or no

responsive bids.  Before redesigning a bus, a manufacturer would most

likely want assurance that a sizable market existed for the new vehicle

with the wider lift.  Bus design usually changes very slowly.



One bus manufacturer has examined the implications of changing to a

32-inch wide lift for the front door.  This manufacturer has determined

that the lift would have much closer tolerances and more precision

operations.  Such precision could lead to reliability problems given

the environment in which a lift operates.  The bus manufacturer

estimated that the changes needed to adapt the lift could double its

cost.  Thus, in this one case specifying larger platforms in order to

serve additional members of the handicapped community could be done but

not without economic consequences.  Of course, if no bids are received

because of these considerations, no member of the target population

will be served.  



Another approach to the design issue is to accept the limitations of

current vehicles and current lifts and to operate within the existing

constraints.  This approach not only limits improvements in accessible

transportation, but it may exclude part of the target population and

thus suppress ridership.  Under this scenario, lift specifications would

not require wider lifts unless a manufacturer had first redesigned a

bus, and the redesign allowed the opportunity for wider lifts; but a

manufacturer would, again, be unlikely to do so without some evidence

of demand:  ridership!  It should be noted that lift manufacturers have

already designed and can supply wide lifts for both front-door and

rear-door applications.  However, not all bus manufacturers can offer

either a wide front door or a wide rear door into which such a lift can

fit. By specifying a certain type and size of lift, a local transit

operator could be issuing a specification which eliminates some or all

potential bidders.  Some "exclusionary" specifications of this type are

permitted if the purchaser clearly justifies its rationale for the

requirements. Thus, a transit operator can specify front-door-only

lifts or a platform dimension which can only be met by one supplier if

it provides the appropriate explanation. 



The preceding discussion has considered just one design issue, platform

width.  Platform length on heavy duty transit buses is also a complex

issue (potentially a more critical issue, as discussed later) since bus

structural design, fare box location, seating arrangement, required

approach angles, windshield slope, and floor height can all affect lift

selection or even whether a ramp is more appropriate.  A major issue on

small vehicles is the fact that the standard vehicle floor-to-roof

height limits the platform length of most present active lifts (since

the lift platform folds up inside the door).  Specifying a higher roof

may be necessary to accommodate a longer platform.  



Lift weight, lift storage, and door location can also be safety

considerations.  Moreover, given that accessibility issues are only one

aspect of purchasing a vehicle, those advocating certain accessibility

characteristics within a transit operation may face opposition from

those desiring other characteristics such as maintainability,

reliability, minimum fuel consumption, or maximum passenger capacity.



The vehicle purchaser can approach the accessibility issue in different

ways.  For example, some transit agencies specify desired platform size

and minimum acceptable size, which encourages change but accepts

existing conditions.  Another approach would be to specify a minimum

lift platform size and negotiate with the selected bidder for the

acceptable size.  A third approach could be to offer "price offsets",

financial incentives whereby a bidder can earn a "bonus" for offering a

lift of a size larger than the minimum. The size of the bonus

increasing with the size of the platform offered.  These alternatives

would encourage innovation in lift development.  Naturally, pre-bid

meetings can also be used to discuss options with bidders and develop

alternatives for procuring vehicles. Determining whether a particular

transit agency's specification is biddable, however, may not be

possible in advance of issuing a request for bids.  Nevertheless,

purchasers should not automatically accept current designs as

unchangeable or merely accept the Guideline Specification minima if a

change would serve their prospective passengers better.  



The Advisory Panel that developed the Guideline Specifications for

lifts, ramps, and securement devices faced this issue.  The guideline

Specifications incorporate existing equipment and performance

limitations as the de facto minima but encourage new designs.  Where

the Advisory Panel adopted as a minimum the upper limit of available

equipment, changes in industry standards may result, especially in such

areas as dimensions of platforms, dimensions of entrances, weights of

lifts, cycle times of lifts, and driver control systems.  Small local

transit operators may have very little choice but to purchase "off-

the-shelf" equipment that has been developed to meet the Guideline

Specifications.  Very large public transit operations may be able to

use different specifications base on their buying power and purchase

equipment different from that specified in the guidelines. 

Nevertheless, purchasers should not simply accept current equipment or

adopt the recommendations of the Guideline Specifications without first

assessing the consequences for their operations.



Interior Maneuverability   



The preceding section shows that the interrelationship between

accessible equipment and vehicle design is an important issue when

considering accessible service.  The discussion in that section also

shows that many issues are related. The interrelationship of accessible

equipment and vehicle design is also important to interior

maneuverability, as discussed in this section.  



Persons with mobility aids can encounter problems between the point of

entering the vehicle and the location of appropriate seating or

wheelchair securement.  The problems arise from the lack of interior

maneuverability.  A local transit operator using the Guideline

Specifications, which focus on access to the vehicle and securement

within the vehicle, may find that although the vehicle entrance is

accessible and the securement location is good, maneuverability within

the vehicle can be extremely difficult.  



Limitations on interior maneuverability arise from several sources:   



-vehicle and aisle widths;  



-floor characteristics;  



-stanchion placement;  



-lift location;  



-fare box location; and  



-required driver action.   



Vehicle width will limit interior maneuverability.  Large buses are

usually either 96 inches or 102 inches in width.  The narrower width,

combined with seat arrangements and narrower aisles, can reduce

mobility in the vehicle, especially in terms of the turning radii. 

Unfortunately, vehicle width may not be a factor which the transit

agency can specify:  Some state and  local laws prohibit the use of

wider vehicles and some streets may be too narrow for wide vehicles to

operate.  



