U M TA-M A-06-0 120-84-6

PB85-177509
DOT- TSC-U MT A-84-34

Small Bus Manufac turing

US Department
of Transportation
Industry
Urban Mass
Transportation
Administration
Prepared by January 1985
Transportation Systems Center

REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161
 NOTICE

This document is disseminate d under the sponsorship

of the Department of Transportat ion in the interest
of information exchange, The United States Governmen t
assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof,

NOTICE

The United States Governmen t does not endorse

products or manufacture rs, Trade or manufactur ers'
names appear herein solely because they are considered
' essential to the object of this report,
 T echnicol l(epo~ Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Govert1met1t Acceniotl No. 3. Racipiot1t"1 Catalog No.
UMTA-MA-06-0120-84-6

4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Data

January 1985
Small Bus Manufacturing Industry. 6. Perfo""i"g Orgot~•tot•otl Code
DTS-43
8. Performitlg Orgoni zotion Report No.
~7~.-A-u-t~ho-r~'s~l----------------------------------------------------;
DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-34
Bruce J. Weiers
9. Performing Orgoni zotion Nome ond Addren 10. Work Ut~it No. (TRAIS)
U.S. Department of Transportation MA-06-0120(UM462!~4n2g)
Research and Special Programs Administration 11. Contract or Grant No.
Transportation Systems Center MA-06-0120
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 13. Type of Report Otld Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond---------------
~~--------~--~~ Addreu ---------~
U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report
Urban Mass Transportation Administration March 1983-0ctober 1984
400 Seventh Street, S~W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D. C. 20590 URT-20
15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abatroct

This report is an examination of the small bus manufacturing industry with the
objectives of: 1) providing a systematic understanding of the diversity of
vehicle types and manufacturers and 2) identifying important economic trends in
the industry that have implications on public transit. This study identified
five broad categories of small vehicles which have been adapted to transit appli~·
cations. These categories are: school buses; step vans; motor homes; vans and
van cutaways; and purpose-built buses. The report discusses the development of
the standard bus and small transit bus and gives a history and discussion of the
five categories of small vehicles. Some of the findings of the study are that in
recent years, there are signs that the industry is maturing with a trend toward
fewer, larger, more committed manufacturers of purpose-built vehicles.

Appendix A in the report is: Small Transit Vehicle Manufacturing Profile and
Appendix B is: Federal Agencies and Industry Associations.

17. Key Words 18. Oiatriltution Statement

Buses; Chassis; Motor Homes; Pur- Available to the Public through the
pose-Built Buses; School Buses; National Technical Information Service,
Small Bus Manufacturers; Small Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Buses; Standard-Size Transit Buses;
Vans; Economic Trends -
19. Security Clauif. (of thia report) 20. Security Clauif. (of thia page) 121. No. of Pages I 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified
I j_

Form DOT F 1700.7 <8-72> Reproduction of completed pogo authorized

•I
.
 PREFACE

This repor t is an exam inatio n of the small bus manu

factu ring indu stry. The
study iden tifie s four vehic le categ ories which have
been adapt ed to trans it
vehic le appli catio n and the mode rniza tion proce ss
which intro duce d a new set of
comp anies in the trans it mark et.

The work was spons ored by the U.S. Depa rtmen t of Tran
sport ation , Urban Mass
Tran sport ation Adm inistr ation , Offic e of Tech nical
Assis tance , Wash ingto n, DC.
The study was perfo rmed by the U.S. Depa rtmen
t of Tran sport ation ,
Resea rch and Spec ial Progr ams Adm inistr ation ,
Tran sport ation Syste ms Cent er,
Camb ridge , MA.

Preceding page blank iii

 MET RIC CONVERSION FACTORS

23
Approximate Conversions from Metric Measures
9
Approximate Conversions to Metri c Measures - 22
Multip ly by To find Symbol
--- ~ Symbol When You Know
21
Multip ly by To Find Symbol
Symbol When You Know ~ LENGTH
8 20
in
LENGTH - ~ 19 mm millim eters 0.04
0.4
inches
inc:hn in
=-- em c:entimeters
3.3 feet ft
_ = 18 m meters yd
-2..6 centim eters em meters 1.1 yards
in inchel
30 centim eteR em 1 =-- m
0.6 miles mi
ft feet - := km kilome ters
0..8 meters m 17
yd y~rdl
kilome ters km
mi miMI 1.6
-- ~ 16 AREA
~ aquare inches in2
AREA cm2 aquare c:entim eterl 0.16
6 - - 16 square yerds ycfl
m2 aquare meters 1.2
square centim eters ~ 0.4 squere miles mi2
inl lq&Mre inchel 6.6 _ _ km2 square kilome ters
0,08 square metera rrfJ. 14 hecW'ea (10,000 rrf/.1 2.6 Ktes
ft2 ~q&Mre feet he
o.a square metera rrfJ.
vdZ IQUIII'e verda
~quare kilome tera km2
filii ~QUare miMI 2.6 ha _ - 13
0.4 hectar es
IleAl 6 - --
: MASS (weight)
_ - 12
~· MASS (weight) 0.036 ouncea oz
--- - g grams
28 grama g 11 2.2 pound s lb
oz ouncea ;:;, kg k1lograms
0.46 kilograma kg tonnea (1000 kg} 1.1 lhort tons
lb pound l t _ t
ahort tons 0.8 tonna 4 10
(2000 lbl
E"- VOLUME
- 9
VOLU ME
0.03 fluid ounc:es fl oz
- - ml milliliters pt
5 millilit er• ml 8 2.1 pints
Up teespO Ons -:: I liters qt
16 millilit ers ml 3 1.06 quens
Tblp UOI8Ip oona _ I liters gal
30 millilit ers ml 7 0.26 ganons
ft oz fluid ouncea 1 I liters
ftl
cups 0.24 liters cubic meters 36 cubic feet
c ----- _ ml ydl
0.47 liter~ 1 cubic meters 1.3 cubic yards
pt pints _ 6 ml
0.96 liter~ 1
qt querta
I
gal gellona 3.B liters
: - 5 TEMPERATURE (exact)
ml 2
ttl cub~teet 0.03 cubH: meten
cubic metera ml
yctJ cubiC verda 0. 76 Of
fahren heit
TEMPERATURE (exact)
--...:=- -_ 4 °C Celsius
tempe rature
9/51th en
add 321 tempe rature

°F Fahren heit 6/9 (after Celsius oc -=- _

3
Of
212
tempe rature 1 32 Q8.6
aubuac :ting Of
templl 'ature
32}
- 2
-40 0 140I 1 I I I 80I I I ~ 120
1I
160 2001
I
- 1I I I I I II I II I I I II
- - 1 (I I I I I I
llona end more detail tebl• - 40 60 80 100
1 ln. • 2.&4 em (eKec:d•") • Fot other eKec:t conver --= -40 -20 20
OC
t 8f\d w-re e. Prlce$ 2..26 SD C.telo g oc 0 37
NBS Mlel:. Publ. 286. Units of Welth inche& _ _ em
No. C13 10 285.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sect ion
Page
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Over view of the Indu stry

1.2 Clas sific atio n of Sma ll Buse s 1
1.3 Esti mati ng Veh icle Demand 2
7
2. HISTORY
10
2.1 Deve lopm ent of the Stan dard Tran sit Bus
2.2 Deve lopm ent of the Sma ll Tran sit Bus 10
13
2.2.1 Scho ol Buse s
2.2. 2 Step Vans 16
2.2. 3 Motor Homes 19
2.2. 4 Vans and Van Cuta ways 21
2.2. 5 Purp ose- Buil t Buse s 23
25
3. MARKET DEMAND
28
3.1 Back grou nd
3.2 The Mark et for Stan dard -Siz e Tran sit Buse 28
s 32
3.3 Spec ial Feat ures and Sma ll Buse s
3.4 Dur abil ity and Sma ll Buse s 33
38
4. TRENDS IN THE SMALL BUS INDUSTRY
42
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
51
APPENDIX A SMALL TRANSIT VEHICLE MANUFACTURING PROF
ILE A-1
APPENDIX B - FEDERAL AGENCIES AND INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATIONS B-1
GLOSSARY
G-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibl .-1

v/vi
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Smal l tran sit buse s are esse ntial to many publ

ic trans port ation serv ices
and form an esse ntial elem ent in the natio n's
syste m of publ ic tran spor tatio n.
For deca des, smal l tran sit buse s have serve d
as the work horse s of many smal l
city and rura l tran sit syste ms and are used
in many large urba nized area s for
para tran sit serv ices . The oper ation al capa bilit
ies of smal l vehi cles fill a
defi nite void betw een fixed -rou te tran sit coac
hes and the priv ate auto or taxi
serv ice. To a much grea ter exte nt than stan
dard -size tran sit buse s, smal l
tran sit buse s are used by publ ic serv ice agen
cies and by priv ate busi ness es,
inclu ding churc h grou ps and airp ort shut tle
serv ices .
This study exam ined the smal l bus manu factu ring
indu stry with the dual
obje ctive s of prov iding a syste mati c unde rstan
ding of the dive rsity of vehi cle
type s and manu factu rers and of iden tifyi ng impo
rtant econo mic trend s in the
indu stry that have impl icati ons on publ ic tran
sit.
Desp ite the many disp arate and high ly visib le
uses of smal l tran sit buse s,
the indu stry which manu factu res them has rema
ined obsc ure. No indu stry
asso ciati on exis ts; no relia ble stat istic s conc
ernin g smal l bus prod uctio n or
use are prod uced . Even the iden tific atio n of
curr ent manu factu rers and vehi cle
desig n can be a diff icul t prob lem.

The reaso ns for the dive rse natu re of this indu

stry appe ar to be both
histo rica l and relat ed to the mark et for smal
l buse s. The rela tive ly shor t
histo ry of tran sit bus deve lopm ent shows that
modern smal l buse s have evol ved,
in a large meas ure, from othe r vehi cle type s,
such as vans and recr eatio nal
vehi cles. The nece ssity for a smal l tran sit
bus was not recog nized unti l well
afte r stand ard tran sit buse s had evolv ed to
thei r pres ent dime nsion s. To meet

Preceding page blank

vii
the wide variety of needs, small vehicle s, origina lly develope d for other

purpose s, had to be modified and develope d as transit vehicle s.

The study identifi ed five broad categor ies of vehicles which have been

adapted to transit applica tions. Four derivati ve vehicles are school buses,

forward cGntrol chassis delivery trucks or step vans, motor homes, and vans

(includi ng van cutaway s). In the process of moderni zation, a new set of

compani es were introduc ed into the transit bus market. Declines in motor home,

recreati onal vehicle (van) and school bus sales during the 1970s motivate d the

entrance of those industr ial manufac turers into the transit market. This

resulted in a large number of manufac turers offering a variety of vehicle

concept s. In the mid-197 0s, the develop ers of derivati ve vehicles were joined

by an increasi ng number of builders of purpose -built small buses. Offering

superio r durabil ity, builders of purpose -built buses added a fifth category of

buses and manufac turers to the market.

The diversit y of vehicles is maintain ed by a small bus market which demands

buses with a wide range of special features and durabil ity. In contras t to

standard transit buses, which are designed primaril y for a single, specific type

of service (fixed-r oute urban transit service ), and a single category of users

(urban transit systems ), small buses are designed for dispara te services and

users. There appears to be little effectiv e competi tion by small buses with

standard transit buses for the most common transit services . Where the service

carries a high peak load and involves a duty cycle requirin g heavy duty design

(e.g., a duty cycle requirin g high mileage , many stops, and slow speeds), then

standard transit buses have a decisive advantag e over small buses. On the other

hand, the smaller size, lower price or special features (i.e., low floors,

viii
 whe elch air acco mm oda tion s) of sma
ll bus es are dec isiv e adv anta ges
for cer tain
tra nsi t ser vic es and ope rati ons .

Stu dyi ng the div ers ity in the sma

ll tra nsi t bus man ufa ctur ing ind ustr
y has
unc ove red a number of imp orta nt tren
ds, in this rela tive ly young ind ust
ry.
Eve nts in the "pa ren t" ind ust ries
of many of the se man ufa ctur ers hav
e som etim es
had a larg e imp act on the sma ll bus
ind ust ry. Ste ep dec line s in rec rea
tion al
veh icle demand, twi ce in the 197
0s, cau sed many rec rea tion al vec hic
le bui lde rs
firs t to try to man ufac ture bus es
to off set lag gin g sale s in the ir
main mar ket,
and the n, forc ed many of tho se sam
e bui lde rs out of bus ine ss ent irel
y, cre atin g
a good dea l of ins tab ilit y in the
sma ll bus mar ket. The re are sign
s tha t the
ind ustr y is mat urin g wit h a tren d
tow ard invo lvem ent by few er, larg
er and more
com mitt ed man ufa ctur ers. Sev era
l com pan ies hav e inv este d in man
ufac turi ng
fac ilit ies esp eci ally to pro duc e
bus es for tra nsi t use . Pur pos e-b
uilt bus es are
now offe red by sev era l man ufa ctur
ers and in sev era l size s and ser vic
e
con figu rati ons .

