Transbus Program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:15, 12 October 2020

Latest revision as of 15:33, 27 August 2025

(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Plan to improve US transit bus design}}

{{Infobox automobile

| name = Transbus

Line 25 ⟶ 26:

}}

'''Transbus''' was announced in December 1970 as ana United States [[Urban Mass Transportation Administration]] (UMTA) program to develop improvements to existing [[transit bus]] design; at the time, the US bus market was dominated by the [[GM New Look]] and [[Flxible New Look]] buses, and bus ridership was declining. The improvements had been suggested earlier by the [[National Academy of Sciences]] in 1968 to improve operating costs, reduce pollution, and stimulate ridership, and included innovations such as a [[low-floor bus|low floor]] for easier entry and seats cantilevered from the wall to expand passenger space.

In 1971, [[Booz Allen Hamilton|Booz-Allen Applied Research]] won the contract to serve as the Systems Manager for the Transbus program. Three manufacturers{{efn|[[AM General]], [[General Motors]], and [[Rohr, Inc.|Rohr]]/[[Flxible]]}} were selected to participate in the Transbus program in 1972 and each produced prototypes for evaluation by late 1974; some were tested at a [[Proving ground#Automotive proving grounds|proving ground]],{{efn|The Dynamic Systems, Inc. proving grounds near [[Phoenix, Arizona]]}} others were subjected to crash testing, and the rest were placed into revenue service during a nationwide tour of four cities{{efn|name=4cities|From October 1974 to March 1975, three Transbus prototypes (one from each manufacturer) were tested in [[Miami]], [[New York City|New York]], [[Kansas City]], and [[Seattle]].<ref>{{cite report |url=https://trid.trb.org/View/41464 |title=Transbus public testing and evaluation program |author=Simpson and Curtin |publisher=Urban Mass Transportation Administration |date=January 1976}}</ref>}} in 1974 and 1975 to gather rider feedback, which was subsequently incorporated into a specification developed between 1976 and 1978. However, none of the three prototype manufacturers submitted a bid in response to a joint procurement of 530 buses{{efn|name=79bid|The request for bid was issued jointly by [[Southern California Rapid Transit District|SCRTD]], [[Metrobus (Miami-Dade County)|Metrobus]], and [[SEPTA]], the transit agencies serving [[Los Angeles]], Miami, and [[Philadelphia]], respectively. The three-agency consortium had been formed in October 1977 at an [[American Public Transit Association]] meeting, and were privately told there by UMTA representatives that an order of at least 500 Transbuses would "put us over the hill in moving the Transbus program forward." The final bid request was for 230 (Los Angeles), 110 (Miami), and 190 (Philadelphia) Transbuses.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|5;7}}}} to the Transbus specification in 1979. Although no Transbuses were ever ordered, some of the program's goals were incorporated into the successor Advanced Design Buses introduced in the mid-1970s.

==History==

Line 40 ⟶ 41:

===Early development===

The interest in newer transit buses was sparked in part by laws passed in the late 1960s and early 1970s granting federal subsidies for public transportation equipment, including buses.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-83–8}} [[General Motors]] (GM) began developing a replacement for its ubiquitous [[GM New Look bus|New Look]] bus in 1964, demonstrating a three-axle, turbine-powered{{efn|The RTX used the same [[GM Whirlfire engine|GT-309 gas turbine engine]] previously developed and installed in the 1966 prototype [[Chevrolet Turbo Titan III]] truck.<ref name=BSC-16/>}} prototype named Rapid Transit eXperimental (RTX) in 1968.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|4-74–7}}&nbsp;<ref name=BSC-16>{{cite web |url=https://www.curbsideclassic.com/bus-stop-classic/bus-stop-classics-general-motors-rapid-transit-series-rts-ii-coach-a-sure-bet/ |title=Bus Stop Classic: General Motors Rapid transit Series (RTS) II Coach — GM Deadly Sin #27 — A Sure Bet? |author=Brophy, Jim |date=November 27, 2016 |website=Curbside Classic |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref> That same year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report providing recommendations for buses that would reduce costs and improve ridership.<ref>{{cite report |title=Design and Performance Criteria for Improved Nonrail Urban Mass Transit Vehicles and Related Urban Transportation Systems |author=Highway Research Board |date=May 1968 |publisher=U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development}}</ref> Although RTX would have met many of the objectives from the 1968 NAS report, testing and evaluation showed several issues: the lowered floor of the RTX, at {{convert|22|in|abbr=on}}, meant novel chassis, suspension, and brake components were needed, adding to the complexity, weight, and cost of the RTX design.<ref name=Hearing77/>{{rp|11}}