The location of stanchions and modesty panels can also limit interior

maneuverability. Floor-to-ceiling stanchions may interfere with

wheelchair foot rests.  Planning ahead and specifying appropriately

designed stanchions and modesty panels can greatly increase interior

maneuverability.   The stanchion immediately behind the driver can often

be "dog- legged" or designed to terminate or return to the wall just

below the aisle-facing seat (as is often done on the side opposite the

driver) to provide footrest clearance.  Also, attention should be given

to the driver-seat platform to ensure that it does not intrude into the

space needed for wheelchair turning.  



The problems of interior maneuverability are often more severe with

front door lifts than with rear door lifts due to the location of the

driver, stanchions, modesty panels and the fare box. When planning for

accessible services, local operators need to be aware of the factors

that can affect interior maneuverability and take steps to alleviate

potential problems in this area.  The actual turning dimensions should

be investigated before assuming a given space is accessible. This is

especially important in light of the fact that the majority of public

transit wheelchair users will have power wheelchairs rather than

smaller manual wheelchairs.  



The discussion in the above paragraph focuses on large buses.  Interior

maneuverability can also be a problem on small buses and paratransit

vehicles; however, the problem is different. On larger buses the

passenger is usually responsible for maneuvering on and within the us. 

On smaller vehicles, the passenger is often assisted in this process. 

Thus, in examining how a driver or attendant can maneuver a person

using a wheelchair or some other mobility aid to reach a secured or

seated position on the vehicle.  Whether the vehicle is large or small,

greater interior maneuverability can reduce boarding and alighting times

and provide for better operations.                             



Boarding Direction   



This operational issue is important to persons using wheelchairs.



Considerations of safety and maneuverability affect the decisions.  The

previous section showed that interior maneuverability can be a

problem.  This problem can be alleviated or exacerbated depending upon

the direction the person in a wheelchair is facing when boarding a

vehicle.  The boarding direction is influenced by such factors as:   



-safety;  



-driver assistance;  



-weight distribution;  



-interior maneuverability;  



-exterior maneuverability;  



-handrail location; and  



-driver communication.   



The Guideline Specifications require that lifts be capable of handling

persons in wheelchairs facing either inward toward the vehicle or

outward away form the vehicle although some operating personnel and

lift manufacturers have indicated that outward facing is the safest

position for accessing and leaving the vehicle.  Nevertheless, several

factors must be considered.  For smaller vehicles when driver

assistance is provided, the issue of boarding direction involves

different considerations than on larger vehicles.  When assistance is

being provided, a driver can maneuver a wheelchair on or off a lift

platform from either outside or from within the vehicle.  While such

assistance may be appropriate for some passengers, many disabled

passengers may find such assistance unnecessary and objectionable.  

Therefore, providing as much opportunity for independent access is

desirable.  Some Advisory Panel members also recommended that only a

person in a wheelchair be allowed on a lift which would require that

the individual in the wheelchair be able to maneuver on and off

independently.  On larger buses with passive lifts where driver

assistance may not be provided, the passenger maneuvering down an aisle

and on to a lift or from a lift down an aisle into a securement

location may find that entering a vehicle facing inward and exiting the

vehicle facing outward is the only way he or she can safely control the

wheelchair.  This allows the wheelchair passenger to travel in a

forward direction while on board the bus.  



Accidents have apparently occurred when powered wheelchairs have driven

through or climbed over the outer barriers on lifts. This accident

scenario appears more likely when the larger rear wheels of a

wheelchair are adjacent to the outer barrier; outward facing orientation

can reduce this accident potential, especially while exiting.  



Boarding direction can also be influenced when handrails are only on one

side of the lift platform.  If a disability limits a passenger to

mobility in only one arm, the presence of only one handrail may

prescribe the boarding direction.  It should be noted that the

Guideline Specifications recommend handrails on both sides of passive

lift platforms but specify only one handrail for active lifts,

primarily because limitations on ready availability of equipment.  Note

that this recommendation for active lifts assumes driver assistance

during lift use, a situation which may not be applicable if the lift is

not designed so that the operator can ride up with the passenger!



Communications with the driver is another consideration in boarding

direction.  A person using a passive lift to board a large bus can see

the driver and has line of sight communications when facing the

vehicle.  Using a lift when facing outward can reduce communications

between a driver and passenger and pose a safety hazard.  Nevertheless,

other safety considerations suggest the outward facing direction could

be preferred:  an outward facing position provides a better weight

distribution on the lift.  Moreover, if the driver of a small vehicle

using an active lift positions him- or herself outside of the vehicle,

the communication problem mentioned above can be eliminated.  In short,

the boarding direction question requires a local definition of the most

likely operating scenarios before establishing the operating policy.



The Location of a Lift   



The location of a lift is more of a problem on large buses than it is on

small vehicles.  On small vehicles, the Advisory- Panel-recommended

location is the curb side of the vehicle. Under certain conditions, a

lift at the rear of the vehicle may be acceptable.  Both of these

locations are discussed in the Guideline Specification.  For a large bus

with two doors, the issue of a side-front-door or rear-door lifts poses

more of a problem.  



The Guideline Specifications identify nine different factors that need

to be considered when deciding the location of a lift on a larger

vehicle.  These factors are:    



-accident date (for the specific agency);  



-bus stop topography;  



-operating policies and procedures;  



-communication with the driver;  



-interior maneuverability;  -dwell time at bus stops;  



-lift dimensions;  



-fare collection; and  



-location of the lift on vehicles currently owned by a transit     

operator   



The Guideline Specifications for Passive Wheelchair lifts discusses each

of these nine factors. five of the factors concern operating policies

and procedures.  Communications with the driver, interior

maneuverability, dwell time at bus stops, fare collection procedures,

and operating procedures can influence the location of a lift or may

need to be changed as a result of the lift location.  A local

transportation operator will need to adopt an appropriate set of

operating policies and procedures based on actual data rather than

hypotheses.  For example, a common belief is that the front door of a

bus is invariable subject to more damage than a rear door, and thus the

rear door is assumed to be the most appropriate place for a lift.