The re is like ly to be inc rea sing

pre ssu re from bus and bus bod y
man ufa ctur ers for com pon ent des ign
s whi ch wil l be more dur able in com
mer cial and·
tra nsi t dut y cyc les. Thi s may res
ult in exp erim enta tion wit h more
for eig n-b uilt
cha ssis and com pon ents , sinc e the
re are only two or thre e dom esti c
sup plie rs of
the mos t commonly used cha ssis and
a sim ilar ly lim ited number of sup
plie rs for
maj or com pon ents , suc h as eng ine
s, tran smi ssio ns and axl es.
Bec ause of div ers ity in veh icle typ
es and dur abi liti es, the nee d to
est abl ish ind ust rial stan dar ds for
sma ll bus es is acu te at this stag
e of
dev elop men t. Len gthy and elab ora
te bid spe cifi cat ion s, pre par ed wit
hou t
refe ren ce to tec hni cal stan dar ds,
are a prob lem to both man ufa cutr ers
and
ope rato rs. As a res ult , man ufa ctur
ers are like ly to con side r join ing
tog eth er

ix
to esta blish tran sit stand ards . The orde rly and prof essio nal deve lopm ent of
eting thei r prod ucts and in
stand ards would assi st the manu factu rers in mark
basi s of good prac tice. Tran sit
defen ding a mark et posi tion estab lishe d on the
reme nt proc edur es, impr oved qual ity
oper ators would bene fit from simp lifie d procu

and safe ty assu ranc es.

ction of more stab le
Desp ite the matu ring of the indu stry into a colle
to othe r mark ets for smal l
firm s, the size of the tran sit mark et rela tive
al demand for smal l buse s for
vehi cles is likel y to rema in smal l. The annu
, compared to an annu al demand for
tran sit appl icati ons appe ars to be unde r 3000
cutaw ays and 19,00 0 moto r homes.
25,00 0 scho ol buse s, 18,00 0 recr eatio nal van
g smal l vehi cles will cont inue to
The subo rdina te posi tion of tran sit buse s amon
sit buse s. The strat egie s and
adve rsely affe ct the deve lopm ent of smal l tran
in the tran sit mark et will also
reso urce s of firms ente ring or part icipa ting
d by even ts in the othe r, larg er
cont inue to be influ ence d, and perh aps deter mine

mark ets for vehi cles of simi lar size .

X
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY

Buses manuf acture d in the Unite d State s have tradi tiona

lly fallen into
three broad class ificat ions relati ng to their opera tion
and desig n. These
categ ories are trans it, inter city and schoo l bus. Altho ugh inade quate for
descr ibing the indus try in detai l, these categ ories have
served to conve y
certa in broad gener alizat ions. Inter city and trans it buses , gener ally, have
been thoug ht of as large (up to 40 feet in length ) and
heavy -duty, while schoo l
buses have been viewe d as small er, mediu m-dut y vehic les.
Inter city and trans it
buses have been the produ cts of one group of manu factur
ers lead by such
compa nies as Gener al Motor s and Greyh ound, all of whom
built compl ete vehic les.
Schoo l buses , on the other hand, have often been viewe
d as the joint produ cts of
a group of truck manu factur ers who suppl y chass is and
anoth er group of schoo l
bus body build ers who compl ete the vehic les.

This tradi tiona l overv iew of the indus try, forms a usefu
l starti ng
framew ork by introd ucing the idea that there are separ
ate group s of compa nies in
bus manu factur ing, each group with a speci alized produ
ct. It is also usefu l for
introd ucing the conce pt that build ing a bus body on a
purch ased chass is (body -
on-ch assis const ructio n) is an altern ative to build ing
a compl ete vehic le from
the groun d up (integ ral const ructio n). Final ly, it may
be noted that this
tradi tiona l view under lies the under stand ing which many
in the bus manu factur ing
indus try and the trans it community have of the struc ture
of the bus
manu factur ing indus try. However, the subje ct of this repor t - the small bus
manu factur ing indus try - does not exact ly match any of
the three categ ories
previ ously descr ibed. After caref ul exami nation of the small bus manu factur ing
indus try, it was found that nearl y every assum ption of
the tradi tiona l view
would be a force fit in this discu ssion . The diver se struc ture of the small bus

tradi tiona l view.

manu factur ing indus try confo unds to the tidine ss of the
diver sity, and a major
There fore, this repor t is delib erate ly focuse d on this
make possi ble a new,
analy tical effor t is made to expla in it in a way that will
that inclu des small
ration alize d view of the bus manu factur ing indus try - one

buses .
in the main body of
Indiv idual manu factur ers are not exten sively discu ssed
in Appendix A.
the repor t, but brief profi les of compa nies are prese nted

1.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL BUSES

t to mean all
The term "smal l bus" is used very broad ly in this repor
or trans it use which
passe nger highway conve yance s appro priate for comm ercial
buses . This range
are large r than vans and small er than stand ard trans it
in appea rance and
encom passes sever al varie ties of buses diffe ring widel y

appli catio n.
refle cting the
The task of divid ing the small bus marke t into segme nts
in sever al previo us
vario us vehic le types and marke t niche s has been attem pted
d wides pread accep tance in
·stud ies and paper s, but no singl e system has yet gaine

the indus try and the trans it community. The inabi lity to settle on a
the evolv ing, chang ing
class ifica tion scheme refle cts both the comp lexity and

chara cter of the indus try.

Two bases for class ifica tion are readi ly appea ling. One would be based on

the bus relate d to a

marke t niche s and a refere nce to some chara cteris tic of
vehic le type and an
parti cular type of servi ce. The other would be based on
The latte r basis of
exami nation of physi cal chara cteris tics of the vehic le.
to refle ct the
class ifica tion is the one used in this repor t, modif ied
a varie ty of
histo rical develo pment of small buses as they evolv ed from

diffe rent small vehic le "pare nts."

2
 The former classi ficati on would be simila r to the way market
segme nts for
cars are identi fied, with refere nces, perhap s, to size and cost,
as in"econ omy
subcom pact" or "mid-p riced luxury car." The troubl e with develo ping such a
system is that market niches are not well define d; more might
yet be develo ped,
and many bus models appear able to satisf y the requir ement s
of severa l market
areas.

Table displa ys the classi ficati on scheme used in this report . It is a

scheme based on vehicl e chara cteris tics and origin s rather than
market niches ,
and it includ es vehicl e catego ries in which the buses are not
neces sarily
"small " in the sense of being betwee n a standa rd van and a standa
rd transi t bus
in size. This approa ch to classi fying the buses curren tly being produc
ed is
more realis tic and comple te than one which tried to segreg ate
buses arbitr arily
by length or some other size criter ia. The modifi ed van, van cutawa y, small
forwar d contro l chass is, and variou s purpo se-bui lt manuf acture
rs are the ones
which produc e most buses for transi t uses and are the ones on
which discus sion
in this report will conce ntrate . However, brief comments will be made on the
others .

The listin g of models and chassi s in Table 1 should not be consid

ered
compl ete. Due to the numero us compa nies willin g to fabric ate custom bus
chassi s
or to supply them from abroad makes it impos sible to be compl
ete in the chassi s
manuf acturin g catego ry. The list of comple te bus models is also defici ent. The
very large number of local compa nies, includ ing garage s and
body shops, which
can modify a van makes it impos sible to do more than list a
few repres entati ve
names which may be known nation ally. Other catego ries also may not be compl ete.
Impor ters have been omitte d throug hout as not a signif icant
factor , althou gh
there have always been a few compa nies active in that field
and, of course , many
more with the poten tial.

3
 TABLE 1. SMALL BUS CLASSES

CHASSIS COMPLETE BUS

VEHICLE TYPE MANUFACTURER1 (Manuf acturer and Model Name)1

VAN N/A G.M.

Standar d Van Ford
Dodge

Genera l Motors Forti van Nation al Coach Escort

Modifie d (conve rted) Van
Ford Ward Minuteman Turtle Top Terra
Dodge Nation al Custom Van

G.M. Forti bus Bluebir d Microb ird

Van Cutaway Chassis
Ford Thomas Minota ur Ward Vanguard
Dodge Wayne Chaperone El Dorado People Mover
Collins Omni/Bus Champion Bus

TRUCK CHASSIS
Forward Contro l Chassis Wolver ine Coach and Equipment CL series
Small Western Flxette
Genera l Motors Bluebir d Minibi rd Thomas Mighty Mite

Large Interna tional Carpen ter Cavali er Ward Patrio t

Harves ter Bluebir d All American
*
Medium Truck Chassis Genera l Motors Bluebir d Conven tional Ward Volunt eer
(conve ntional school bus) Ford Thomas Conven tional Carpen ter
Interna tional Wayne Lifegua rd Conven tional
Harves ter
Bluebir d All Carpen ter Corsai r
Rear Engine Bus Chassis * America n RE
Thomas Transi t Liner ER

PURPOSE-BUILT
25 1 N/A Chance RT 50

26' low floor N/A Orion I I

Neoplan Lit'l Bus
Skill craft

30' N/A Gillig Phantom Thomas Citilin er

Bluebir d Citibus
Carpen ter CBW 300

*Bus body builde rs commonly build their own chassis

N/A - not applica ble.
1 List is not exhaus tive.

4
 The catego ries used in Table 1 are formed into three groups , labele
d van,
truck chassi s and purpo se-bui lt. This groupi ng reflec ts histor ical origin s
discus sed in Chapte r 2. It should be noted that the chassi s groupe d under the
term, truck chassi s, have been modifi ed, in some cases extens ively,
from truck
chassi s for use in buses. Rear engine bus chassi s may have no
relatio nship to
any curren t produc tion truck chassi s other than the use of a beam
frame and some
simila r compo nentry .

Medium truck chassi s are used to produc e conve ntiona l school buses.

(Conv ention al school buses are by far the most common type and
can be identi fied
by their chara cteris tic truck nose.) Large forwar d contro l chassi s and rear
engine bus chassi s buses are commonly built for use as large capac
ity school
buses and "mediu m-duty " transi t buses. They can be built in length up to 40
feet and thus can equal or exceed standa rd transi t buses in seated
passen ger
capac ity. The armed servic es are often cited as a major market for these
buses.
The scheme in Table 1 highli ghts differ ent bus chassi s config
uratio ns.
Vans are probab ly most famili ar and requir e little discus sion.
"Van cutawa y"
simply means that the van chassi s is sold withou t a body behind
the front door
to anothe r manuf acutur er who compl etes the vehicl e by constr ucting
a body.
"Forwa rd contro l" means that the engine and drive r's contro ls
are locate d above
or in front of the front axle. Forwar d contro l design s help to
increa se the
passen ger capac ity within a given length vehicl e by elimin ating
the long front
hood seen on conve ntiona l vehicl es (e.g., most trucks ) and make
it easier to
design a vehicl e with a low, flat floor. Rear engine design s,
with the engine
locate d beneat h the floor, are anothe r way of maxim izing passen
ger capac ity
within a given vehicl e length .

The term, purpo se-bui lt, is used in Table 1 to indica te buses

which are not
deriva tive in design from other vehicl es. It is used instea d
of anothe r, older
term - integr al constr uction - which is laden with conno tation
s liable to
5
provoke argumen t. In the traditio nal view referred to earlier, buses could be

divided neatly between body-on -chassis and integral constru ction. A body-on -

chassis bus was a bus body bolted on a truck chassis whose frame is centered on

two heavy beams running the length of the vehicle. The chassis could be built

by one manufac turer and the body another in what was referred as a two-stag e

manufac turing process. The integra l construc tion bus, by contras t, was built by

one manufac turer alone. Heavy beams were not used in the frame. Instead, the

whole body of the bus was strength ened and the frames supporti ng the chassis

compone nts were simply extended from the bus body. A key distingu ishing feature

between a body-on -chassis and integra l constru ction was that the body of a body-

on-chas sis bus could be unbolted and removed and the remainin g chassis could

still be driven away as a unit. An integra l construc tion bus, however , was a

unit and could not be disassem bled in this way.

Other differen ces between integra l construc tion and body-on -chassis were

also thought to be readily apparen t. Because integra l constru ction buses had

stronge r bodies and heavier- duty compone nts, they were recogniz ed as superior in

durabil ity. Body-on -chassis buses, taking advantag e of the economi es of scale

·in truck (chassis ) producti on and cheaper compone nts and producti on methods ,

could claim economy in price.

Unfortu nately, in recent years the distinct ions between body-on -chassis and

integra l constru ction have blurred. Bus body builders have chosen to build

their own chassis and chassis for integra l constru ction buses have been sold.

Neither manufac turer has been willing to concede claims of durabil ity and the

term, integra l constru ction, has been applied to virtuall y every conceiv able

design by ardent salesmen .

