FTA Bus Testing Program MAP 21 March 28

FTA Bus Testing Program – MAP 21 March 28, 2013 Gregory Rymarz Steve Brady FTA Bus Testing Program Manager, Technical Consultant to LTI Bus Research and Testing Center Federal Transit Administration

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: Ø Maintainability Ø Reliability Ø Structural Integrity and Durability ü ü ü Shakedown Distortion Static Towing Dynamic Towing Jacking Hoisting Ø Safety Ø Performance ü Speed ü Acceleration ü Braking Ø Fuel Economy Ø Emissions Ø 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— n (i) do not apply to rolling stock otherwise regulated by the Secretary or any other Federal agency; and n (ii) to the extent practicable, take into consideration— n (I) relevant recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board; and n (II) recommendations of, and best practices standards developed by, the public transportation industry Ø Separate rulemaking action apart from Bus Testing Ø May require introduction of “new” bus tests to determine compliance Ø TBD 7

Bus Model Scoring System & Weighted Score Test Category Test Score Weighting Maintainability xx 0. yy Reliability … … …. Structural Integrity & Durability …. … …. . Safety … …. Performance … … …. . Fuel Economy … … …. Emissions …. … …. Noise …. … …. Aggregate Score Weighted Score xx(0. yy) 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) n n April – Development of follow-on webinars May - Conduct multiple “focus group” webinars (tentative dates) 7 th - Large bus manufacturers 9 th - Mid-size bus manufacturers 14 th- Small bus/van manufacturers 17 th - Large transit agencies 21 st - Small/rural transit agencies 23 rd - 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 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 70 100 1 100 2 100 3 100 4 100 5 100 6 100 7 100 8 100 9 101 0 101 1 101 2 101 4 101 5 101 6 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 CO 2 Buses Tested 2010 -2012 CO 2 gm/mi 6000 10 01 10 02 10 03 10 04 10 05 10 06 10 07 10 08 10 09 10 10 10 11 10 12 10 14 10 15 10 16 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS 20

Emissions CO Buses Tested 2010 -2012 CO gm/mi 60 10 01 10 02 10 03 10 04 10 05 10 06 10 07 10 08 10 09 10 10 10 11 10 12 10 14 10 15 50 40 30 20 10 0 Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS 21

Emissions THC Buses Tested 2010 -2012 THC gm/mi 8 10 01 10 02 10 03 10 04 10 05 10 06 10 07 10 08 10 09 10 10 10 11 10 12 10 14 10 15 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 25 100 1 100 2 100 3 100 4 100 5 100 6 100 7 100 8 100 9 101 0 101 1 101 2 101 4 101 5 101 6 20 15 10 5 0 Manhattan Orange County Bus UDDS 24

Emissions PM Buses Tested 2010 -2012 Particulate Matter gm/mi 0. 035 100 1 100 2 100 3 100 4 100 5 100 6 100 7 100 8 100 9 101 0 101 1 101 2 101 4 101 5 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 distance – high friction 45 -0 mph (0. 3 g, 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 10 01 10 02 10 03 10 04 10 05 10 06 10 07 10 08 10 09 10 10 10 11 10 12 10 14 10 15 10 16 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 45 ft 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: < 80 d. B Acceleration from standstill : < 80 d. B Interior Vibration: Not Unacceptable Cruise to acceleration (exterior): <83 d. B Accelerating from Standstill exterior: <83 d. B Stationary Low Idle: <65 d. B Stationary High Idle: < 83 d. B Stationary Full Throttle: <83 d. B 30

Thank You Gregory Rymarz Office of Mobility Innovation Federal Transit Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue S. E. , Room E 43 -302 Washington, DC 20590 202 -366 -6410 gregory. rymarz@dot. gov 31