However, analysis of accident data from different transit agencies

indicates that some agencies actually experience a higher rate of

accident damage to the rear door.  Therefore, a transit operator should

examine its own accident history to determine which lift location is

less likely to be affected by vehicle accidents, since existing data

from different properties do not actually favor the rear door over the

front.  All of the above factors are important in evaluating the

location of the lift.  However, the two most important factors may be

the existing bus stop topography and the location of lifts on current

vehicles.  		 	



The importance of these two factors results from the overall long term

impact they have on operations.  Different bus stop topographies are

required for front-door and rear-door lifts. The lift location can be

markedly affected by such factors as far-side (of the cross street) or

near-side bus stops, and the curb space required for the bus to pull

into and out of a bus stop.  Also, it may be necessary to put in a pad

that provides level ground and allows a lift to operate.  If this pad

were positioned for a front-door lift because such lifts were currently

in use, or because that is the usual location for bus stop improvements

for able-bodied passengers, the introduction of rear-door lifts into

the system could cause problems and vice versa.  In other words, the

decision of front-door or rear-door lifts can affect overall bus stop

network and have major capital improvement impact.  It is very possible

for a system to make a commitment to use both front door and rear door

lifts.  This approach requires more than one drive role and complicates

driver training.  The Southern California Rapid Transit District

(SCRTD), one of the largest all-bus systems in the country, operates

with a mixed fleet.  On the other hand, the bus system in Seattle,

Washington, has made a substantial commitment in developing its bus

stops to accommodate front door lifts.  Currently buses purchased in

Seattle are required to have front door lifts.  Purchasers are not

prohibited from specifying one location or the other in bid

specifications if justification is provided (i.e.,it is not considered

an "exclusionary" specification even though a given bus manufacturer

may not be able to bid). 



 Making the capital improvements at bus stops to accommodate either

front-door or rear-door lifts can require both time and money, though

not necessarily that of the transit operator. Existing bus stops are

often designed around front door loading without regard for

accessibility.  Purchasing accessible buses is only one step in system

accessibility. Consideration must be given to bus stop topography and

the steps required to change existing topography or to purchase lifts

that can be integrated with the existing bus stops.  Cooperation with

local agencies with jurisdiction over roadway and pedestrian way

facilities can often secure needed improvements where the transit

agency has no jurisdiction.  Several communities have been successful

by involving the local disabled communities in efforts to develop

cooperation.



 Target Population   



In making transit services accessible, a basic question is, "Who should

be served?"  The ideal answer is everyone; however, the diversity of

disabilities, the number of different wheelchairs and the inherent

limitations in transit service and equipment make universal service

both technically and economically questionable.  Existing vehicle and

lift designs limit the type and size of equipment that can be used to

make a service accessible and the ability for buses to provide

universal service, especially on fixed route operations.  Both buses and

lifts can be redesigned, but such redesign would result in higher costs

and would not necessarily achieve universal accessibility.  The U.S.

Department of Transportation has issued regulations concerning the

provision of transportation services for handicapped persons by

recipients of urban mass transportation funds.  The factors affecting

this issue are:   



-existing lift and vehicle design;  



-wheelchair design;  



-securement devices; and  



-legal considerations.   



UMTA has defined several criteria for providing such services, one of

which is:    



"All persons who, by reason of handicap, are physically  unable to use

the recipients' bus service for the general  public must be eligible to

use the service for handicapped  persons." [49 CFR Part 27]    



It is clear from this definition that services are to be provided to all

those who are transportation handicapped. However, a question still

remains as to what if any actions need to be taken by a handicapped

person to facilitate accessibility.  Specifically, should certain types

of wheelchairs be required for those persons seeking to use transit

service?  How should persons using walkers, crutches and canes be

accommodated?  When considered in these terms, the question of "Who

should be served?" becomes, "What mobility aids should be

accommodated?". 



Rather than redesigning the vehicle lift or securement device, should

responsibility be placed on those with wheelchairs to have wheelchairs

that can be accommodated on transit?  Does the responsibility lie with

the transit provider to have a universally accessible vehicle or with

the user to have a "transit accessible" wheelchair?  Under one approach,

persons purchasing wheelchairs would be making a choice that included

being able to ride or not to ride transit. however, this approach to

the issue assumes some freedom of choice in the purchase of a

wheelchair.  Unfortunately, since wheelchair characteristics are usually

based on the characteristics of the disability, most people do not have

the freedom of choice assumed in this approach.  



Even if a wheelchair user has the freedom of choice required, the

"transit accessible wheelchair" approach requires consumers be provided

with sufficient information to make informed choices.  The

transportation provider is one source of information for consumers. 

Another source is the wheelchair manufacturer.  Discussions with

wheelchair manufacturers indicate that very little attention has been

paid to the wheelchair and transit interface, let alone to the

dissemination of such information to consumers.  The number of

wheelchairs that are used on transit is a very small proportion of the

overall number of wheelchairs manufactured. This fact appears to be one

of the major reasons that wheelchair manufacturers have not devoted

much attention to the issue of transit. However, the Advisory Panel that

developed the Guideline Specifications had representatives from two of

the largest wheelchair manufacturers. As a result of the work of the

Advisory Panel, efforts have been initiated to encourage wheelchair

manufacturers to provide more information on their wheelchair models and

the interface with transit services, though this will take time.  Even

if such information is forthcoming, transit providers cannot simply

ignore the wheelchair population which currently exists.  