Calling some bus models "integra lly construc ted" in this report could

easily be miscons trued as an assertio n about durabil ity or about design

6
 appr oach . Ther efore , the term , purp ose- built , has been
subs titut ed. Even this
term does resu lt in suff icien tly fine disti ncti
ons. In Tabl e 1, it could be
argu ed that the categ ory, rear engin e bus chas
sis buse s, fit in the purp ose-
buil t grou p. The prod ucer s of these vehi cles
do not usua lly purc hase chas sis;
they build thei r own. Thei r rear engin e buse
s are not dire ctly a deriv ative of
a truck or othe r vehi cle. Stil l, it is appa
rent that this categ ory is dist inct
from cate gori es in the purp ose- built . Use of
a beam fram e and hist oric al
asso ciati ons with truck s from days when truck
build ers supp lied the rear engin e
chas sis was enough to put them in the truck chas
sis grou p.

1.3 ESTIMATING VEHICLE DEMAND

Today, there are no comp rehen sive natio nal stat

istic s publ ished indi catin g
eith er the prod uctio n or sale s of smal l tran sit
vehi cles, nor is there any
gene rally acce pted method for arriv ing at an
estim ate of sale s or prod uctio n.
The prob lems inhe rent in making an estim ate of
the vehi cle popu latio n,
sale s or prod uctio n are compounded by seve ral
circu msta nces . Firs t, the mark et
is frac tion ated , as indic ated by the large numb
er of diffe rent type s of user s.
No asso ciati on of user s comp rises a large enoug
h frac tion of the mark et to
prov ide any stat istic s usef ul for estim ating
the whol e. (This is in cont rast to
tran sit buse s, scho ol buse s and inte rcity buse
s, the prim ary user s of whic h are
orga nized to deve lop and exch ange infor mati on
on thei r vehi cles .) Seco nd, the
categ ory, "sma ll bus" span s a wide vari ety of
vehi cle type s, and inclu des both
manu factu rers of incom plete chas sis and comp
lete vehi cles. Thus , there is more
than ampl e oppo rtuni ty in any estim ating proc
edur e to conf use type s and to
doub le-co unt betw een chas sis and vehi cles. *

*An attem pt was made in this study to assem ble

a coun t based on infor mati on
volu ntee red by manu factu rers, but it had to be
aban done d when it became clea r
that only a tight ly-ad mini stere d surve y could
prod uce relia ble data , and it was
deter mine d that a surv ey would be beyond the
scop e of the proj ect.

7
 sma ll tran sit veh icle demand is
The info rma tion whi ch is ava ilab le on
rep orts
n Pub lic Tra nsit Ass ocia tion (APTA)
fair ly lim ited in scop e. The America
sit
to tran sit syst ems and the tota l tran
on the number of new bus es deli ver ed
1981,
bus size by the number of sea ts. In
flee t in the u.s. APTA dist ing uish es
only
sea ts or less . Thi s number is clea rly
153 new buse s were deli vere d with 29
icat e
es bein g bui lt, and serv es more to ind
a por tion of the number of sma ll bus
l
tran sit syst ems than to mea sure tota
how few are bein g purc hase d by city

demand.
s
is sim ilar ly lim ited . The Urban Mas
The Fed eral gov ernm ent' s info rma tion
col lect s info rma tion from tran sit
Tra nsp orta tion Adm inis trat ion (UMTA)
In FY82,
the ir Sec tion 15 rep orti ng syst em.
aut hor itie s on the ir flee ts thro ugh
to be
ons e serv ices (wh ich may be assumed
the tota l of veh icle s in demand resp
bus es with few er than 35 sea ts was
alm ost all sma ll bus es) and tran sit

app roxi mat ely 550 0.

ng
gen eral purv iew of Sec tion 15 rep orti
The re are UMTA prog ram s out side the
tion
tion to sma ll bus es. They are the Sec
syst em which are of inte res t in rela
l tran spo rtat ion for the eld erly and
16(b )2 gra nt prog ram , whi ch aids loca
l
tion 18 gra nt prog ram , which aids rura
han dica ppe d thro ugh the stat es and Sec
er
no sta tist ics on veh icle purc hase s und
tran sit. UMTA, unf ortu nate ly, keep s
some
16(b )2 coo rdin ator s in 1983 yiel ded
thes e prog ram s. Inq uiri es to stat e
abo ut
l 16(b )2 flee t in thos e 31 stat es was
info rma tion from 31 stat es. The tota
5
stan dard or mod ifie d van s and abo ut
4300 veh icle s, of which 60 perc ent were
The rem aind er were mos tly sma ll bus es.
perc ent were stan dard tran sit bus es.
mpl ete. Inq uiri es made in 1983 to
Info rma tion on Sec tion 18 is sti ll inco
erat ed rep lies from 11 stat es. Most
ind ivid ual stat es for info rma tion gen
ense s;
for ope rati ng and adm inis trat ive exp
Sec tion 18 fund s are app aren tly spe nt

8
the prop ortio n expen ded in capit al purch ases varie
d wide ly among the state s
respo nding . Nothi ng posit ive could be concl uded
about the number of vehic les in
"Sec tion 18 fleet s" or the number purch ased annu ally.

The botto m line on estim ating smal l bus demand or

produ ction appea rs to be
that any estim ate is likel y to be littl e bette r than
a guess . Orde rs of
magn itude can be given , based on very limit ed hard
data and somewhat unce rtain
defin ition s. Based on limit ed infor matio n abou t
some indiv idual manu factu rer's
produ ction , it appea rs that produ ction of smal l,
purp ose-b uilt buses in the u.s.
is betwe en 500 and 1000 annu ally. Combining these
with body on truck or van
chas sis (but exclu ding modi fied vans) yield s an order
of magn itude estim ate of
annua l small bus produ ction of 1800 to 3000 units
. Of cours e, these numbers
would inclu de many buses not sold as trans it vehic
les, per se.

9
 2. HISTORY

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARD TRANSIT BUS

The motor bus is a descen dant of the autom obile. Althou gh self-p ropell ed

not until the

vehicl es were invent ed as early as the eighte enth centur y, it was
began. In
late ninete enth centur y that seriou s develo pment of the autom obile
ered vehicl e.
Germany, 1895, Karl Benz built an eight passen ger, gasoli ne-pow
motor bus.
This vehicl e is cited in the Encyc lopedi a Britta nica as the first
is claime d
In 1900, the Mack Brothe rs produc ed a 12 passen ger vehicl e which

to be the first bus in the United States . The primac y of these vehicl es has
succes s of their
been greatl y enhanc ed by the subseq uent, histor ic, comme rcial
uses, even
makers ; and doubt less, other more obscur e examp les of early motorb

some anteda ting these, could be found. From this, it can be noted that

motorb uses were among the earlie st motor vehicl es develo ped.
comme rcial
Autom otive pionee rs develo ped buses becaus e they were seekin g

applic ations for their invent ions. One of their models was the horse- drawn

omnibus which rode on rails in most cities before the turn of the centur y.

(The term "bus" is a deriva tive of omnib us.) Omnibuses were being replac ed in
It was in
many cities by electr ic street cars at the turn of the centur y.
of buses were
relati on to street rail system s that early transi t applic ations
servic e to the
develo ped. Motorb uses were first used as experi ments for feeder
the lines.
street rail system s, and as a more econom ical means of extend ing
replac ed the
Becaus e of poor servic e and numerous tracti on strike s, motorb uses
operat ed jitney
street cars in many cities before the first World War. Privat ely
before 1920.
buses were more domina nt than regula rly schedu led transi t buses
large,
Early buses, like the jitney , were small; the techno logy to build

but still practi cal, road vehicl es was slow to develo p. In all impor tant

10
 technica l respects , passeng er cars remained indistin guishab le from trucks or

buses until World War I. The developm ent of steel wheels (1906) and large
pneumat ic tires (1916) propelle d the developm ent of heavier vehicles (trucks and

buses) for commerc ial purpose s.

Air brakes were first demonst rated on an experim ental motor coach in 1921

and had been widely adopted on buses by the mid-192 0's.

Fageol Safety Coach is most usually credited with the first chassis

speciall y designed for bus use. It was lower, had a longer wheelba se and a
wider tread than an ordinary truck chassis (1922). Fageol can also be credited
with the first integra l constru ction bus (1927).

Yellow Coach (later, GMC Truck and Coach Division of General Motors)

introduc ed an aluminum monocoque body bus in 1931, which was over two tons

lighter than previous designs. Aluminum monocoque design, exempli fied in the
"New Look" (c. 1959), was the standard of the industry for over 40 years.

Diesel engines were first used in commerc ial trucks in 1932. In the same
year, Clessie Cummins drove across the country in a diesel-p owered bus to

demonst rate its practic ality. Use of diesels in commerc ial buses began around
1936. Yellow Coach (General Motors) adopted diesels as a regular producti on

option in 1938. 1938 was also the first year for the transver se-moun ted engine

and the automat ic transmis sion.

Through out the 1930s, the bus manufac turing industry had many firms

competin g with a diversit y of models. Among the leading firms, in addition to

General Motors (Yellow Coach), were Mack Trucks, White Motor, Fageol Twin Coach,

ACF Brill, and Ford Motor Co. A large number of smaller firms also competed .
Although the technolo gy of larger buses was develop ing, there was no

inexorab le trend in that directio n. Without an intersta te highway system,

intercit y buses were still largely rural feeders to the railroad s; and

11
streetcars were still used along the most heavily-traveled urban routes. The

necessity of a transporting school children led many smaller companies to

specialize in building school buses, marketing their products at first locally

or regionally.

Standardization of transit buses, accompanied by a marked reduction of the

number of firms, occured in the late 1940s and 1950s. Immediately after the

Second World War, demand for new transit buses reached unprecendented levels as

bus operators sought to replace buses worn-out during the war when production

for civilian demand had been curtailed. The shutdown of many streetcar systems

furthered this demand. Deliveries of new transit buses exceeded 12,000 in 1947.

By 1950, this demand had been satiated and sales volume for the industry reached

record low levels.

Transit and intercity bus production in the 1950s in the U.S. averaged

about 3500 units with transit accounting for about 70 percent of the total.

(School bus production, although growing, was by the 1950's the exclusive

province of a separate group of manufacturers.) Ford Motor Co. pulled out of

the industry in 1950. In 1953, General Motors introduced air suspension, a

major innovation. Rather than match G.M., White Motor and ACF Brill elected to

leave the transit industry; Fageol Twin Coach sold its bus manufacturing

operation to the Flxible Company, then a builder of small intercity coaches.

The consolidation of the industry continued after 1959 when G.M. introduced

its "New Look" model. Mack, after a brief attempt to market an intercity model,

elected to withdraw rather than match G.M. with a new transit bus. Flxible

decided to stay in, and by 1961 had introduced his own "New Look" model, nearly

identical to the G.M. Model.

The "New Look" models brought the industry to the extreme of a trend toward

standardization which had begun in the late 1940s. In 1948, G.M. introduced

12
the first 40-foot transit coach. About the same time, 35 feet was being

considered as a standard length for a transit bus. It was also about this time

that G.M. began building 30-foot versions of their 35-foot buses.

The introduction of the "New Look" a decade later further strengthened the

concept that the same bus body design would be produced in 30-, 35-, and 40-foot

versions. The 35- and 40-foot buses used common powertrains; special lighter

components were required for the 30-foot version.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SMALL TRANSIT BUS

The events of the 1950's established the 35- and 40-foot transit bus as

standard and had reduced the number of major competitors in the marketplace to

two. In the process, small transit buses had virtually disappeared. In 1947,
the peak year for transit bus production, nearly 6000 of the 12,000 new buses

delivered to transit systems were small (i.e., had fewer than 40 seats). In
fact, almost 2000 of these small buses had fewer than 30 seats. But, by 1960,

according to the American Public Transit Association, only 173 of the 2806 buses

delivered to transit systems in that year, had fewer than 40 seats; none had

fewer than 30 seats.

For a number of reasons, large transit buses were naturally to be preferred

for the bulk of transit operations. Their components had been specially

designed for durability in transit service and a high degree of design and

component standardization enhanced efficient maintenance. Their size and

passenger capacity had been pushed to practical limits to maximize driver

productivity. Nevertheless, the concentration on the production of large,

standard transit buses had created a void where smaller vehicles were concerned.

13
The evolution of transit buses had led away from small vehicles. When demand
for small transit buses was again felt in the 1960s, it was necessary to look

beyond virtually defunct small bus sector of the transit bus manufacturi ng

industry for a source of supply.

Seyeral other small specialty vehicles had been developed during the 1930s

and '40s, and several more were to be introduced during the 1950s -70s. The
manufacture rs involved in the development of these vehicles acquired the

expertise and resources to design new small buses.

In 1960, there were several manfacturin g groups who would qualify as

candidates for the small transit bus industry. First, there was the transit
(and intercity) bus manufacturi ng industry, consisting primarily of the Flxible

Company and the GMC Truck and Coach Division of General Motors. Both of these
offered small transit vehicles at various times during the 1960s and 1970s.

Second, there were the major automobile and truck manufacture rs. In addition to
General Motors, there were Ford, Chrysler, Internation al Harvester, Mack, White

Motor and Studebaker (later AM General). G.M., Ford, Chrysler and Internation al
Harvester have all been active builders of chassis for school buses and other

small buses. The other companies have demonstrate d little interest in small

transit buses.

