1

FTA Bus Testing Program – MAP21

March 28, 2013

Gregory Rymarz

FTA Bus Testing Program Manager,

Federal Transit Administration

Steve Brady

Technical Consultant to LTIBus Research and Testing

Center

2

IntroductionsFTA 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

3

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).

4

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.

5

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.

6

Performance StandardsIntent 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

7

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

8

Bus Model Scoring System & Weighted ScoreTest Category Test

ScoreWeighting Weighted

Score

Maintainability xx 0.yy xx(0.yy)

Reliability … … ….

Structural Integrity & Durability

…. … …..

Safety … …. ….

Performance … … …..

Fuel Economy … … ….

Emissions …. … ….

Noise …. … ….

Aggregate Score Sum of weighted

scores

9

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?

10

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 manufacturers14th- Small bus/van manufacturers17th - Large transit agencies21st - Small/rural transit agencies23rd - State DOTs & Procurement officials

June - Begin drafting NPRM July - Finalize NPRM Aug - Publish NPRM

11

Question For Bus BuyersDo 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?

12

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?

13

Question For AllUnder 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?

14

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

15

Reliability

No uncorrected Class I failures

No more than two uncorrected Class II failures

MTBF ?

Other metrics

16

Maintainability

Primary metric: Hours to remove and replace all key components Inability to remove a key component = Failure?

17

Fuel Economy

Fuel Economy Vs. Fuel Consumption ?Average results across the Manhattan, Orange County, and UDDS emissions duty cyclesExpress 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

18

Fuel Economy Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Fuel Consumption mpg/scfpm

10011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210141015101610171101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116111711181119

19

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 typesBest Score/Worst score

20

Emissions CO2 Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000CO2 gm/mi

100110021003100410051006100710081009101010111012101410151016101711011102110311041105110611071108110911101111111211131114

21

Emissions CO Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

10

20

30

40

50

60CO gm/mi

1001100210031004100510061007100810091010101110121014101510161017110111021103110411051106110711081109111011111112111311141115111611171118

22

Emissions THC Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8THC gm/mi

10011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210141015101610171101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116

23

Emissions NMHC Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7NMHC gm/mi

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 1117

1118 1119 1120

1201 1202 1203

1204 1205 1206

1207 1208 1209

1211 1212 1213

1214

24

Emissions NOX Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

5

10

15

20

25NOX

10011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210141015101610171101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116111711181119

25

Emissions PM Buses Tested 2010-2012

Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035Particulate Matter gm/mi

10011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210141015101610171101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116

26

Safety

Double lane change maneuver – 45 mph maintain stabilityGVW < all max load ratings (GVWR, GAWR, wheel, tires)FMVSS – must meet all applicableSeating Configuration – test bus must be a suitable transit bus configurationNFPA 52 as applicable?Other value added standards?

27

Braking

Braking distance – high friction 45-0 mph (0.3g, 194 ft)Stay within a 12 foot lane during split coefficient testParking brake – hold on 20% upslope/downslope for 5 min

28

Braking Distance Buses Tested 2010-2012

45ft Dry0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Stopping Distance ft - 45 mph dry

10011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210141015101610171101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116111711181119

29

Acceleration, Gradeability, Top Speed

Acceleration: 0-30 mph in 18 secondsGradeability: - Maintain 40 mph on 2.5%

- achieve and maintain 15 mph on 10%Top Speed: Measured top speed

30

Noise

Stationary internal: < 80dBAcceleration from standstill : < 80dBInterior Vibration: Not UnacceptableCruise to acceleration (exterior): <83dBAccelerating from Standstill exterior: <83dBStationary Low Idle: <65 dBStationary High Idle:< 83dBStationary Full Throttle: <83dB

31

Thank You

Gregory RymarzOffice of Mobility InnovationFederal Transit Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., Room E43-302Washington, DC 20590202-366-6410gregory.rymarz@dot.gov