Securement of a wheelchair on a transit vehicle is also a problem in

terms of wheelchairs that will be accommodated.  Wheelchairs come in a

variety of models -- standard manual and powered wheelchairs;

three-wheeled powered units; and modular powered units.  Customized and

"sport" wheelchairs add to the diversity.  Traditional securement

devices initially were designed to secure standard manual wheelchairs,

usually with wheel clamps of frame clamps. However, the usefulness of

the wheel clamps can be negated with solid or "mag" wheels found on

many newer wheelchair models with small wheels commonly found on

three-wheeled and modular powered units.  Different wheelchair designs

can also inhibit the use of frame attachments especially with the newer

powered models.  No universal securement device exists that can meet

all the requirements desired by both the transit operator and a

wheelchair user. A transit operator wants a universal device that can

be attached and detached from any wheelchair quickly.  The most

universal securement is a belt-type system.  However, belts require

several minutes to accomplish securement.  Devices that can provide

quicker securement are limited in terms of the types of wheelchairs

that can be accommodated.  Both lifts and securement systems have often

been designed for the "standard" wheelchair, usually meaning a manual

chair.  Nevertheless, both Seattle Metro and SCRTD, Los Angeles,

provide securement systems which, in their own words, "can secure

anything we've seen" including three-wheeled scooters and modular power

units.  Appropriate specifications are the key to obtaining a system

which can secure the types of equipment which can be expected.   



Another issue of concern in securement is the orientation of the secured

wheelchair or mobility aid.  All crash-test data collected to date

indicate that wheelchairs should not be secured so that they face

perpendicular to the direction of vehicle travel (side facing).  In this

position, the vast majority of chairs tend to fold when subjected to

sudden vehicle deceleration or braking and subject passengers to severe

lateral forces again the chair armrest.  The potential for serious

injury to the passenger and damage to the chair, and associated

liability for the transit agency, makes this orientation unacceptable. 

The Advisory Panel discussed this matter at some length but did not

explicitly exclude this orientation because of concern by some that

wheelchair capacity is restricted in small vehicles f all chairs face

forward.  However, since few transit providers ever transport more than

two chairs at one time (typical load factors are on the order of 1.5),

this concern is probably not significant enough to warrant permitting

side-facing orientation.



Nevertheless, the Guideline Specifications rank the safety of seating

configurations with side- facing last, rather than eliminating it for

consideration, as many of the Advisory Panel had recommended.  Safest

orientation is rear-facing with a padded barrier to support a

passenger's head; rear-facing is definitely unsafe without such a

barrier.  The next safest orientation is forward-facing, with seat and

shoulder belts.  



Furthermore, the type and size of mobility aid accepted is critically

affected by the length of the lift platform.  Most mobility aids,

including power wheelchairs, can fit on a 30-inch wide platform with

relative ease, though many chairs would have difficulty turning into the

bus at the top (e.g., the pivot point for a wheelchair is at the point

of contact of the wheel with the floor, so that the rear part of the

wheel breaks the vertical plane of the wheelchair envelope while

turning).  Platform length, on the other hand, may seriously affect the

ability to accommodate more than a limited population of disabled

person.   The chart of wheelchair sizes presented in the Guideline

Specifications is easily misinterpreted:  it is true that, of the entire

population of wheelchairs, only a minority are longer than 44 inches;

however, it is vital that transit providers understand that, while

power wheelchairs comprise only a small part of the total wheelchair

population, they often comprise more than fifty percent of the

transit-using population.  Thus a transit provider which accepts the

Guideline Specification minimum platform length will invariable exclude

a significant portion of the potential ridership.  The "wheelchair

footprint" accepted by common accessibility standards is 48 inches long,

a length which would accommodate the majority of power wheelchairs.  At

least one lift manufacturer can meet this specification and a transit

provider could easily justify such a specification on the basis of the

intended population.  This is an important decision which should not be

left to default.  



The issues of who to serve or what type of equipment to accommodate may

become legal issues.  The federal requirements do not specifically

address whether a local transit operator can exclude certain types of

wheelchairs or persons using walkers from service.  As a practical

matter, it is obvious that a standard transit bus cannot accommodate

persons in some fully reclining wheelchairs with breather-pack

trailers, stretchers, or other similar types of mobility aids which

could not physically maneuver in the limited space available. Part of

the local community consultation process should include addressing how

various mobility aids will be accommodated. It should be  noted that

most communities have not explicitly dealt with this question.  This

issue is handled more on a case by case basis with certain types of

mobility aids excluded from service, or restricted to only certain

types of vehicles or service, usually for safety considerations. 

However, it would appear advantageous both to persons who are

handicapped and to the transit operator to define the limits of mobility

aid accessibility, as long as the definition covers the mobility aids

most likely to be encountered.  By doing so, it would be hoped that a

person who is disabled and desires to use transit could purchase a

wheelchair or other mobility aid that could be accommodated on the type

of transit vehicle used in the particular community.  A transit

authority should be encouraged to accommodate as large a number of

wheelchairs as possible.  At the same time, safety, economic, and

operating issues should also be considered when defining the target

population.  



Finally, whether to permit persons using crutches and walkers, or those

who otherwise have difficulty climbing steps, to use lifts is a subject

of controversy.  Clearly such persons are included in the definition of

handicapped persons to be served by transportation, but features

designed to meet their needs are rarely incorporated in any vehicle,

from 40-foot transit coach to small vans.  For example, accessible

design suggest that steps should have risers no higher than eight

inches and hand rails should extend beyond the steps at the top and

bottom.  Bus step risers, however, are usually nine-and-one half to ten

inches high and the first step up can be as high as fourteen inches,

with an open riser as well; hand rails never extend outside the bus

door and may be virtually unusable from outside.  Nevertheless, policies

permitting standees to use lifts are rare. 