A third group of candidate small transit bus manufacture rs was represented

by the truck and bus body building industry. Two sectors of that industry had
particular experience which increased their potential as small bus builders.

The builders of multi-stop delivery vans (step vans) were familiar with building

custom bodies on small forward control chassis. These chassis were a good size
for a small bus and were designed for an urban environment and "stop and go"

driving. Primarily, these chassis were used for parcel delivery trucks, home

milk delivery trucks, etc. Grumman Olson and Boyertown were among the prominent

14
firms in this industry which demonstrated an interest in manufacturing buses in

the 1960s and 1970s.

School bus (body) manufacturers also had relevant experience constructing

transit vehicles. Bluebird, Carpenter, Superior, Ward and Wayne, and several

additional school bus manufacturers, produced and marketed small buses for adult

transportation during the 1960s and '70s.

The recreational vehicle manufacturing industry, the makers of motor homes

and trailers, was still in its infancy in 1960. In the succeeding two decades,

its growth gave rise to a large number of firms with a capability for and

interest in manufacturing small buses. Companies like Winnebago, Rico and

Champion can be mentioned, representing many others less prominent.

These groups of potential small bus manufacturers (automobile manu-

facturers, truck makers, truck and bus body builders, recreational vehicle

builders) are not exclusive of the numerous companies interested in entering the

industry. Many others, as diverse as engineering consultants and arms

manufacturers, might acquire the fundamentals to design new small buses and

might consider entering the industry. There were, even, of course, a number of

foreign motor vehicle manufacturers with the potential to enter the industry.

It is not possible to review in detail the history of every firm which

participated in the small transit vehicle manufacturing industry from 1960 on.

The discussion here will be limited to five groups. These groups are the school

bus manufacturers, the step van producers, the motor home producers, the van

converters and van cutaway-based bus producers and, finally, the builders of

purpose-built buses. Each of these groups had its own technological basis and

approach to producing a small bus.

15
2.2.1 School Buses

School buses are the third oldest class of bus, following transit and

intercity buses. They were manufactured during the 1930s as the states and

local communities sought inexpensive motor vehicle transportation for school

children, especially in rural areas.

The first school bus bodies were wood-frame structures fitted onto truck

chassis, usually by local craftsman. Riveted steel construction eventually

replaced wood structures. A few producers dominated the market regionally and

then nationally. The major truck manufacturers adapted their medium-duty truck

chassis for use as school bus chassis. The medium-duty truck chassis, used by

all the school bus body manufacturers, became the basis for the conventional

school bus with its characteristic truck hood and cowl. Conventional school

buses, the standard of the industry, are still the largest volume product of

school bus manufacturers.

Conventional school buses, with modifications to accommodate adult

passengers, were built and sold for use as light and medium-duty buses. One

inconvenience of the conventional school bus design is that its long truck nose

limits maximum passenger capacity. School bus seats can comfortably accommodate

three children but only two adults. Therefore, this design which limits the

number of passengers, poses more of an inconvenience to adult transportation.

Redesigning the school bus model to increase passenger capacity requires

the elimination of the truck nose, and the use of a different chassis. A

forward control chassis, in which the engine and driver are situated either in

front of or over the front axle, is one method. Another alternative is a rear

engine bus chassis.

16
 In the Far West, large capacity school buses became standard perhaps

because their larger capacity was needed along the longer routes common in the

West. Gillig (Hayward CA.) and Crown Coach (Los Angeles CA) were particularly

successful in marketing large capacity school buses. Both companies designed

and built their buses using their own integral chassis, in the manner. of the

transit and intercity buses. Neither company built conventiona l school buses.

The development of large capacity school buses was somewhat slower in the

South and Midwest, where conventiona l school buses became standard, and the use

of a separate chassis was more common.

Bluebird developed a forward control chassis bus in 1948 and Thomas-buil t

followed in the early 1950s. By the late 1960s, General Motors and Inter-

national Harvester were manufacturi ng rear-engine chassis. Internation al

Harvester also developed a forward control chassis. The major school bus

manufacture rs in the South and Midwest built large capacity buses using these

chassis as well as their own and custom-buil t chassis.

Although the production volume of large capacity school buses was much

smaller than the volume of conventiona l school buses, they were significant to

the development of a capability to build a small transit bus. First, these

large capacity buses resembled transit buses in configuratio n. Second, they

were often built for adult transportat ion. Third, the forward control and rear

engine chassis, built by G.M., I.H., and the custom chassis builders, were not

direct derivatives of truck chassis (as were conventiona l school bus chassis).

The absence of scale economies was reflected in a premium price. Therefore, it

was economicall y feasible for a bus body manufacture r to produce his own chassis

which some builders did, furthering their technical potential to become transit

bus manufacture rs.

17
 In the late 1950s and 1960s, some of the major producers of conventional

school buses in the u.s. began developing a substantial market abroad for their

buses. Modified conventional school bus designs were exported for use as adult

transportation vehicles to many developing countries around the world, but

particularly to Central and South America.

School bus manufacturers increased their level of committment to the U.S.

transit market in the 1970s, developing both purpose-built transit buses and

other chassis-based vehicles for transit.

Gillig, after an unsuccessful venture with a small Neoplan design,

introduced its heavy-duty Phantom transit bus in 1981. The Phantom was produced
in 30-, 35- and 40-foot versions. Gillig used this model in competition with
standard transit buses produced by G.M., Flxible and Neoplan.

Bluebird, which built its own chassis, entered the small transit bus market

with a 30-foot rear engine bus in 1976. Thomas-built began building its own
rear engine chassis in 1977. Carpenter, after introducing a 30-foot transit bus
on a Gillig chassis in 1982, began building its own chassis in 1983.

Several school bus manufacturers also introduced small forward control

chassis (stepvan) and van cutaway-based small buses for adults. The
introduction of these vehicles, in some cases, paralleled their introduction of

small school buses using the same kind of chassis. The Thomas-built Mighty
Mite, originally introduced on a short truck chassis in 1970 and later

reintroduced on G.M. small forward control chassis (the P-30 stepvan chassis),

and Wayne Transette are examples.

The motivation behind school bus manufacturers moving into the transit bus

market during the 1970s could be related in part to the decline of school bus

sales. The demand for school buses is related to the size of the school age

population. Decline in this population led to a decreased demand for school

18
 buses in the late 1970s and early 1980s . Schoo l bus manu factu rers exper ience d
finan cial diffi culty , and seve ral comp anies were force
d out of busin ess. Thus,
schoo l bus manu factu rers sough t other mark ets. One
of the large st alter nativ e
mark ets is the trans it mark et.

2.2.2 Step Vans

Step vans or mult i-sto p deliv ery truck s were first

devel oped in the late
1930s . Chev rolet intro duce d the Step Van in 1937,
follow ed in 1938 by the
Inter natio nal Metro Mult i-sto p, a produ ct of Inter
natio nal Harv ester and a smal l
truck body manu factu rer. These two vehic les and many
imita tors were used as
urban deliv ery truck s, deliv ering milk, bread and
packa ges door to door.
Step vans or mult i-sto p truck s were desig ned with
low, unob struc ted floor s
for easie r drive r and cargo acce ssab ility. To maxim
ize the avail able cubic
cargo space in a smal l, mane uvera ble vehic le, the
manu factu rers used a smal l
forwa rd contr ol chas sis (i.e. , a chas sis in which
the engin e and driv er's
contr ols are place d forwa rd of or above the front
axle) . For the most part,
major truck manu factu rers (Gen eral Moto rs, I.H., and
later , Ford) produ ced the
smal l forwa rd contr ol chas sis and sold them to body
manu factu rers (Met ropol itan,
Union Truck Body, Boye rtown , Grumman Olson , and other
s) who comp leted the
vehic le produ ction .

The smal l forwa rd contr ol chas sis has seve ral char
acter istic s which make it
appe aling for trans it bus use. Unlik e most truck
chas sis, it is used on city
stree ts, at slow speed s, and for stop and go duty
cycle s. More over, its forwa rd
contr ol, relat ively low- floor desig n is a good bus
confi gurat ion for the mark et
serve d, emph asizin g passe nger capa city and acce ssibi
lity.

19
 first used
It is unknown when small forwar d contro l step van chassi s were
d
for buses. The Flxett e, one of the most popula r buses to use a small forwar
ction today,
contro l chassi s, was introd uced in 1965, and is still in produ
makes it.
having surviv ed severa l change s in the owners hip of the firm which
um step
Grumman Olson, which specia lizes in produc ing lightw eight alumin
1974, thus
vans, introd uced an aluminum bus seatin g 17 to 24 passen gers in

empha sizing the fuel economy of its light weigh t. The Olson bus remain ed in

produc tion for severa l years. Boyert own, anothe r step van body produc er, has
School bus
built small buses using forwar d contro l chassi s for severa l years.
the small
manuf acture rs, as mentio ned earlie r, have also built buses using

forwar d contro l chass is.

pal use -
The popul arity of small forwar d contro l chassi s for their princi
custom of daily
stepva ns - began to declin e in the 1950s and early 1960s as the

milk and bread delive ries faded.

use in
In the early 1970s, some chassi s manuf acture rs promot ed their
marke t. The oil
buildi ng motor homes, but the oil crisis largel y destro yed this

crisis also had direct impact on delive ry truck sales. The unava ilabili ty of an

apped sales in an
appro priate diesel engine for this size vehicl e furthe r handic

era of increa sed fuel prices . Intern ationa l Harve ster ended produ ction of its
1975. Ford
chassi s and the Intern ationa l Metro Multis tep series stepva n in
1980, leavin g
ended its produc tion of its P-seri es forwar d contro l chassi s in

only Genera l Motors to produc e a small forwar d contro l chass is.

with G.M.
Ford, since droppi ng its P-seri es, has re-ent ered the compe tition
or hood) with a
by produc ing a stripp ed van chassi s (i.e., one withou t any cowl

20
relativel y high gross vehicle rating. Several bus producers use this stripped

van chassis to produce a small forward control bus.

IVECO, a European truck and bus producer, which has been marketing a small

forward control chassis diesel truck in the u.s. started promoting its chassis

for use as a bus in 1983. The IVECO chassis, however, is significa ntly smaller

than the G.M. chassis. The buses built using this chassis more closely resemble

van cutaway buses.

A small independe nt manufactu rer, Wolverine , began marketing a small

forward control chassis in direct competiti on with G.M. in 1983.

2.2.3 Motor Homes

Modern motor home vehicles were developed and produced during the 1950's,

although it should be mentioned that predecess ors of these models did appear as

early as the 1930s. The first motor home vehicles were custom conversio ns of

trucks and buses. Dodge is credited with producing the first motor home chassis

in 1958. The chassis was then delivered to one of the early motor home

manufactu rers for completio n. Dodge continued to dominate the market for motor

chassis for more than ten years. In 1965, Ford entered the market with a

converted truck chassis, and G.M. followed somewhat later.

The popularit y of the recreatio nal vehicle in the early 1970s led to the

decision of several companies to enter the recreatio nal vehicle industry and

resulted in the developme nt of several motor home chassis. Five thousand

conventio nal motor home units were produced in 1965. By 1970, that figure had

reached 30,000 units; and in 1972 and 1973, the number of motor homes produced

exceeded 60,000.

21
 Ford introduce d a new motor home chassis in 1971. Internati onal Harvester
introduce d a rear engine motor home chassis in 1973. General Motors also
introduce d its front-driv e Transmode motor home chassis in 1973. G.M. and I.H.,
by innovatin g in motor home chassis design, hoped to capture the growing market

for luxury motor homes.

In 1973-74, increased fuel prices and curtailed recreatio nal travel caused

a decrease in the demand for motor homes. Decreased sales during 1974-75
forced several motor home manufactu rers to seek relief in the transit bus

market. In 1973, Winnebago introduce d the Series 19 bus, an adaptatio n of its

motor home model with a Dodge motor home chassis. At the same time, General
Motors demonstra ted its Transmode chassis in transit service. In 1975, Rico, a
recreatio nal vehicle manufactu rer, developed a transit bus that used the

Transmode chassis.

From 1975-78, sales of recreatio nal vehicles increased ; but in 1978, the

market once again collapsed and the number of recreatio nal vehicles produced

drastical ly decreased to the productio n levels fell to the levels of the late

1960s.

From 1976-1978 , an average of 45,000 conventio nal motor home units was

produced. In 1979, the number of units fell to 21,000 and by 1980 under 10,000

units were being produced. The downturn in the market forced many motor home
manufactu rers out of business. Productio n of motor home chassis was terminate d
by G.M., Internati onal Harvester , Ford and Dodge.

Motor home chassis were not ideal for demanding applicati ons of transit

service. Although certain features, such as low floors, appealed to those

requiring accessibl e vehicles, the chassis did not prove reliable or durable.

