Double Decker Buses in Ontario - Safety?

[steveintoronto]

Editorial: Bus safety – let's not keep waiting
OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL BOARD
Published:January 18, 2019
Updated:January 18, 2019 11:18 AM PST

[...]
The Transportation Safety Board issued recommendations in 2015 after the crash of an OC Transpo double decker with a Via train in 2013, in which six people died. Among the problems the TSB identified was a lack of standards around “crashworthiness” for such buses.

The TSB pointed out that Transport Canada has no requirements for “frontal-impact, side-impact, rollover or crush protection” for most transit buses. The TSB also wanted buses to carry on-board data recorders (like the “black box” aboard aircraft).

Three years later, the federal government isn’t exactly moving smartly on the issue. As the TSB writes, “This deficiency file is still active.” Federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau told Postmedia this week, “We have been looking at those recommendations. We haven’t made any decisions. But that’s standard procedure.” Minister, do you think you could expedite “standard procedure” a little bit?

The federal government isn’t exactly moving smartly on the issue.​

True, the feds will require certain types of buses to have seatbelts starting in 2020, and standards have been introduced for greater stability control on many buses. Good. But what about the broad question of making transit buses structurally safer overall?

Transport Canada writes that there isn’t much research on “structural integrity” of transit buses, “particularly as it pertains to occupant protection.” It has tried unsuccessfully to procure a “bus shell” to conduct its own testing. Now it’s exploring having industry produce “test bucks” that would simulate a bus for crash-testing purposes. There’s no tender out yet.

But surely there are other ways of going at crashworthiness: putting more onus on manufacturers right now, for instance, to show at least some improvements are being made; or setting maximum speed standards for transit buses.

Finally, there is the role of the TSB itself. More than nine in 10 transportation deaths occur on roads, but the TSB’s mandate is marine, rail, air and pipelines. Maybe Minister Garneau can talk to his provincial counterparts when they meet next week about expanding the TSB’s role. Surely the provinces, too, want safer public transit. [...]

https://theprovince.com/opinion/edi...ting/wcm/acecca02-b2df-40b0-aa31-abe6a41f0c84

 

[M636RF]

I saw this video from NovaBus, showing some of the crash testing they have done with their low floor designs. It seems that certain transit bus manufacturers put more of an emphasis on safety than others.

I'm also wondering if the safety concerns regarding double decker models could be partially addressed by removing the front row of seats on the top deck, and blocking the first few meters of floorspace off.

 

[steveintoronto]

@M636RF ^Here's more:

[...]The Nova LFS Smart Bus® far exceeds APTA White Book crashworthiness requirements and they are built to resist the toughest operating conditions. Our team strives to design high-quality, innovative products including Smart Safety Features that reduce the frequency of accidents, as well as their consequences.[...]

http://novabus.com/transit-solutions/safety-features/

Excellent heads-up, thank you, that's allowed me to compare to this:

Interesting technical details here: (I had commented on the chassis construction, erased it until I can confirm details elsewhere)
https://landtransportguru.net/alexander-dennis-enviro500/

I've been trying to find more about the A-D body front crash resistance, because if you take a close look at their chassis at that link, (pic added at bottom of post) you'll note that other than the chassis front flange, there's nothing integral to the chassis itself for frontal strengthening. I defered from comment earlier in case there is a lateral reinforcement bar integral with the body that directly connects to the chassis, but I'm doubtful. Nova specifically mention 'two lateral stainless steel tubes to reinforce the front body against impact' (gist).

Another link that raises serious questions is THE CANADIAN BUS INDUSTRY and its RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/1136866.pdf

Note pg 56:

[...]
Intercity coach curb weights are now in the range of 33,000 to 34,000 lb. (15,000 to 15,500 kg). The increased vehicle weight means that buses and coaches, when fully loaded, now regularly exceed the axle load limits as specified by local highway authorities. This has negative implications for vehicle safety (safe stopping, physical structure), reduced passenger capacity and increased road damage. Studies conducted by TDC (e.g., Cost Benefit Bus Weight Reduction Study, TP 12558, 1994-95) have documented the trend toward increased vehicle weight and the cost impact on the road structure and fuel consumption. Manufacturers are taking some small steps to reduce vehicle weight, such as re-evaluating their vehicle body design, using multiplex wiring and potentially fibre optics instead of standard wiring systems. However, there are no strong incentives for them to be more aggressive, particularly on the urban bus side. Most highway authorities overlook the weight violations. Some transit authorities, notably in British Columbia, have limited vehicle capacities to comply with axle loading standards in that province.