While the Guideline Specification call for passive lifts to be designed

to accommodate standees, and most older lifts have already been so

designed, few transit agencies allow persons with walkers or crutches

to use lifts.  The reported reason is a  concern for safety, especially

where the lift moves in an arc through the door or where there are no

hand rails which move with the lift.  However, the Advisory Panel could

identify no documentation of these problems.  



On the contrary, the only identified study which touched on this issue

was conducted by general Motors in 1978.  In this study 286

semi-ambulatory persons used the elevator-type lift in the rear of a

General Motors RTS bus.  Although the step-well in which the lift was

installed had only the standard vertical "[push bars" which did not

reach all the way to the lift platform and which did not move with the

lift, 97% of the sample responded favorably and did not indicate any

problem with either the hand rails or head clearance.  Moreover, where

transit agencies have actually tested or permitted standee use of

lifts, no safety problem has been identified other than having drivers

say "Watch your head"'; one agency painted footprints on the lift

platform to indicate where one should stand.  In short, there appears to

be no factual basis for prohibiting use of passive lifts by

semi-ambulatory passengers.  



Paratransit service differs in that the typical active lift frequently

does not have hand rails.  In part, this is due to common operational

practices which do not encourage independence by disabled passengers in

which the operator rides the lift beside the passenger, if the lift is

used. (Note that this practice conflicts with other parts of the

Guideline Specifications which recommends against procedure.)  Many

paratransit vehicles have another door not blocked by the lift through

which semi-ambulatory passengers board.  Since the typical vehicle floor

height is less than that of a standard urban bus, the steps may be

designed to meet the needs of these passengers more correctly, though

often they are not. 



Role of the Driver   



The type of service to be provided affects the role of the driver. 

Paratransit services face the issues of assistance provided and

curb-to-curb versus door-to-door service.  Transit services must

address the issues of a driver leaving the drivers seat and the method

of securement.





 Paratransit services operate with more flexible schedules than those

found on fixed route services.  Furthermore, paratransit systems often

use small vehicles, which tend to use active lifts or ramps for

boarding handicapped riders.  With this type of equipment and service,

the role of the driver normally consists of assisting the passenger in

the boarding process and securing the wheelchair or other mobility

aid.  Both activities require the driver to leave the driver seat. 

Since paratransit services are geared toward providing service to less

mobile disabled persons than would be expected to use fixed-route

services, often involving single passenger boarding or alighting, the

driver can more easily be involved in assisting the passenger.  



The driver role in paratransit is also affected by whether the service

only assists passengers to board and alight vehicles to from the

sidewalk (curb-to-curb service) or provides assistance to and from the

door (door-to-door service).  One of the major factors affecting the

type of service provided is liability and associated insurance. 

Paratransit operators providing door-to- door service expand their risk

exposure to include that area between the vehicle and the door. While

providing this type of service normally increases the usability of the

service for passengers with limited independent mobility, door-to-door

service may increase the operator insurance and add to the operating

time of a trip and cost of service. 



For fixed route services, the role of the driver differs.  Fixed route

service operates on a schedule more sensitive to the time required for

operating a lift and securing a wheelchair. Also, a person requiring

assistance in boarding may be only one of several passengers boarding

at a bus stop.  The driver has a responsibility for the safety and fare

collection, with regard to all passengers as well as assistance to

passengers in wheelchairs.  The role and responsibility of the driver

and his or her responsibility on the bus is one reason often cited in

support of front-door passive type lift.  A rear-door lift or an active

lift with a separate entrance would require the driver to leave the

driver seat.  



The fixed route driver may also be required to leave the seat to help

secure a wheelchair.  In this case, the role of the driver will be

partially determined by operating policy.  If the transit authority

assumes the ultimate responsibility for securement, it would want the

driver to be responsible for either securing the wheelchair or

verifying that it is secured.  For a driver to verify securement, a

visual inspection would most likely be necessary.  On the other hand,

if a transit authority leaves securement up to the individual, the

driver need only ask the passenger if securement has been

accomplished.  



The operational characteristics of the services to be provided partially

determine the role of the driver.  Common factors to both transit and

paratransit services are that the transit system must assess the

responsibility it has to a passenger and the role the driver should

play. In any case, the operating agency should clearly define the role

of the driver, since the role can affect the lift and/or securement

device specifications.  If the driver is to play a major role in the

boarding process, certain specifications related to barrier performance

included in the guideline Specification documents may not be applicable

(i.e., the Guidelines call for a barrier to prevent a powered

wheelchair from overriding it, a stringent requirement that may be

relaxed if the vehicle driver takes a more active role in the boarding

and alighting process).



EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS:  SURVEY OF MANUFACTURERS   



This technical paper contain data concerning specific manufacturers of

lifts, ramps and wheelchair securement devices.  To obtain these data

required;  



-identification of manufacturers from trade magazines, transit industry

directories, and general industrial directories. 



-preparation and mailing of letters to identified firms requesting

information on equipment specifications and tests and general

descriptive information of the equipment;  



-review of manufacturers' literature and brochures regarding wheelchair

lifts, ramps and securement devices received; and  



-visits or telephone conversations with selected manufacturers to obtain

additional information. 

 

 In addition, the wheelchair lift and securement devices manufacturers'

files at the ATBCB were reviewed to obtain specifications and

descriptive data.   



This process originally identified some 25 firms as manufacturers of

wheelchair lifts, ramps, or securement devices.  Seventeen firms

responded to letters requesting information.  Addresses and telephone

numbers of all firms are given in Table 1.