The instabili ty of the motor home market had a negative impact on the small

transit bus manufactu ring industry in general. Recreatio nal vehicle

22
 manu factu rers, who may have impro ved their produ
ct in time, were force d out of
the trans it mark et by the need to retre nch or by
outri ght bankr uptcy and
liqui datio n. The repu tatio n which the small bus
manu factu ring indu stry gaine d
for extre me insta bilit y may be trace d in large part
to the effec t of the rolle r
coas ter mark et for recre ation al vehic les.

A recre ation al vehic le manu factu rer detec ting a

slow in grow th in
recre ation al vehic le sales , migh t intro duce a trans
it bus as a dive rsific ation
and then be force d out of busin ess a year or two
later , dragg ed down by the
unexp ected and nearl y total colla pse of his recre
ation al vehic le sales . This
scena rio was playe d out at a number of comp anies
in 1974 and again in 1979. It
was a scena rio which affec ted not only produ cers
of conv entio nal moto r homes,
but also, comp anies which built recre ation al vehic
le van conv ersio ns and van
cutaw ay vehic les. (The histo ry of vans and van
cutaw ays is discu ssed in the
next secti on.)

Even after the diffi culti es of the 1970s , recre ation

al vehic le
manu factu rers remai ned a group with pote ntial as
small bus manu factu rers. In
1980, Champion Moto r Homes, one of the oldes t and
large st recre ation al vehic le
produ cers, intro duce d a small bus on a van cutaw
ay chas sis. It shoul d be noted
that this vehic le was in no sense a conv erted moto
r home and it did not use a
moto r home chas sis as such.

2.2.4 Vans and Van Cutaw ays

The modern van origi nated with the Volks wagen Micro
bus and, in the late
1950s , along with the Volks wagen Beetl e was very
succe ssful in the U.S. mark et.
To comp ete with the forei gn vehic les, Amer ican manu
factu rers devel oped

23
 nt to the
comp arabl e vehi cles. In 1960, Chev olet prod uced the Corv air (equ ivale
to the Micr obus ).
Beet le) and the Corv air Gree nbria r (equ ivale nt
mode ls, was manu factu red
The Corv air Gree nbria r, smal ler than late r van
floo r since it had a rear
with only a 90-in ch whee lbase and had a very low
, the Gree nbria r and othe r van
engin e driv e. Inste ad of repla cing the Micr obus
vans incre ased throu gh year ly
models repla ced the pane l truck . The size s of
lbase van in 1967, and in so
model chan ges. Dodge intro duce d a 108- inch whee
ertin g the van from a compact
doin g, took the lead among the autom akers in conv

car deriv ative to a picku p truck deri vativ e.

ter-c ultur e. Firs t, the VW
Duri ng the 1960 s, vans were adop ted by the coun
Thei r colo rful mod ifica tions
Micr obus became the favo rite vehi cle of hipp ies.
with thei r vans . Soon, in
of the pain t and trim led othe rs to be inve ntive
bega n to inst all carp et,
Cali forn ia and then acro ss the coun try, peop le
indu stry of recr eatio nal van
furn iture , windows and appl ianc es. A cotta ge
conv erter s found a mark et not
conv erter s spon taneo usly grew in respo nse. Van
hand icapp ed indiv idua ls, seek ing
only among recr eatio nal user s, but also among

to improve thei r pers onal mob ility .

er, heav ier vans , deve loped
In 1971, Dodge, stil l lead er in prod ucing larg
ped van was a van with out a carg o
the firs t van cutaw ay. The van cutaw ay or chop
of the fron t door and beyond
body . The van is enclo sed comp letel y to the rear
now could cons truct thei r own van
that , the chas sis is expo sed. Van conv erter s
r, Dodge deve loped dual rear
bodi es, inste ad of modi fying them . A year late
van cutaw ays. This deve lopm ent
whee ls which incre ased the carry ing capa city of
1974 by the manu factu re of the
was fund amen tal to bus cons truct ion as seen in
lar and wide ly imit ated smal l
Wayne Tran sette which became one of the most popu

buse s.

24
 Van conversion is less expensive than any other method of producing a bus.

Building a body on a van cutaway involves considerable construction. Van

cutaway body construction can be accomplished with less investment than is

required for fabrication of a school bus body or a step van.

The growth of van conversion and the recreational vehicle market provided

an opportunity for a large number of firms to expand their capabilities and

accumulate capital. The development of vans opened the small bus industry to a

very large number of firms which could enter or leave the industry easily.

2.2.5 Purpose-Built Buses

The purpose-built bus is constructed by entirely one manufacturer. Unlike

a van conversion manufacturer, a purpose-built bus builder does not rely on

another company to supply a chassis. Purpose-built buses are usually

constructed as single units without separate chassis.

Standard transit buses are purpose-built buses. Purpose-built buses are

expensive, but they can be designed with characteristics (i.e., greater

durability) that are more appropriate to transit service than the

characteristics available with a derivative vehicle.

The first purpose-built small transit buses were shortened versions of

standard transit buses. GM began offering a 30-foot version of its standard

transit bus in the late 1940s. The powertrain and chassis components used on

GM's 35- and 40-foot models could not be used on the smaller model. Lighter-
duty components were substituted, thereby limiting the durability of their 30-

foot model. GM manufactured the 30-foot bus until 1973.

In the late 1960s, a small Ohio-based company, Highway Products, designed

and manufactured a purpose-built, 30-foot transit bus. Highway Products was

founded in 1957 to assume control over the Fageol Twin Coach engine plant.

25
Fageol Twin Coach had been a leading bus builder in the 1920s-30s , but had

transferr ed its bus-build ing operation to Flexible in the early 1950s. Highway

Products built and supplied spare parts for Fageol's line of gasoline and

propane engines. It also manufactu red postal vehicles and guided missile

launchers . In 1968, a 31 passenger bus was introduce d, using the Twin Coach

name. A 25-foot, 25 passenger version was offered shortly thereafte r.

Although the Highway Products 30-foot bus was not generally considere d to

be a good design, it was less expensive than GM's 30-foot version. Eventuall y

GM withdrew its 30-foot bus from the market. Serious complaint s were made

against the Highway Products bus by some operators . The parent company, Alec-

Standard, sold Highway Products in 1973, and the company later filed for

bankruptc y.

In 1974, Flxible introduce d a 30-foot version of its New Look bus. Flxible

decided to withdraw this bus, which was similar to GM's 30-foot model, in 1976.

Following Flxible's departure from the market, several other firms introduce d

purpose-b uilt small buses. In 1976, Bluebird introduce d the Citybird, a 30-

foot, purpose-b uilt transit bus. The Chance Minibus RT-50, a 22-foot purpose-

built bus was introduce d in the same year. In 1977, TMC, a subsidiar y of

Greyhound Bus, bought the rights to the design of the Orion, a 30-foot bus built

in Canada by Ontario Bus Industrie s.

The purpose-b uilt bus sector of the small bus manufactu ring industry has

continued to expand since 1977. TMC stopped productio n in 1982, selling its

license back to Ontario Bus Industrie s. Ontario Bus subsequen tly invested in a

U.S. productio n plant and continued manufactu ring the Orion. As previousl y

mentioned , Gillig, Thomas-b uilt and Carpenter have all introduce d 30-foot

purpose-b uilt buses. Carpenter reportedl y invested $7.5 million in a new plant

to produce its transit bus. Neoplan, a manufactu rer of standard and articulat ed

26
buses, introduc ed a 26-foot, low-floo r, purpose -built bus in 1983. Bus
Industri es of America, the U.S. arm of Ontario Bus Industr ies, began marketin g

the Orion II, also a 26-foot, low-floo r bus.

The purpose -built sector of the small bus manufac turing industry is

importan t because the compani es involved represen t the most committe d firms in

the industry . These compani es first and foremos t regard themselv es as transit
bus builders . Their products are not derivati ve ones. Although these
manufac turers can and do use their purpose -built buses as the basis for other

vehicles (e.g., luxury motor homes, emergency vehicle s), the purpose -built,

small transit bus remains primaril y a transit bus. The design and manufac ture
of the vehicle "from the ground up" involves a major commitment of millions of

dollars.

27
 3.0 MARKET DEMAND

is not merel y the

The diver sity evide nt in the small trans it bus marke t
manu factur ers develo ped
resul t of the diver se, histo rical circum stance s in which
stance s and facto rs
small buses and entere d the indus try. Conte mpora ry circum
of this marke t and
inher ent in the marke t also contr ibute to the diver sity
pts. This chapt er
encou rage a multi plica tion of vehic le featu res and conce
diver sity of vehic le
discu sses the natur e of the marke t and its impac t on the
marke t for stand ard
types . The marke t for small buses is an exten sion of the
mical versio ns of
trans it buses , but small buses are not simpl y compa ct econo
relate d
stand ard buses . The marke t for small buses , in large part, is direc tly
stand ard trans it buses .
to uniqu e featu res that small buses do not share with
small buses . Diffe rent
These uniqu e featu res are not neces sarily common to all
each niche relate d to
small buses occup y diffe rent niche s in the marke t, with
sity is encou raged to the
one or a combi nation of speci al featu res. Thus, diver

exten t "new" uniqu e and speci al featu res are creat ed.

3.1 BACKGROUND
organ izatio n which
Buses are piece s of capit al equipm ent purch ased by an

inten ds to opera te them to produ ce a servi ce. To this exten t, they are exact ly

ce a produ ct. Just as

analo gous to the machi nery purch ased by a facto ry to produ
to produ ce its
the facto ry choos es only equipm ent speci ficall y design ed
its equipm ent with the
parti cular produ ct effic ientl y, a bus opera tor must match
buses which were not
requir emen ts of the servi ce to be provi ded. To selec t
ds to provi de could be
design ed to produ ce the kind of servi ce the opera tor inten

very costly and ineff icien t.

28
 All bus operators do not, of course, provide exactly the same service, and

consequently, they do not all require buses with identical characteristics. One

combination of characteristics may be ideal for providing a certain sort of

service, while a different combination would be better for another service. The

determination of what combination of price, durability, passenger capacity,

appearance, accessibility, fuel economy, performance and so on is best has to

made on a case-by-case basis. This is done when the transit operator making a

purchase decision tries to match his requirements with bus models offered by

manufacturers.

Manufacturers of buses generally try to form some understanding of the

requirements of operators before designing and marketing a bus model. Armed

with this understanding, they will try to give their model a combination of

features which will be viewed as optimal for certain types of service by at

least some operators. To the extent the manufacturer succeeds, his bus will be

preferred over others by at least some operators for certain types of service.

When a manufacturer is targeting a well-defined group of operators or type of

service, he may be said to be seeking a special niche in the market.

Please note that the establishment of this special niche may be based upon

making appeals both objective and subjective. The bus may be designed to meet

the physical requirements of a type of service and it may be marketed to satisfy

an operator's particular circumstances. A highly durable bus could be targeted

to types of service with high daily mileage. An inexpensive bus might be

targeted to operate with limited capital. A quiet, inconspicuous bus might

appeal to operators with suburban, residential routes. A sleek look might be

important to an image-conscious transit operator.

29
 3.2 THE MARKET FOR STANDARD-SIZE TRANSIT BUSES

The market for small buses is by no means limited to urban transit, but the

main interes t of this report is small buses as transit vehicle s. In addition ,

transit is a conveni ent point to begin an analysis of the market for small buses

because of its visibili ty and familar ity to many people. Moreove r, the
counterp oint with standard -size transit buses may provide useful compari sons.

The primary market niche for new standard -size transit buses is fixed-

route, urban transit. The duty cycle associat ed with this type of service is
characte rized by slow speed operatio n, frequen t stops, high mileage and

variatio ns in load. It is a difficu lt duty cycle. Neverth eless, because this

one type of service predomi nates, all manufac turers of standard transit buses

try to design their standard transit bus models to satisfy the physica l

requirem ents of this type of service and duty cycle. Designin g for a differen t
duty cycle is not consider ed feasible . To establis h a special niche in the
market, a manufac turer must focus his design and marketin g efforts instead on

features of his bus which will satisfy the special circums tances or preferen ces

of some operato rs. Some standard transit bus manufac turers emphasiz e the
utilitar ian or traditio nal characte r of their bus models; others emphasiz e the

advanced design characte r of their models; some try to do a little of both,

promotin g both traditio nal features and advanced design appearan ce. The
differen ces among models, although they may be signific ant to some potentia l

purchas ers, are not radical and a frank apprais al must acknolwe dge that much of

the design and marketin g effort is focused on relative ly trivial features of the

vehicle.

