Transbus Program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:45, 2 May 2022

Latest revision as of 15:33, 27 August 2025

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 28:

'''Transbus''' was announced in December 1970 as a 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 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|3–8}} [[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|4–7}}&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|4–7}} 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 81:

AM General filed a 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 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|3–10}}&nbsp;<ref name=Reason-80/> In 1978, the [[San Francisco Municipal Railway]] ruled out Transbus for its forthcoming procurement of accessible buses, noting the lowered 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|3–11}}

Line 135 ⟶ 136:

* {{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]]