Survey results  



Passive Lifts   



The survey identified three passive lifts manufacturers.  They are

Environmental Equipment Corporation (EEC), General Motors Corporation

(GMC) [subsequently acquired by Transportation Manufacturing Corp.

(TMC)], and Lift-U Incorporated.  Collins Industries has a passive lift

but was not actively marketing its at the time of the survey.  The

platform of the passive lift manufactured by EEC is made from the steps

and risers of the step-well.  The platform moves out from the bus and

down to the ground through the door in an arc, and vice versa.  The

GMC/TMC lift, currently only installed on GMC/TMC buses, also forms its

platform from collapsing the steps and risers of the step-well. 

However, this lift moves straight up and down within the rear

step-well.  Lift-U Incorporated is the only one of the tree major

passive lift manufacturers which uses the one-piece platform for its

lifts.  The outer portion of the platform, while in the stowed

position, forms the bottom step of the step-well.  Upon deployment,

this platform emerges from beneath the step- well.  The platform then

rises and lowers through an arc, primarily outside the door. 

Information concerning selected characteristics of each lift is given

in Table 2. 



TABLE 1.  MANUFACTURERS INVENTORY



ABC Enterprises, Inc. 



8907 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH  44000 



Tel. (216) 255-5211  



Aeroquip Corporation 



2735 Valley Trails Villa 



Hillo, KY  41017 



Tel.  (606)  331-9346  



Braun Corporation 



1014 South Monticello 



Weiramac, IN  46996 



Tel. (714) 891-4305  



Bus Industries of America 



Base Road RD 1 



Oriskany, NY  13424 



Tel. (416) 625-9510  



Creative Controls 



1354-1 Combermere 



Troy, MI 48084 



Tel. (313) 362-4580  



Custom Step Lift  



1250 Roth Drive



Lansing, MI  48910 



Tel. (517) 694-3957 



Environmental Equipment Corp 



310 Pedra Street 



San Leandro, CA  94557 



Tel. (415) 568-1422 



Freewheel Mobility Systems 



1651 Market Street Unit A 



Corona, CA 91720 



Tel. (714) 734-5002 (-7152)  



Handiramp Incorporated 



P.O.Box 745 



1414 Armor Blvd. 



Mundelein, IL  60060 



Tel. (312) 566-5861 



Adaptive Driving Systems 



21011 Itasca Avenue 



Chatsworth, CA 91311 



Tel.  (818) 998-1207  



American Seating 



901 Broadway NW



Grand Rapids, MI  49504  



Bud Industries, Inc. 



697 Jefferson Blvd.



Warmick, RI  02886 



Tel. (616) 456-0600  



Collins Industries, Inc.



P.O. Box 58 



Hutchinson, KS  67504-0058 



Tel. (316) 663-4441 



Crow River industries, Inc. 



7550 Washington Avenue South 



Eden Prairie, MN  55344 



Tel. (612) 944-5010  



Driver-Master Corporation 



16 Andrews Drive 



West Patterson, NJ  07424 



Tel. (201) 785-2204 



Everest and Jennings 



3233 E. Mission Oaks Blvd. 



Camarillo, CA  93010 



Tel. (805) 987-6911  



General Motors Corporation * 



31 Judson Street 



Pontiac, MI  48048 



Tel. (313) 456-5000  



*General Motors Bus manufacturing operations were recently purchased by

Transportation manufacturing Corp. (TMC), P.O. Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.),

Roswell, New Mexico  88202 



Lift-U Incorporated 



8206 South 192nd Street 



Kent, WA  98032 



Tel. (206) 251-6668  



MAC's Lift Gate Corp. 



2727 South Street 



Long Beach, CA 90805 



Tel. (213) 768-5890   



Q-Straint 



33 Highridge Court 



Cambridge, Ontario  N1R 7L3 Canada  



Ricon Sales, Inc. 



11684 Tuxford Street 



Sun Valley, CA  91352 



Tel. (818) 768-5890  



Target Industries 



P.O. Box 657  



6 Thompson Road 



East Windsor, CT  06088 



Tel. (203) 627-5191 



Para Industries, Ltd. 



4826 11th Street, NE 



Calgary, Alberta, T8E 2W7 Canada 



Tel. (402) 276-3133  



REB Manufacturing  P.O.Box 276



Carey, Ohio  43316 



Tel. (419) 396-7651  



RJ Mobility Systems 



715 South 5th Avenue 



Maywood,, IL  60153 



Tel. (312) 344-2705 



TABLE 2. 



PASSIVE LIFT CHARACTERISTICS  



Environmental Equipment Corporation 



Platform* - Width 30,  Length 40; 



Lift Capacity  -  600 



Lifting Design -  Arc



Power Required - Hydraulic



General Motors Corporation (GMC/TMC) 



Platform* - Width 36, Length 43



Lift Capacity  -  600



Lifting Design  - Elevator  



Power Required -  Hydraulic  



Lift-U Incorporated 



Platform*  - Width 20 to 40, Length  45 to 50 



Lift Capacity -  600



Lifting Design  - Arc 



Power Required -  Hydraulic 



*Dimensions given are "typical" dimensions and will vary depending on

the design of the vehicle being made accessible Active Lifts   Eight

firms that manufactured active lifts provided information on their

products.  All of the active lifts require an electrical power source

to operate the lift.  Some use electro- mechanical actuators; others

use electro-hydraulic systems for lift operations.  Table 3 presents

selected characteristics for the active lifts produced by the eight

manufacturers.  Securement Devices -  Seven firms that manufacture

wheelchair securement devices responded to the survey.  Three produce

belt systems, having restraining forces ranging from 2,500 lbs. to

3,000 lbs. and all were capable of a 4-point tie-down configuration. 