The transit market for small buses can be viewed as an extensio n of the

market for standard -size transit buses. The analogy between transit buses and
persona l automob iles suggests that because small cars are preferre d by some

30
 peop le to big cars for economy of oper atio
n and lowe r pric e, then sma ll buse s
shou ld be pref erre d by some tran sit oper ator
s for the same reas ons.
The subs tant ially lowe r purc hase pric e of
most sma ll tran sit buse s and the
obvi ous diff eren ce in pass enge r capa city
migh t furt her sugg est to some that
part icul arly larg e econ omie s migh t be avai
labl e to a tran sit oper ator serv ing a
rout e with a low pass enge r volu me. "Why
run a big bus half empty when a sma ll,
econ omic al bus coul d do the job at a frac
tion of the cost ?" Care ful stud y,
howe ver, has foun d that in common, main strea
m tran sit appl icat ions , sma ll buse s
do not offe r deci sive econ omie s in com paris
on to stan dard -siz e tran sit buse s,
even on rout es with low aver age pass enge r
load s.
Ther e are thre e main reas ons for this situ
atio n. Firs t, the larg est cost
of oper atin g a bus is the driv er, and a sma
ll bus does noth ing to redu ce this
cost , whil e it does limi t the driv er's pote
ntia l prod ucti vity . Most tran sit
serv ice expe rien ce peak load peri ods at the
begi nnin g and end of the workday as
peop le trav el betw een thei r homes and thei
r plac es of empl oym ent. Duri ng thes e
peri ods, the full capa city of a stan dard -siz
e tran sit bus will be need ed. The
cost of prov idin g addi tion al peak load capa
city with many extr a sma ll buse s
would outw eigh the cost of runn ing the larg
er stan dard -siz e tran sit buse s half
empty duri ng slac k peri ods.

Seco nd, ther e is a "hid den" trad eoff in vehi

cle life and main tena nce cost .
This "hid den" trad eoff is the dete rmin ing
fact or for many tran sit oper ator s.
Whil e a stan dard -siz e tran sit bus migh t have
an expe cted life of 8-20 year s with
a capa bilit y to trav el over one mill ion mile
s, the life of most sma ll buse s is
much less than this . The van- base d sma ll
buse s are only somewhat more dura ble
than a pass enge r auto mob ile, capa ble of trav
elin g one- four th to one- tent h the
life mile age of stan dard -siz e tran sit bus.
The cost of freq uent repla cem ent of
a van- base d bus runn ing in tran sit serv ice
coul d quic kly outr un the pric e of a

31
stan dard -size tran sit bus. Some purp ose- built smal l buse s appr oach stand ard
life , but these smal l buse s
tran sit buse s in dura bilit y and expe cted vehi cle
Most smal l buse s are expe nsive
also appro ach stand ard tran sit buse s in pric e.

in the same degr ee as they are dura ble.

trav elled , the choi ce for
Thir d, even on the route s which are not heav ily
l bus and a new stand ard tran sit
most tran sit syste ms is not betw een a new smal
used stand ard tran sit bus. It
bus: it is betw een a new smal l bus and an old,
to conc entra te thei r newe st
is a common prac tice for many tran sit syste ms
rave lled rout es, and to tran sfer
equip ment on the most diff icul t, most heav ily-t
grows olde r. This is a sens ible
thei r equip ment to less demanding serv ice as it
t, it simp lifie s the task of
polic y econ omic ally from two pers pect ives . Firs
it would be expe nsive and
main tenan ce. Unle ss the syste m was very larg e,
diffe rent rout es. More part s
diff icul t to main tain diffe rent -size buse s on
would requ ire broa der train ing and
would need to be kept in inve ntory , mech anics
repa irs were need ed could be
the subs titut ion of one vehi cle for anot her when
to get the prop er size matc h.
awkward since it migh t not alwa ys be poss ible
ice redu ces the
Seco nd, using a olde r bus on a low ride rship serv
serv ices where it earn s a lowe r
oppo rtuni ty cost of the equip ment "inv ested " in
. Retu rning to the analo gy
"retu rn" in term s of pass enge r mile s trav elled
ce can be very much like that
betw een buse s and pers onal auto mob iles, the choi
se betw een a new subcompact
faced by the man on a tigh t budg et who must choo
exce pt that in the case of a
economy car and an olde r, used full- size model,
model lowe r, but there is a good
bus, not only is the "pric e" of the full- size
s will be lowe r too. In addi tion,
chan ce that the oper ating and main tenan ce cost

the full- size vehi cle may even last long er.
ince anyone that smal l
The foreg oing discu ssion is not inten ded to conv
ard tran sit buse s. It is
tran sit buse s ough t neve r to be pref erred to stand

32
intended to clear away the belief that the principal demand for small buses is

as compact, economic alternatives to standard transit buses in the most common

transit services. With this understanding, it is possible to begin examining

the cases in which small buses are to be preferred, and analyzing what aspects

of small buses make them preferable in these cases.

3.3 SPECIAL FEATURES AND SMALL BUSES

Although small buses may not be well suited as an economical alternative to

standard transit buses in most common urban transit services, there are niches

which they have filled successfully. For the most part, these niches can be

defined in terms of a feature of a small bus which distinguishes it either from

standard transit buses or from other small buses. Smaller size and lower price
are features of small buses which distinguish them from standard transit buses.

Special equipment such as wheelchair lifts to provide handicapped access and

novelty outfitting to create special bodies such as imitation trolleys are other

distinguishing features.

Size - The common, distinguishing feature of small buses, by definition, is

their size. Smaller size can be an advantage, because it affords greater

maneuverability, because it offers a less intrusive presence, or because the

service provided does not require a larger vehicle. Services to which the
arguments about regular transit service might not apply include door to door

demand/response services, paratransit services for the handicapped, and rural

services. For these services, in some cases, peak travel periods may not be a

major problem and meeting minimum service standards (e.g., minimum headway on

scheduled routes or minimum response times) may mean very low passenger loads at

almost all times.

33
 The problem of intrusiv e presence is one which may be very importa nt to a

service in residen tial neighbo rhoods. The noise, diesel exhaust and

intimida ting size of standard transit buses may make them unaccep table in such

settings . Road surfaces and bridge structur es may not be adequate to handle the

weight of a standard transit bus on a regular basis. Maneuv erability , which is

related to size, may also be a concern .

Passeng er Capacity - All "small" buses are not small in the same degree and

the smaller a bus is the greater the restrict ion placed on passeng er capacity .

Standard producti on vans represen t one extreme in size. The seating capacity of

vans ranges from line or the smaller version up to fourteen or fifteen in the

extended length models. In addition to seating limitati ons, vans are also

notable for their low headroom (about 54 inches from floor to roof). Passeng ers

can not stand erect when alightin g, and the headroom availab le in the rear or

side entrance s (about 48 inches) is not enough to allow wheelch air passeng ers to

enter using a mechani cal lift.

Vans are commonly modified to relieve the restrict ions on headroom and

seating capacity . The most common modific ation is a raised roof to increase

interior headroom. This is done by removing the standard roof at or below the

roof line and replacin g with a steel, aluminum or fibergla ss raised roof. With

a raised roof, a van's headroom may be increase d to 74 inches.

At least one company (Wide One Corpora tion) modifie s vans to increase their

overall width. This is done by widening the frame and extendin g the axles on a

standard van. The increase in width may be up to 14 inches, affordin g the

option of either an aisle or addition al seating capacity .

34
 The next step up in passe nger capac ity and acces sibili ty
are buses built on
van cutaw ay chass is. The manu factur ers of these buses
typic ally build a body
aroun d a steel frame added to the chass is of a van cutaw
ay. Less impeded by the
origi nal desig n of the van body, the bus body can be highe
r and wider . The
exter ior width of these vehic les varie s from aroun d 80"
up to aroun d 92".
Passe nger capac ities have gener ally fallen into two categ
ories : 12 to 16
passe nger vehic les and 16 to 25 passe nger vehic les.

Buses built on small forwa rd contr ol chass is mark anoth

er small incre ase in
passe nger capac ity. In this case, the bus manu factur er
is build ing the entir e
body of the bus and he is worki ng with a somewhat large
r chass is to begin with.
These vehic les vary in width from 84 inche s up to 96 inche
s and are gener ally a
little longe r than typic al van cutaw ay vehic les. Passe
nger capac ities range
gener ally from 18 to 31.

Purpo se-bu ilt buses do not gener ally impro ve much on the
passe nger capac ity
of small forwa rd contr ol chass is vehic les of simil ar dimen
sions.
Mane uvera bilitl - In the same way that all small buses
do not lay claim to
the same passe nger capac ity, neith er can they claim the
same mane uvera bility .
In the case of mane uvera bility , the number of demar cation
s are not so numer ous,
but they are signi fican t. At one extrem e, a stand ard van,
witho ut length ening ,
has the mane uvera bility compa rable to that of an autom
obile. At the
other extrem e, a stand ard 40-fo ot trans it bus is a fairly
ponde rous vehic le,
with a turnin g radiu s of 40 feet or more. A bus gener
ally has a turnin g radiu s
rough ly equal to its lengt h. Thus, a 30-fo ot bus has a
turnin g radiu s, usual ly,
of just under 30 feet. For purpo ses of mane uvera bility
, the class es of small
buses can be define d in terms of vehic le lengt h. This
is done for easy
refere nce, althou gh lengt h is an imper fect subst itute for
turnin g radiu s.

35
 ing most of the
Twenty -two feet and below appear to const itute one class, includ

vans and van-ba sed vehicl es. Twent y-six foot and 30-foo t buses const itute two
small forwar d
additi onal classe s, and includ e most of the purpo se-bui lt and

contro l chassi s vehicl es. There is eviden tly a suffic ient differ ence betwee n
icant compe titive
26-foo t and 30-foo t vehicl es that the 26 footer s have a signif
to produc e 26-
advant age in some circum stance s. Some manuf acture rs have sought
offer more
foot vehicl es (as well as 30-foo t ones) in order to be able to

maneu verabi lity.

ed in
Maneu verabi lity is at a premium for servic es which must be provid

constr icted areaas , along narrow street s, etc. Shuttl e servic es provid ed in

downtown areas, malls, and airpor ts are prime examp les.

buses has
Handic apped access - One of the larges t niches filled by small
the transp ortati on
been been the one for vehicl es equipp ed with featur es to aid
lifts is one
of handic apped person s. Equipp ing conver ted vans with wheel chair
ed these featur es.
of the most promin ent examp les of how small buses have acquir
es to
Wheel chair lifts are not the sole point of develo pment of featur

enhanc e acces sibilit y by the handic apped. Also notabl e are low-fl oor design s.
se-bui lt design s
Severa l manuf acture rs have attemp ted to develo p durabl e, purpo
for the elderl y
which would have very low floors , making them easier to enter
ramps rather than
and, in some cases, wheel chair- access ible by means of simple

complex and expens ive lifts. Recen tly, Neopla n Skillc raft, and Bus Indus tries
t bus model s.
of America have begun promo ting purpo se-bui lt, low-fl oor, 26-foo

The Neopla n "Lit'l Bus" and the Bus Indus tries "Orion II" appear to be aimed at
vehicl es. The
simila r market for heavy- duty, manue verabl e, highly -acces sible
chair access with
Orion II with a kneeli ng featur e offers a single step and wheel

a simple ramp at the rear.

36
 The handicapped access niche is a favorable one for small buses not just

because they can be designed with necessary features such as low floors and

wheelchair lifts, (standard tansit buses can have such features, too) but

because transportation services for the handicapped often have charact&ristics

favorable to small buses. For example, they may not have the periodic high peak

loads of many regular transit services, average number of passengers may be low,

annual mileage may be lower, the service may have to be provided along

residential side streets, etc. It is the combination of necessary features and

favorable service characteristics which creates this important niche for small

buses.

Novelty bodies - One often overlooked niche for small buses has been in the

area of novelty outfitting. Sometimes a community or a business will determine

that it needs a bus that will also be something of an amusement ride. The bus

may be needed as part of a tourist attraction or to promote some similar

enterprise. One of the most common examples of novelty outfitting is to design

a bus body to resemble an old trolley. This can be done with a special paint

scheme and special seats, handrails, and entrance doors.

Several small bus builders have produced and promoted their "trolley" buses

in recent years. These include Chance, Bogertown and LTP (Flxette).

Summary - This discussion of special features has necessarily been

incomplete. It is in the nature of special features that they can be developed

in endless degrees of significance and that the creation of new ones is limited

only by the inventiveness of manufacturers. In fact, the most important point

made in this chapter is that because small bus demand is so closely linked to

special features, great variety among small bus models is inevitable and

desirable. Standard transit buses tend to resemble each other in most respects

because they are all aimed to fulfill the same or similar service requirements

37
of capacity and durabilit y. Because very different condition s prevail in the
small bus market, small buses vary greatly among themselve s in all their

characte ristics.

3.4 DURABILITY AND SMALL BUSES

In Section 3.2, it was argued that small transit buses generally do not

make good substitut es for standard transit buses in common urban transit

services for two reasons:

1) insuffici ent passenger capacity to handle peak load condition s; and

2) insuffici ent durabilit y in heavy duty transit service.

These two reasons are the barriers which a small bus manufactu rer wishing to

capture a share of the transit market must confront. The builder of a small
transit bus cannot sell his bus to most of his potential transit customers

because his bus is not big enough and his bus is not durable enough. Of course,
there are many non-trans it customers which may not require so large and durable

a bus, but the obstacles to the largest and most visible market for buses are

size and durabilit y.