GM wrote a letter to [[United States Department of Transportation]] Secretary [[John Volpe]] in 1971, complaining that it had begun work on the RTX-derived [[Rapid Transit Series]] (RTS) to meet the goals of the 1968 NAS report,<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} but could not start serial production until UMTA changed its low-bid policy to allow federal subsidies for the RTS.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|4-74–7}} At the time, the three major U.S. transit bus manufacturers offered 'New Look' style buses that were functionally equivalent,{{efn|These were the [[GM New Look]], [[Flxible New Look]], and [[Flyer 700/800/900 series|AM General Metropolitan]].}} and to qualify for federal subsidies, the transit agency was required to award its bus procurement contracts to the lowest bidder.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|152}} GM later reversed its stance and announced in May 1973 it would begin producing the RTS.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} The first RTS prototype was produced in 1974, followed by the 1975 RTS-II prototype,<ref name=Hearing77/>{{rp|11}} which was evaluated in demonstration service by several transit agencies.

The Transbus program was intended to producedesign a standardized transit bus, designwhich tohad reducethe goals of reducing purchase, operating, and maintenance costs,<ref name=Reason-80/> similar to how the Presidents' Conference Committee had designed the [[PCC streetcar]] in the 1930s. andTransbus was meant to design a successor to the ''de facto'' New Look standard, running in parallel with the contemporaneous 1970s effort tothat producedesigned the [[US Standard Light Rail Vehicle]] as the PCC's successor. Transbus development would begin with the production and evaluation of candidate prototype designs from separate manufacturers.<ref name=Reason-80/>

===Prototype testing===

Line 59 ⟶ 60:

The initial prototyping contracts were awarded to [[AM General]], [[General Motors]], and [[Rohr, Inc.|Rohr]]'s [[Flxible]] division in 1972 to build nine Transbus candidate prototypes (three from each manufacturer) for further testing and evaluation<ref name=Whitford-83/> at a total cost of {{USD|28000000|1972|round=-4}}.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} Booz-Allen would test and evaluate each design, then composite the best ideas from each into a standardized procurement specification.<ref name=Reason-80/> This was to be followed by the procurement of 100 to 600 preproduction Transbuses for further development and testing in revenue service.<ref name=Reason-80/><ref name=Whitford-83/> In March 1973, representatives from UMTA testified before Congress they intended for each manufacturer to produce 100 preproduction prototypes.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} The [[American Public Transit Association]] proposed for each manufacturer to produce 200 preproduction prototypes for evaluation in service, then hold a two-year production moratorium to gather feedback.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|113}}

Due to the [[Rehabilitation Act of 1973]], which was passed in September 1973,<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} the goals of Transbus shifted to allow full accessibility for public transit vehicles, and the candidate designs were modified to incorporate a ramp or a lift. The nine prototypes were delivered in 1974.<ref name=Reason-80/> Three would be crash tested,<ref name=Reason-80/> three would be tested in Phoenix and Buffalo, and the remaining three would enter demonstration service for evaluation in four cities<!--, selected for X Y and Z-->.{{efn|name=4cities}} On May 13, 1975, one of the Flxible prototypes caught fire during testing in Arizona and was destroyed,<ref>{{cite report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xsJgHAAACAAJ |title=Fire Accident Report: Rohr Transbus Prototype Model R45-WTA102 Urban Coach on Interstate Route I-17, North of Phoenix, Arizona, May 13, 1975 |author=Booz-Allen Applied Research |publisher=Urban Mass Transportation Administration |date=1975 |accessdate=11 October 2020}}</ref> but no one was injured; at the time, it was carrying two technicians, instruments, and sandbags to simulate a full passenger load.<ref name=Reason-80/>