Five of these manufacturers produce clamp securement devices.  The

Braun Corporation manufactures both belt and clamp systems.  The clamps

produced by both Creative Controls and Target Industries can be

customized to a particular wheelchair, while the remaining three are

standard clamps accommodating wheel or tire thickness from 2.5 inches

to 5 inches and a wide range of track widths.  Restraining forces range

from 2,000 lbs to 3,000 lbs.  Table 4 lists the securement device

manufacturers and selected characteristics of the securement devices

reviewed.  Ramps   Four firms that manufacture ramps provided

information.  Only one of these manufacturers is currently providing a

powered ramp.  Ramps are available in a variety of lengths and widths

and typically are designed to support a load of 400 to 750 pounds. 

Table 5 lists the ramp manufacturers along with selected

characteristics.



 TABLE 3. ACTIVE LIFT CHARACTERISTICS  



Adaptive Driving Systems 



Platform* -  Width(inches) 26 to 30, Length(inches) 50 



Lift Capacity(pounds)  750 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



Braun Corporation 



Platform* Width(inches)  -  30, Length(inches) 40 



Lift Capacity (pounds) -  750 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



Collins Industries Incorporated 



Platform* Width (inches) - 30, Length(inches) 45 



Lift Capacity (pounds)  -  1,000 



Lifting Design  -   Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



Crow River Industries Inc 



Platform* - Width(inches)  -  N/P, Length(inches) - N/P  Lift Capacity

(pounds) 750 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



*Dimensions given are "typical" dimensions and will vary depending on

the design of the vehicle being made accessible.  



N/P - Not provided by manufacturer. 







TABLE 3. ACTIVE LIFT CHARACTERISTICS  



MAC's Lift Gate Corporation 



Platform* Width (inches) 48, Length(inches) 45 



Lift Capacity (pounds) - 750 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



Ricon Sales Incorporated 



Platform* -  Width(inches) 28 to 32, Length(inches) 38 



Lift Capacity(pounds) -  800 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



RJ Mobility Systems



Platform*  -  Width(inches) 30,Length(inches) 46 



Lift Capacity(pounds)  -  750 



Lifting Design -  Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



Target Industries 



Platform* -  Width(inches) - 30, Platform* Length(inches) - 44 



Lift Capacity(pounds)  - 600 



Lifting Design - Elevator 



Power Required -  Electrical  



*Dimensions given are "typical" dimensions and will vary depending on

the design of the vehicle being made accessible.  



N/P - Not provided by manufacturer. 







TABLE 4.  SECUREMENT DEVICES CHARACTERISTICS 



BELTS



Aeroquip Corporation 



Restraining Force (Pounds) -  2,500 



Number of Securement Points -  3 and 4  



Braun Corporation 



Restraining Force (Pounds) - 2,500 



Number of Securement Points 3 and 4  



Q-Straint  



Restraining Force (Pounds)  -  3,000  



Number of Securement Points 4 



CLAMPS  



American Seating Company** 



Tire Thickness*(Inches) -  2.5 



Track Width*(Inches) -  N/P 



Restraining Force -  2,500  



Braun Corporation



Tire Thickness*(Inches) - 5 



Track Width*(Inches) -  26 to 29



Restraining Force -  3,000  



Collins Industries Inc. 



Tire Thickness* (Inches) - 2.75 



Track Width*(Inches) -  16.75 to 25



Restraining Force   2,000  



Creative Controls 



Tire Thickness*(Inches) -  N/P 



Track Width*(Inches) -  11 (min)



Restraining Force -  N/P  



Target Industries 



Tire Thickness*(Inches) -  N/P 



Track Width*(Inches) -  Customized



Restraining Force -  N/P  



*Dimensions given are "typical" dimensions and will vary depending on

the design of the vehicle being made accessible.  



**The American Seating clamp system includes an option that combines a

belt and clamp system  



N/P - Not provided by manufacturer. 







TABLE 5. RAMP CHARACTERISTICS 



Braun Corporation/Manual 



Ramp Dimensions* -  Length(Inches) - 84, Width(Inches) - 30 



Design Capacity (Pounds) -  750  



Collins Industries Incorporated/Manual 



Ramp Dimensions* Length (Inches) - 88 to 108, Width (Inches) - 31



Design Capacity (Pounds) -  400 



Handiramp Incorporated/Manual 



Ramp Dimensions* - Length (Inches) 60 to 84, Width (Inches) - 26 



Design Capacity (Pounds) N/P  



Bus Industries of America/Front Powered 



Ramp Dimensions*  Length (Inches) - 33, Width (Inches) -31 



Design Capacity (Pounds) N/P



Rear Powered Ramp Dimensions*  Length (Inches) - 21, Width (Inches) - 32 



Design Capacity (Pounds) N/P  



* Dimensions given are "typical" dimensions and will vary depending on

the design of the vehicle being made accessible.  



N/P - Not provided by manufacturer. 



AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH   Accessible transportation issues have been

examined and various research effort have  been examined and various

research efforts have been undertaken in the past.  However, areas for

further research exist.  Additionally, the Guideline Specifications

identified some new areas for research.  More information is needed in

the following areas:  



-Securement Devices. No universal securement device exists that can meet

all the needs of the transit community.  Belt systems can be used to

secure almost any wheelchair, but such systems require relatively long

times for securement and usually require driver assistance. Clamp

systems that can provide quick securement with little or no driver

participation do not accommodate all wheelchairs.  Further research is

needed to develop securement systems that provide universal, easy, and

quick securement while minimizing potential damage to wheelchairs.  