These circumsta nces naturally lead small transit bus manufactu rers to seek

to overcome these two obstacles . The only obvious way to increase passenger
capacity is to build a larger bus. Indeed, it is not uncommon for makers of
purpose-b uilt 30-foot buses to eventuall y build 35- and even 40-foot versions of

their bus, in order to compete in the standard transit bus market. Bus
Industrie s of America, building the 30-foot Orion, is only the most recent

example of a company doing this. (Bus Industrie s of America is building 40-foot

Orions for Albany NY) Several builders of 30-foot small buses offer 35-foot
versions currently . Among the current major builders of standard transit bus,

38
 it may be noted that Gill ig made its entry into
the indu stry base d, in part , on
mark eting 30-f oot purp ose- built buse s.

Chan ce, a manu factu rer of 25-f oot purp ose- built
vehi cles, has a nove l
solu tion to the probl em of size . It offe rs an
"Art icula ted Modu lar Tran sit
Vehi cle" whic h comb ines two of its vehi cles,
one powered and the othe r, an
unpowered trail er. This solu tion to the probl
em of size has not been imit ated ,
howe ver, and it appe ars clea r that a smal l bus
manu factu rer cann ot pursu e the
most obvio us method of overc omin g size barr ier
(i.e ., build ing a stan dard -size
bus) with out ceas ing to be an excl usiv ely smal
l bus buil der.
It is not so clea r, howe ver, that the smal l
bus build er cann ot incre ase the
dura bilit y of his bus whil e rema ining a smal
l bus buil der. Incre ased dura bilit y
would incre ase the appe al of his vehi cle for
those appl icati ons in whic h
pass enge r capa city was not the cruc ial reaso n
for favo ring a stand ard tran sit
bus. More over, incre ased dura bilit y is an inhe
rent comp etitiv e adva ntage in the
mark et since it is equi vale nt to a price redu
ction for the oper ator who will
real ize lowe r main tenan ce cost s or a long er vehi
cle life . Incre ased dura bilit y
is a high ly desi rable qual ity in the comp etitio
n both with stand ard tran sit
buse s and with othe r smal l buse s.

The obvio us conc lusio n to draw from this anal

ysis is that smal l bus
build ers are moti vated to pers isten tly seek afte
r incre ased dura bilit y in thei r
vehi cle desig ns. This seek ing is not easi ly
satis fied , since there are
sign ifica nt tech nica l and econo mic obst acle s
to incre asin g smal l bus dura bilit y,
but the seek ing give s rise to one of the more
rema rkab le and pred ictab le trend s
in the smal l bus indu stry.

Smal l bus build ers may be obse rved to be cons

tantl y emph asizi ng the
dura bilit y of thei r vehi cles in thei r adve rtisi
ng and mark eting . All are
appa rentl y awar e of the impo rtanc e of dura bilit
y to thei r custo mers .

39
 of their vehic les
Many manu factu rers also seek to improve the dura bility
comp onent s. The incre asing
throu gh bette r desig n and bette r choic e of purch ased
is part of the evide nce for
number of manu factu rers offer ing purp ose-b uilt buses
.
a tende ncy to seek to build more durab le smal l buses
ving grea t dura bility in
There are signi fican t obsta cles, however, to achie
le syste m and not of a singl e
a smal l bus. Dura bility is a qual ity of the vehic
ased for the price of a
eleme nt in the syste m. Dura bility can not be purch

large r brake or a heavy -duty diese l engin e. Each component is part of the
A heavy -duty diese l
syste m. A large r brake may requ ire a large r whee l or axle.
er, grea ter axle capa city,
engin e will be heav ier, and may requi re a large r start
g mate rial and surpl us
etc. Dura bility is often achie ved in desig n by addin
lead in the direc tion of
capa city. Thus, desig ning for dura bility tends to
economy and a harde r ride
grea ter size and weigh t with atten dant loss in fuel
cost incre ases, as well.
unles s comp ensat ed in suspe nsion . And, of cours e,
le is the limit ed
A secon d obsta cle to produ cing a more durab le vehic
size, the choic es of comp lete
avai labil ity of comp onent s. For a bus of a given
ions may be very limit ed.
chas sis or key components such as engin es or trans miss
or van cutaw ay chas sis
For produ cers of small forwa rd contr ol chas sis buses
avail able. Gene ral Moto rs
buses , there is a very limit ed selec tion of chas sis
chas sis, and there are only
is the only major produ cer of smal l forwa rd contr ol
a manu factu rer of smal l,
three major produ cers of van cutaw ay chas sis. For
of diese l engin es avail able,
purp ose-b uilt buses , there is a limit ed selec tion
ions.
and only one choic e in dome stic autom atic trans miss
chas sis has led some
The limit ed avai labil ity of dome stic comp onent ry and
featu res to explo re using
bus manu factu rers seeki ng grea ter dura bility and other
diary at the Itali an
forei gn-b uilt chas sis or comp onent s. IVECO, a subsi
Z-van chas sis as a
company, Fiat, has activ ely prom oted the use of its

40
substitute for U.S. van cutaway and small forward control chassis. Isuzu, a

Japanese automo-bile and truck builder, has been trying to market bus chassis in

the U.S. as well. Several bus manufacturers have been seriously considering

using Isuzu 26-foot forward control chassis or Isuzu 31-foot rear engine chassis

as a basis for their buses. Some have built prototypes, although none have

announced production at this time.

The desire of U.S. small bus producers for greater durability is likely to

continue to lead them to seek collaboration with overseas chassis and component

producers promising durability. Whether they can gain significant improvement

by this means is beyond the scope of this paper to determine. There is no

evidence on whether more durable, heavier-duty chassis for small buses are, in

fact, available abroad. Nevertheless, the acute and persistent need for

durability will lead to experimentation and clearly offers opportunity for

foreign manufacturers.

41
 4.0 TRENDS IN THE SMALL BUS INDUSTRY

Viewing the small bus industry as a young, but maturing industry can lead

to the identification of several important trends. By applying the model of the

development of other, now older industries, the direction of these trends can be

deduced.

Mature industries have several common features. It is interesting to try

to discern whether the small bus manufacturing industry is headed toward

developing similar features. Many mature manufacturing industries are dominated

by a group of long-established firms whose relative positions and identities in

the market are slow to change. The major U.S. automobile manufacturers, for
example, have had the same rank in terms of market share for decades, and

reputations and product ranges are well-known in the market. Similar statements
could be made about industries as diverse as the breakfast cereal industry,

electric motor industry, the school bus industry, and home appliance industry.

Such stability is a common characteristic of mature industries because the long-

established firms possess experience, the necessary assets (e.g., plant,

engineering resources, etc.) and institutional supporting structures (e.g.,

dealers, a service network, etc.), which give them an overwhelming advantage

compared to any potential newcomer.

Another common feature of mature industries is a standard product typology,

to which all the firms tend to adhere. The typology, which categorizes the
range of industry products according to one or more dimensions may be informal

and casual or it may be extremely formal and even codified in a set of industry

standards. The division of automobiles into categories like subcompact,

compact, full-size is an example of an informal system. The electric motor

industry's definition of various frame sizes and levels of insulation is an

42
example of an extremely formal typology, supported by a code of standards . The
degree of formality is usually a function of the need of product purchaser s to

specify a desired type with technical precision .

Typologie s become possible only after experimen tation with various product

configura tions has led to a somewhat settled acceptanc e of certain

configura tions as standard.

A third common feature of mature industrie s is the existence of an industry

associati on in which the leading firms cooperate in matters of public interest

concernin g their industry. Industry associati ons vary in their functions . Most
collect statistic s on productio n, sales and employment in their industry, in

cooperati on with the Bureau of the Census, or similar governmen t agency. Most
represent their industry before the Congress and regulator y agencies. Some
coordinat e the developme nt of product standards , in cooperati on with technical

societies . Some conduct market research or coordinat e technical research

programs for the common use of their members. An industry associati on forms
when an industry has achieved a certain level of self-cons ciousness . There have
to be a number of companies in the industry which identify themselve s primarily

with that industry. A major motivatin g force behind the formation of an

industry associati on is usually the desire for more accurate productio n

statistic s and marketing informati on. As companies commit increasin g amounts as

investmen t in an industry, the value of accurate marketing informati on on which

to base financial plans increases according ly.

Recent developme nts in the small bus manufactu ring industry indicate that

it is maturing, and from this maturing trend, it may be deduced that there is or

will be a tendency for the industry to become more like other mature industrie s

in several respects. Several companies in the industry have recently made major

43
committm ents in terms of plant investm ent and design enginee ring for small

buses. These companies may well represen t a growing, committe d and self-

consciou s core for the industry . Certain vehicle types have emerged as standard

for the industry , with several manufac turers producin g similar vehicles . The

industry does not have an industry associat ion to gather producti on and sales

statisti cs, but the need for one is becoming clearer. Nor, are there industr ial

standard s specific to this industry , although again, it is clear that the need

exists.

In terms of the maturing of the industry , one of the most encourag ing

trends has been the growth of the purpose -built sector. The number of firms

making the committment to design and build a small vehicle especia lly as a bus

has been increasi ng steadily . Since the failure of Highway Product s, the

pioneer in the field, the Chance RT-50, Orion, Bluebird Citibus, Thomas

Citiline r, Skillcra ft, Carpent er CBW 300, Neoplan Lit'l Bus and Orion II have

been introduc ed to the market. At least four of the companie s behind these

buses have been in the market now for over five years with a purpose -built

vehicle, an indicati on of the stabilit y of these compani es. The only major

manufac turer to withdraw from the market recently - TMC, builder under license

of the Orion - was quickly replaced in the U.S. by its licenso r. Substan tial

investm ents in new plants have been made recently to build the Orion in Utica NY

and the Carpent er CBW 300 in Indiana.

This trend is importan t because of the committment it implies. Modifyin g

vans is a relative ly simple business , requirin g little investm ent. The

stateme nt, "anyone with a blow torch can do it," is only a slight exagger ation.

It is easy to get into and easy to leave behind, and a firm modifyin g vans need

44
not commit itself to product developme nt or substanti al customer support.

Building body-on-c hassis vehicles is a somewhat more demanding manufactu ring

process and business than modifying vans. More engineeri ng expertise and

equipment is required to fabricate a complete body, although the chassis can

still be purchased complete. The scope for product developme nt is limited

because the bus builder has limited control of chassis. Although the body-on-

chassis bus builder has somewhat greater investmen t in his manufactu ring

process, his committme nt to the bus market is still fairly limited. If his

transit bus is not a complete success, he can perhaps build a school bus or a

recreatio nal vehicle using the same methods and tools.

The builder of purpose-b uilt buses, however, has committed greater

investmen t in engineeri ng design to put together his own chassis. The

investmen t in fabricatio n methods is likely to be substanti ally greater due to

the chassis building task and a greater reliance in the body building task on

welding and riveting steel over bolting steel and glueing fiberglas s. Having

committed itself to a purpose-b uilt design, a firm has also committed itself to

the transit market. The purpose-b uilt transit bus is also likely to be

unnecessa rily durable and prohibiti vely expensive for most school bus and

recreatio nal vehicle applicati ons.

There are indicatio ns of increasin g stability as well in the body-on-

chassis sectors where the appears to be increaasi ngly settled agreement on

certain vehicle types. Although there is still great diversity , manufactu rers

have begun to imitate each other in producing rival models in certain

categorie s. Producers of van cutaway chassis buses, for example, have often

imitated the Wayne Transette , producing vehicles with similar specifica tions,

dimension s and appearanc e.

45
 Cont~ibuting to this g~adual establishme nt of vehicle type catego~ies has
been the p~e-existing ~ival~y among the majo~ school bus builde~s. These
companies, closely matched in size and competing against one anothe~ in the
school bus ma~ket fo~ many yea~s, have ente~ed the t~ansit ma~ket with an acute
awa~eness of the activities of each othe~. Th~ough a combination of having
simila~ ~esou~ces and motivations and a consciousne ss of each othe~, these
companies have tended to int~oduce simila~ ~anges of bus models aimed at the
t~ansit ma~ket. Although not eve~y company has matched the othe~s in eve~y

niche, the~e has been enough simila~ity to establish a patte~n fo~ the whole
small t~ansit bus ma~ket. Van cutaway buses, small fo~wa~d control buses and
30-foot rear engine purpose-bu ilt buses have been introduced to the t~ansit

ma~ket by seve~al o~ all of the five major conventiona l school bus

manufactu~e~s.

The g~owth of a committed co~e of companies who think of themselves as

small transit bus manufactu~e~s and an increasing awareness of being rivals with
others p~oducing similar vehicles are significant events which may be leading
toward some forms of coordinated action in the small bus manufacturi ng industry.

The~e are two areas where the~e is an appa~ent need for coordinated action. The
fi~st is in the matte~ of statistics and the second in the matter of indust~ial

standards. No reliable statistical information exists on the small bus ma~ket

o~ on industry production. This information , which is vital for planning, would

be extremely valuable to a company conside~ing major investments . As more
companies face these decisions, this becomes mo~e acute.
The matter of standards has an unfo~tunate history. In the mid-1970s,
the~e we~e many u~ging whole-vehic le standardiza tion on the new small bus

46
 manu factur ing indus try. Stand ardizi ng on one vehic le (or one chass is), produ ced
by sever al compa nies, would permi t great econo mies of scale
, it was argue d: It
would be possi ble, to use a more speci alized and durab le
desig n in a stand ard
small bus than was avail able using desig ns deriv ed from
vans or schoo l buses or
motor homes. The analy sis of the marke t in this repor t
indic ates that the
marke t for small buses is fragm ented into many niche s, a
fact which has become
more appar ent since the mid-1 970s. This fragm entati on works
again st whole -
vehic le stand ardiz ation .