In 1975, the UMTA canceled its initial plans to procure the larger fleet of preproduction Transbuses for further testing. This had been intended to mature the technologies required to support the Transbus priority goals, and the cancellation of the preproduction fleet left these technologies underdeveloped.<ref name=Whitford-83/> By 1980, of the six prototypes that had been tested, one had been destroyed in a fire, another had been returned to Flxible, and the other four were being stored in Phoenix, Arizona.<ref name=Reason-80>{{cite magazine |url=https://reason.com/1980/07/01/sic-transit-transbus/ |title=Sic Transit Transbus |author=Parachini, Allan |date=July 1980 |magazine=reason |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref>

Line 72 ⟶ 73:

1978/3 TPR updated, single rear axle

1978/8 TPR updated, tandem rear axles, lift or ramp for access-->

In January 1975, UMTA Administrator [[Frank C. Herringer]] announced the prototypes would be used to create a composite performance specification for Transbus<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} and that new bus procurements would need to meet the Transbus specification to qualify for federal subsidies; his intent was to quash GM's competing RTS bus design. GM was undeterred and continued development of the RTS, and Herringer soon left UMTA to head the [[Bay Area Rapid Transit District]].<ref name=Reason-80/> One of his successors, [[Robert E. Patricelli]], quietly encouraged GM to continue its development ofdeveloping the RTS; by that time, GM already had concluded the Transbus project wasrequirements were impossible to implement.<ref name=Reason-80/> GM made its first sale for the RTS to a consortium of transit agencies in May 1976; GM was the sole bidder for that contract, and AM General filed suit over the "exclusionary" specifications in that contract.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}}

Patricelli would go on to effectively kill Transbus by issuing a policy order in July 1976 stating the specified Transbus floor height of {{convert|22|in|abbr=on}} was impractical, adding that Advanced Design Bus (ADB) designs{{efn|'Advanced Design Bus' collectively refers to the General Motors [[Rapid Transit Series]] and the Rohr/Flxible [[Flxible Metro|870/Metro]] designs.}} then under development would qualify for federal subsidies.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|3–4}} In February 1977, Patricelli made the ADB specification a requirement for buses procured using federal subsidies,<ref name=Reason-80/> shutting out AM General, who had not developed an ADB in parallel with their Transbus prototype, as GM and Flxible had.<ref name=AMGvDOT/>

The changingChanging requirements for Transbus also led to considerable confusion. The Transbus Procurement Requirement (TPR) specifications were first promulgated in 1976, but amended numerous times, occasionally in conflict with prior versions. For instance, in March 1978, TPR were amended to require a single rear axle, but were subsequently amended that August to require tandem rear axles.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|5}}

AM General filed itsa lawsuit against the [[United States Department of Transportation]] in 1976 over the "exclusionary" specifications in the GM RTS contract awarded by the consortium,<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|4}} asserting the new ADB specification requirement to qualify for federal subsidies essentially shut them out of the transit bus market altogether;<ref name=AMGvDOT>{{cite court |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/433/1166/1814278/ |vol=433 |reporter=F.Supp. |opinion=1166 |litigants=AM General Corp. v. Dept. of Transp. |court=[[US District Court for the District of Columbia|D.D.C.]] |date=1977}}</ref> the lawsuit effectively halted all transit bus procurement nationwide.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/28488981/the-philadelphia-inquirer/ |title=It's the best of all possible buses — on paper |author=Tulsky, Frederic S. |date=April 19, 1981 |newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref> AM General's lost their suit in April 1977.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|5}}

[[File:Press conference with John Brademas, Carl Albert, Brock Adams, Thomas P. O'Neill, and John McFall. September 1976.jpg|thumb|right|[[Brock Adams]] (center), at a press conference while serving as a member of Congress (Sep 1976). Seated, L-R: [[John Brademas]], [[Carl Albert]], Adams, [[Thomas P. O'Neill]], and [[John J. McFall]].]]