-Barrier Testing.  The Guideline Specifications for active and passive

lifts contain interim tests for barriers that will retain either a

manual or a powered wheelchair on a lift platform.  These tests are

based on using selected present generation powered wheelchairs.  More

research is required to develop better test equipment and methods that

can be used to test barriers.





 -Transit and Wheelchair Compatibility. The earlier discussion of the

target population examined the issue of wheelchairs that would be

transit compatible.  Currently, little or no interface exists between

the design of wheelchairs and the transit requirements for transporting

wheelchairs. Research into the interface and the potential for

increased accessibility is needed. 



-Low Floor Transit Vehicles. Not related to the preceding areas of

research  but important enough to be identified separately is the

development of a low floor transit vehicle.  The major accessibility

problem involves the level change from ground to vehicle floor height. 

Lower vehicle floor heights that would allow level boarding at curbs or

ramp assisted boarding would provide increased accessibility and reduce

or eliminate some problems currently encountered. Research on low floor

vehicles has been conducted.  More work is needed.  



INFORMATION RESOURCES   



The ATBCB maintains a data base of manufacturers, reports and other

information on accessible transportation.  This data base includes a

computerized annotated bibliography. Examples from the bibliography are

shown in Appendix 1.  Persons desiring further information from the

bibliography or other data on accessible transportation should contact

the:  



Architectural and Transportation  Barriers Compliance Board 



Office of Technical and Information Services 



111 18th Street, N.W., Suite 501 



Washington, D.C.  20036 



Tel. (202) 653-7848   



In addition to the ATBCB information, experienced providers of

accessible transit and paratransit services can be found throughout the

United States.  Persons seeking to learn more about operating

experiences should contact their state departments of transportation,

the appropriate UMTA regional office or local accessible transportation

providers.  Table 6 identifies persons from various sections of the

United States who are familiar with accessible transportation.  







TABLE 6.  TRANSIT OPERATORS



Seattle Metro 



821 2nd Avenue 



Seattle, WA  98104 



Attn:  Karen Rosenzweig  



Southern California Rapid Transit District 



425 South Main Street 



Los Angeles, CA  90013 



Attn:  Theresa Moren 



Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 



600 Fifth Street, N.W. 



Washington, DC  20001 



Attn:  Sandra Perkins  



Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 



10 Boylston Place 



Boston, MA  02116



Attn:  Mary Lou Daly  



Regional Transportation District 



1600 Blake Street 



Denver, CO  80202 



Attn:  Robert Garside 



Paratransit Operators  



Ann Arbor Transportation Authority 



2700 Industrial Highway 



Ann Arbor, MI  48104 



Attn:  Mike Bolton 



Delaware Administration for Specialized Transportation 



P.O. Box 1347  



Dover, DE  19903 



Attn:  James H. Gillard  York







Transportation Club 



1120 East Masson Avenue 



York, PA  17403 



Attn: Pat Flinchbaugh  



Senior Service of Snohomish County 



3402 112th Street, S.E. 



Everett, WA  98204 



Attn:  William H. Henderson 







State Agencies  



California Department of Transportation Division of Mass Transportation 



1120 N Street Sacramento, CA  94814 



Attn: Howard Hall  



Ohio Department of Transportation 



25 South Front St., Rm 710 



Columbus, Ohio  43216-0899 



Attn:  Donald Meacham



APPENDIX WHEELCHAIR LIFT AND SECUREMENT DEVICE REFERENCES 



Class and Access No.:  53-  10    Report Date: 06/01/78  



Title:  A Requirements Analysis Document for Transit Vehicle Wheelchair

lift Devices  



Authors:  Sanders, Mark S.  



Performing Organization:  Canyon Research Group, Inc.  



741 Lakefield Road, Suite B  



Westlake Village, CA  91261  



Sponsoring Organization/Publisher:  USDOT - UMTA  



400 Seventh Street, N.W. 



Washington, DC  20590  



Abstract:  Guidelines for the design and evaluation of wheelchair lift

devices for public transit vehicles (buses and light rail vehicles) are

presented.  Included is an analysis of wheelchair and maneuvering

dimensions and their impact on both the lift system and transit vehicle

design. Much of the content deals with the general safety

considerations and vehicle interior design, which are the same for ramp

or lift devices.  A total of 63 requirements and recommendations are

presented herein covering the design and operation of the lift, the

vehicle lift interface, the vehicle interior, and the reliability and

maintainability of the system.  In addition, the report discusses

evaluation parameters needed to asses the cost of public transit lift

service.  



Keywords:  Wheelchair, lift, elderly, handicapped vehicle design,

bus,light rail, ramps, guidelines, safety. 



WHEELCHAIR LIFT AND SECUREMENT DEVICE REFERENCES  



Class and Access No.: 53-   43   Report Date:  06/01/86



Title:  California Department of Transportation Wheelchair Safety

Securement System Demonstration and Evaluation - Final Report 



Authors:  Maxwell, Jane Cramer, Ralph H.K.   Gunn, Jack T. Miller, Jim 



Performing Organization:  Brobeck Corporation  



1235 Tenth Street  



Berkley, CA  94710  



Sponsoring Organization/Publisher:  California Department of

Transportation - Mass Trans  



1120 N Street, Room 4202  



Sacramento, CA  95814 



Abstract: This report deals with a conducted demonstration and an

evaluation of a wheelchair securement system developed by Caltrans for

use in public transit vehicles.  Phase I is detailed engineering. Phase

II is fabrication.  Phase III is monitoring the system under actual

operator conditions and surveying passengers and drivers attitudes

toward the system.  



Keywords: wheelchair securement, Caltrans, design, installation,

testing, user survey.





.TCEL.

.