But, simply put, because of the low-bid method of urban bus procurement, transit systems are not prepared to pay a premium for lower weight. In the U.S., there are currently only two transit systems (Chicago and Los Angeles) that provide any incentive within their vehicle specifications for lower weight and this is a modest $5,000 advantage in the case of Chicago. In Canada, there are none. At the same time, relatively low fuel prices and the introduction of more fuel-efficient bus and coach engines and transmissions in recent years have produced major fuel cost savings to the degree that transit operators see little cost advantage in specifying a lower weight bus. New Flyer and NovaBUS have undertaken some engineering work to reduce the weight of their body structures with limited success. TDC has worked with Prévost Car to reduce the weight of its products. [...]

A proviso! This is from 2002. Seventeen years ago. A lot has progressed since then, and one of the 'innovations' has been ultra-light bodies....to the point of being *flimsy*. A-D exalts in their use of 'light metals and plastic' for the body. Nova, on the other hand, touts stainless steel for strength and longevity.

And this is exactly where the race to 'the lightest body' has gotten some builders into the 'damn the safety' mindset, since it's not mandated by Transport Canada anyway. The builders are now selling performance, and economy, and the best efficiency of operation for the lowest price, whether it fails to meets safety regs elsewhere or not. A-D, now the largest bus builders in the world, are specifically building factories off-shore from the UK to build to local needs...read 'regs', and China and Malaysia built ones are now feeding Eastern markets, save for the nations there with tighter regs (South Korea for instance)

Lightest bodies vs strength are proving to be a huge mistake, and ironically, the total vehicle weight is still above provincial requirements for axle loading.

I've been digging for what the EU requires, and it's quite stringent compared to Cdn regs:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=euro...35j0j7&client=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Ironically, the EU counsels how they've 'got to tighten our regs even further, not only for our safety, but for export to markets like Korea, where regs are more stringent still'

Best I quote exactly:

[...]
No time to lose
Minimum vehicle safety standards in the EU have not been updated since 2009, and Europe risks losing its leadership position to markets like South Korea, who have already announced plans for mandatory installation of:

• Automated Emergency Braking;
• Lane Keep Assistance; and
• Seatbelt reminders in all seats.

In a resolution passed in November 2017, the European Parliament said that “more effective” vehicle safety measures are needed in order to reach the long term goal of “no fatalities”. In May, EU Transport Ministers from all 28 Member States also backed a revision of the standards.

The European Commission is set to publish a list of new requirements in May 2018, after several years of delay. It’s high time updated vehicle safety standards for new cars finally made it across the finish line.

Antonio Avenoso
Executive Director
European Transport Safety Council
http://etsc.eu

https://www.governmenteuropa.eu/important-year-vehicle-safety-europe/84888/

They're generations ahead of us! I have to question whether the North Am produced, especially the Cdn assembled Enviro 500 could actually be sold in Europe in terms of meeting their safety regulations? I somehow doubt it...still digging to document and/or reference that.

Enviro 500 chassis pic:

 

[Kyle Campbell]

While i can understand that, given the majority of the Enviro series is sold overseas. So, what is the difference between a European Enviro 500 and ours and would it have made a difference here. I can't see our market being large enough to make anything but the most trivial changes to the design that already passed EU regs.

Also i think crash regulations even in Europe expect the bus to collide with another vehicle or object at ground level, but this is specifically about a top impact, which is somewhat is a unique case.

 

[Johnny Au]

Looks like the Knight Bus and the Chinese Stradding Bus will be hard sells in the wake of this tragedy.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Given the track recorder of London DD buses that have seats in the front from day one as well the same as Europe, removing those seats are pure dumb. You will find me in that front row if I can get a seat there with no fear. I had no fear riding the DD in Europe, as well on GO. If Europe or the World have no issues with DD buses, why is NA having it???

I will re-frame from other comments until the report is issue and then only comment what I see or no of.

I once took a DD Bus in Hong Kong up, IIRC, Victoria Peak. There is a record of several DD buses tumbling down those tight and windy terraced roads. It was hair raising, but I survived unscathed. On the same trip my taxi in Taipei rear ended another taxi and was then rear ended by a BMW - leaving me to walk down their version of the DVP to climb into another taxi.