Incoming Secretary of Transportation [[Brock Adams]] revived the Transbus project, and in May 1977, stated that by October 1979, new buses would have to meet the Transbus specifications to qualify for federal subsidies.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|114}}&nbsp;<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-103–10}}&nbsp;<ref name=Reason-80/> In 1978, the [[San Francisco Municipal Railway]] ruled out Transbus for its forthcoming procurement of accessible buses, noting the undersidelowered floor and undercarriage would get caught on the city's hills.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/37197407/the-san-francisco-examiner/ |title=Bids weighed for buses that handicapped can use |author=Glover, Malcolm |date=August 2, 1978 |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref>

===Bid failure===

The Transbus specification requirement led three transit agencies{{efn|name=79bid}} to request bids for a joint procurement of 530 buses in January 1979.<ref name=Reason-80/> It was estimated that a single Transbus would cost 60% more than a comparable New Look bus, driven mainly by the low-floor requirement, which in turn would require significant developmentinvestments ofto develop axle, drivetrain, suspension, and tirestire technologies. In addition, the terms of the 1979 procurement made the bidders responsible for significant risks and performance guarantees.<ref name=Whitford-83>{{cite journal |url=https://trid.trb.org/view/196256 |title=Federal Government and Integrated Vehicle Development: U.S. Experience |author=Whitford, R.K. |date=1983 |journal=Transportation Research Record |issn=0361-1981 |publisher=Transportation Research Board |issue=909 |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref>

By March 1979, [[Grumman]] Flxible{{efn|[[Grumman]] acquired [[Flxible]] from [[Rohr, Inc.|Rohr]] on January 3, 1978 for {{USD|55000000|1978|round=-4}}. The acquisition included two hand-built prototypes of and the design for the [[Flxible Metro|Model 870]].<ref name=GrummanVRohr>{{cite court |vol=748 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=729 |court=[[United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit|2d Cir.]] |date=1984 |litigants=Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. v. Rohr Industries, Inc. |url=https://casetext.com/case/grumman-allied-industries-v-rohr-industries|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230519101506/https://casetext.com/case/grumman-allied-industries-v-rohr-industries|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 19, 2023}}</ref>}} announced it did not intend to bid on the new contract, and GM stated it was unlikely to bid. The president of Grumman Flxible, Thomas J. Bernard, said that internal estimates put the bid price at {{USD|230000|1979|round=-3}} per bus, nearly double the {{USD|120000|1979|round=-3}} cost per conventional New Look bus, and added the Department of Transportation "has been seeking a more productive bus. We believe that a bus that weighs more, gets fewer miles per gallon, has fewer seats and less standing room is not a more productive bus."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/147073438/ |title=Lack Of Bids Threatens 'Wheelchair' Bus |date=March 14, 1979 |newspaper=The Pittsburgh Press |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref> Flxible also stated that component suppliers (such as [[Rockwell International]], who built transit bus axles) would need federal support to develop the new technologies needed for Transbus, as the limited transit bus market meant most component suppliers were unwilling to develop them.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing/>{{rp|114}}

When the bidding period closed that May, neither GM, Flxible, nor any foreign manufacturers had provided a bid.<ref name=Reason-80/> Secretary Adams said he was "deeply disappointed" that no bids had been received; the companies countered the Transbus design was impossible to implement and their ADB designs already met accessibility requirements.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/147100831/ |title=Transbus: Too Many Design Handicaps, Builders Say |author=Raspberry, William |date=May 9, 1979 |newspaper=The Pittsburgh Press |accessdate=9 October 2020}}</ref> A Congressional hearing was held later in May regarding the failure of the procurement.<ref name=UMTA-oversight-hearing>{{cite report |url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002949644 |title=Oversight of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's Technology Development and Equipment Procurement Programs |date=May 16–22, 1979 |publisher=U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Review, Committee on Public Works and Transportation |accessdate=10 October 2020}}</ref> With the failure of the 1979 procurement, the requirement to procure new, federally subsidized buses to the Transbus specification was suspended in August.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-113–11}}

==Legacy==

Line 96 ⟶ 98:

Transbus is credited with inspiring the simplified ADB specification, changing bus procurement processes, and bringing awareness to the changes that were later made for wheelchair accessibility on transit buses, including the addition of lifts and kneeling bus features.<ref>{{cite report |url=https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/639 |title=Transit Demonstration Projects That Made a Difference |date=June 1996 |publisher=U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation |pages=5–6}}</ref>

Each of the three Transbus manufacturers began marketing transit buses in the 1970s, although each of these newer bus designs had a conventional (high) floor and multiple steps in the entryway. AM General began assembling the Metropolitan, a licensed version of the New Look-based [[Flyer 700/800/900 series|Flyer D700]], in 1974.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-83–8}} The other two bus designs were ADBs, developed independently by GM and Flxible and incorporated some of the Transbus features such as cantilevered seats, smooth exterior construction, and standard air conditioning: GM announced the RTS in 1973 and Rohr/Flxible announced the [[Flxible Metro|Metro/870]] in 1976.<ref name=TBMP>{{cite report |url=https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11394 |title=Transit Bus Manufacturer Profiles |author1=Weiers, B. |author2=Rossetti, M. |date=March 1982 |publisher=U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration |accessdate=5 October 2020}}</ref>{{rp|3-10;3-11}}

Prior to the Transbus project, procurement contracts traditionally were awarded to the lowest bidder. After GM and Flxible introduced their ADB designs, UMTA developed a "White Book" model transit bus procurement specification that provided functional targets with price adjustments for features inherent to the ADBs.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-123–12}}

All three of the Transbus candidate prototype manufacturers eventually left the transit bus market. After losing their suit, AM General left the transit bus market altogether in June 1978.<ref name=TBMP/>{{rp|3-113–11}}&nbsp;<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1978/06/01/archives/amc-to-halt-building-standard-transit-buses-4300-vehicles-sold-over.html |title=A.M.C. to Halt Building Standard Transit Buses |agency=AP |url-access=subscription |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 1, 1978 |accessdate=10 October 2020}}</ref> AM General's exit was preceded by Rohr (who sold Flxible to Grumman in January 1978)<ref name=GrummanVRohr/> and followed by GM (who sold the RTS design and tooling to [[Greyhound Lines]] in January 1987).<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/13/business/company-news-greyhound-to-buy-gm-unit.html |title=Company News; Greyhound To Buy G.M. Unit |author=Yoshihashi, Pauline |date=January 13, 1987 |newspaper=The New York Times |url-access=subscription |accessdate=10 October 2020}}</ref>

==Notes==

Line 109 ⟶ 111:

===Program papers and reports===

* {{cite conference |title=Transbus — Current Developments in Urban Bus Design |doi=10.4271/730217 |author1=Wing, J. |author2= Buckel, H. |author3=Mateyka, J. |journal=SAE Technical Papers |date=1973 |conference=International Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition |issn=0148-7191 |publisher=Society of Automotive Engineers}}

* {{cite conference |url=https://trid.trb.org/View/40995 |title=Transbus-testing and public evaluation (Around the country in 80 days) |author=Atkins, J.F. |conference=Society of Automotive Engineers Conference, West Coast Meeting |date=August 11–14, 1975 |___location=Seattle, Washington}}

* {{cite report |url=https://trid.trb.org/View/51667 |title=The General Motors Transbus |date=May 1975 |author=General Motors Corporation, Truck and Coach Division |publisher=Urban Mass Transportation Administration}}

Line 128 ⟶ 130:

==External links==

{{commons category|Transbus Program}}

* {{cite web |url=https://zavanak.com/transbus/ |title=The US Transbus programme |author=Woodcock, Eric |website=Zavanak |date=7 June 2020 |accessdate=9 October 2020}}

* {{cite magazine |title=A Transit Operator Views Transbus |author=Whitten, C |magazine=Motor Coach Age |date=September 1977 |volume=29 |number=9 |pages=9–16}}

* {{cite magazine |title=Bus Builders Hang in Suspended Innovation |author=McElroy, J |date=December 1978 |volume=158 |number=18 |magazine=Automotive Industries |pages=42–47}}

* {{cite journal |title=Service Quality Implications of Transbus |author1=Polzin, SE |author2=Schofer, JL |journal=ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE|date=September 1979 |volume=105 |number=5 |pages=561–576 |doi=10.1061/TPEJAN.0000813}}

* {{cite thesis |url=https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16149/07916354-MIT.pdf |title=The Role of Federal Government in Fostering Technological Change in Public Transportation: A Case Study of Transbus |author=Azad, Bizhan |date=May 1980 |institution=Massachusetts Institute of Technology |degree=M.S.}}

* {{cite journal |jstor=44725013 |title=A Transit Bus for the 90's |author1=Buckel, H. H. |author2=Steffen, J. H. |date=1981 |journal=SAE Transactions |publisher=Society of Automotive Engineers International |volume=90 |pages=4011–4020}}

{{General Motors buses}}

[[Category:Buses of the United States]]