The same fragm entati on, howev er, makes the need for stand
ards of anoth er
sort more acute . Indus trial stand ards exist in many indus
tries to serve vario us
funct ions. One of the most impor tant funct ions is comm
unicat ion. Stand ards can
be defin ed in preci se and elabo rate terms and then refer
red to in an easy
shorth and that simpl y names the stand ard. Stand ards are
most usefu l in
indus tries where there is great produ ct varie ty, espec ially
when the produ cts
vary in quali ties that are diffi cult to defin e, such as
durab ility. At the
prese nt time in the small bus manu factur ing indus try, there
are no stand ards to
defin e differ ences in durab ility. There are no stand ards
to defin e common
contr act terms , e.g., aisle width , which may be subje ct
to diffe rent measu ring
proce dures . There are no stand ards for color -codi ng or
routin g elect rical
wirin g, even thoug h there may be signi fican t maint enanc e
cost impac ts. The need
for stand ards is reflec ted in the effor ts of trans it opera
tors to devel op ever-
more speci fic and elabo rate bid speci ficati ons and procu
remen t proce dures .
The incre asing lengt h and techn ical comp lexity of contr act
speci ficati ons
are likel y to lead small trans it bus manu factur ers to consi
der coope rating to
estab lish indus trial stand ards. The incre asing cost of
copin g with
idios yncra tic appro aches to proble ms of techn ical speci
ficati on is likely to

47
 of
lead to cooper ative efforts to establi sh standar d approac hes in the form

indust rial standa rds.

Althoug h formati on of some sort of industr y associa tion to deal with

develop ing statist ics and standar ds seems likely, the exact form of this

associa tion can not be determ ined. Given the small size of the industr y,

establi shment of an associa tion as an offshoo t of a larger organi zation appears

plausib le. An associa tion might be formed with the produc ers of standar d
An
transi t buses, whose numbers have increas ed substa ntially in recent years.
n
already existin g associa tion which include s many of the compan ies in questio

might form a confere nce of small bus builde rs. The Truck and Bus Body Builde rs
e,
Associ ation or the Recrea tional Vehicle Manufa cturers Associ ation, for exampl

already number quite a few small bus builde rs in their member ships. A

larly if
combin ation user and manufa cturer organi zation might be formed, particu

the primary focus was to be on develop ing standa rds. Such an organi zation could
APTA or
be indepen dent or could be an offshoo t of a larger organi zation such as
O).
the American Associ ation of State Highway Transp ortatio n Offici als (AASHT
t
(Brief profile s of existin g industr y associa tions with an intere st in transi

are include d in Appendix B.)

Despite the trend toward establi shment of an industr y conscio usness, the
y
increas ing number of purpos e-built buses and the prospe cts for an industr

associa tion, it would be wise to keep in mind that small transit buses
vehicle
manufa cturing is still very small relativ e to other sectors of the small

manufa cturing industr y. A reasona ble order of magnitu de estima te of small bus
e-
produc tion excludi ng modifie d vans, but includi ng 30-foo t and smalle r purpos

built units and body on truck or van chassis units would be 1800 to 3000

48
 TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE VEHICLE PRODUCTION STATISTICS

1982
RECREATIONAL VAN CUTAWAYS1 18,000
RECREATIONAL VAN CONVERSIONS1 111,300
CONVENTIONAL MOTOR HOMES1 19,300
SCHOOL BUSES2 25,000
SMALL TRANSIT VEHICLES3 1,800-3,000

1RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ASSOCIATION

2MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

3TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER ESTIMATE

49
vehicles annually. As can be seen in Table 2, this compares with production of

25,000 school buses in 1982 and nearly 150,000 recreational vehicles and motor

homes. For the many companies in the small transit bus manufacturing industry

who are also in these other industries, transit buses are not going to be their

primary interest. This is an important perspective to maintain.

50
 5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The problems originall y addressed by this study were to explain and

understan d the diversity in the small bus manufactu ring industry, and to

identify trends. There are, it was observed, a large number of manufactu rers

and a confusing array of different types of vehicles. The explanati on developed

was partly historica l and partly a matter of market demand.

Historica lly, the industry is a relativel y young one. Small buses are, in
some ways, a new idea and when a demand for small buses was felt in the 1960s

and 1970s, a large number of firms producing other kinds of small vehicles

possessed at least some of the prerequis ites for building small buses. Declines
in the recreatio nal vehicle and school bus market impelled many firms building

recreatio nal vehicles and school buses into the small bus market. The history
of the developme nt of the small bus industry helps to explain why there are so

many different small bus designs because it shows the connectio n between small

bus technolog y and van, motor home, small delivery truck and school bus

technolog y. It also helps to explain how so many firms carne to attempt small

bus productio n.

An examinati on of the market demand for small buses extends understan ding

of the diversity by identifyin g a number of factors which tend to preserve

diversity in the pr·esent and encourage future diversity . The market for small
transit buses is very different from the market for standard transit buses.

While the market for new standard transit buses is sharply focused on the

requireme nts of urban transit systems operating fixed route services, the small

bus market is itself very diverse. Small bus manufactu rers are respondin g to
the requireme nts of a wide variety of services: demand-re sponse, paratrans it,

51
shuttle, and others. Special features to satisfy the particular needs of one or

more services are a key element in the product design and marketing strategies

of many small bus manufacture rs. Examples of such features include: vans

modified to have a raised roof to facilitate entry by the elderly or

handicapped ; wheelchair lifts; low-floor vehicles; and novelty outfitting (e.g.,

imitation antique trolleys). Several levels of durability and price are

featured, as well.

This examination of diversity leads to a new view of the small bus industry

and some observation s which have important implication s for the future and for

transit operators who may consider using small buses. To put this new view into

perspective , it may be useful to recall an older view of the small bus

manufacturi ng industry. In the past, the diversity and youth of the industry

have been interpreted by some as signs of instability and disorder. Small buses

have been seen as needed economical alternative s to standard transit buses in

regular transit services. Based on this view, standardiza tion of vehicle design

to permit manufacturi ng economies of scale has been advocated to solve the

problem of combining low initial price and durability.

The view put forth in this study is that diversity is the natural result of

both historical circumstanc es and current market forces. The apparent

instability of the industry can be laid to its relative youth and the dependence

of firms in the small bus market on other unrelated markets. The great

diversity of vehicle types can be understood, at least in part, as a natural

response to a market which demands small buses with widely disparate

characteris tics. Whole-vehic le standardiza tion would clearly be considered

counterprod uctive in the small bus market, in this view.

52
 This view of the small bus manufacturers as a relatively young industry

also leads to the identification of some important trends associated with the

inevitable maturing of the industry. It was noted that:

The number of firms building purpose-built vehicles is increasing.

Several companies have invested substantial sums in bus design and new

manufacturing plants.

Definite vehicle types are beginning to emerge as rival companies

deliberately produce similar ranges of bus models.

Based on the established trend toward greater maturity, and apparent need,

the formation of an industry association to develop market statistics and

industrial standards appears likely.

53/54
 APPENDIX A
SMALL TRANSIT VEHICLE MANUFACTURER PROFILES

COMPANY: Adap tive Drivi ng Systems

ADDRESS: 21011 Itasc a, Unit G, Chatw orth, CA 91311
PHONE: (213) 998-1026
CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Kutz
Adap tive Drivi ng Syste ms produ ces custom vans, modi
handi cappe d use, and conv erted vans for a varie ty of fied vans for
uses. The company was
start ed as a van conv ersio n company in 1977. Prod uctio
vans per year with abou t 75 vans per year modi fied n is appro xima tely 300
for handi cappe d use. The
company has built vehic les for the Fede ral Governmen
comp anies , and hote ls, as well as for indiv idual use.t, hosp itals , insur ance

COMPANY: Advanced Mob ility, Inc.

ADDRESS: 12555 Sherman Way, North Hollywood, CA 91605
PHONE: (213) 982-1004
CONTACT: Mr. Scot t Deacon
The company modi fies stock vans and cars to trans port, or be drive n by, the
phys ically disab led. Conv ersio ns range from six whee lchai r capa city, exten ded
headroom trans porte r vans to quad raple gic drive r vans, to a low floor front
wheel drive mini van incor porat ing ramps inste ad of lifts .
Founded in 1975, Advanced Mob ility, Inc. modi fies
produ ction rate of 150 vehic les per year. The compa vehic les to orde r, with a
ny
distr ibute s whee lchai r restr aints and other handi cappe manu factu res and
d equip ment to insta llers
natio nwid e.

A-1
COMPANY: American Trans portat ion Corpo ration
ADDRESS: Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032
PHONE: (501) 327-7761 X 106
CONTACT: Mr. Joe Clark
company
American Trans portat ion Corpo ration (AmTran) is a privat ely owned
The compa ny's main produc t line is
that has been buildi ng buses for 50 years. from
orders for buses came
schoo l, milita ry and comme rcial buses. Recent
variou s school distri cts, the u.s. Army and the u.s. Air Force.
About 75
percen t of AmTran's sales are for school buses.
formed in
Before Februa ry 1981, AmTran was called MBH, Inc. MBH, Inc. was
bus distri butor s, to take over
1980 by a group of invest ors, includ ing some Ward in Novem ber
er was comple ted
the then-b ankrup t Ward Indus tries, Inc. The takeov
1980.
was asked
Ward Indus tries was starte d in 1933 when D.H. Ward, a blacks mith,
y grew to be one of the
to put a bus body on a Ford truck chass is. The compan company
1970's , the
major bus body builde rs in 1960's and 1970's . Late in the n
attemp ted to expand , based in part on sales of buses to Middle Easter
could be sold
count ries, and an expec tation that large numbers of commuter buses
domes tically . This expans ion led to the company's bankru ptcy.
of
In the early '60's, the company produc ed not only its regula r line for
t due to the demand
school buses, but also entere d the small school bus marke of small
small school buses and for small transi t vehicl es. Althou gh sales
buses.
buses has been rising , 85 percen t of AmTran's sales are for large
es are
Today, AmTran manuf acture s a variet y of school buses. The vehicl &
Gener al Motor s, Ford
body on chassi s constr uction and built to order with
Intern ationa l chassi s availa ble.
a van
In 1981, the company introd uced a small school bus model built on
sophi sticate d
cutaway chass is, called the Vanguard. A year later, a more comme rcial
t out for
versio n of the Vangu ard, called the Vanguard VCS, was brough
applic ations as a shuttl e.
orward
Recen tly, AmTran introd uced the Ward "Patri ot", which has a semi-fpassen gers,
up to 78
contro l design that provid es increa sed seatin g capac ity of contro l
d
allows for easy maipte nance and is less expens ive than full forwar (calle d the
design s. The company also produc es a conve ntiona l school bus model
Volun teer) and a van conve rsion vehicl e (calle d the Minuteman).
d in
AmTran's main plant, first built by Ward Indus tries, Inc., is locate has
and
Conway, Arkan sas. The Conway plant curren tly has two assemb ly lines assemb ly
two
increa sed its summer payro ll from 800 to 1200. The newer of the capac ity
the Minuteman and Vangu ard. Produ ction
lines builds two small buses, ity is
for the main plant is 32 buses per day. The small bus line capac
Total annual produ ction for 1982 was
approx imatel y 5 buses per day.
approx imatel y 5000 vehic les.

A-2
COMPANY: Armbrus ter/Stage way, Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1178, 7300 South 28th St., Fort Smith, AR 72902
PHONE: (501) 738-3121
CONTACT: Mr. Ross Barrows , Pres.; Mr. Milt Earnhea rt, Vice-Pr es.

Armbrus ter/Stage way, Inc. was founded as Armbrus ter and Company in 1887 to
build and repair horse-dr awn vehicles . By the early 1920's, the business had
expanded to include automob ile repair work. In 1923, Armbrus ter first stretche d
an automob ile into a small bus. Stageway Coaches, Inc. was incorpo rated in 1962
to handle sales for the Armbrus ter Company manufac turing firm. The two
corpora tions were combined as Armbrus ter/Stage way, Inc. in 1966. The firm
currentl y produces over 1000 units per year in limousin e convers ions,
convert ibles, crew cabs, and suburban s. Armbrus ter/Stage way operates in three
faciliti es in Fort Smith, occupyin g a total of 140,000 square feet and employing
180 people. Its custome rs include limousin e operato rs, funeral directo rs, oil
and gas compani es, governm ental agencie s, and celebri ties and heads of State in
the United States, Europe, and the Middle East.

COMPANY: Blue Bird Body Co.

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030
PHONE: (912) 825-2021
CONTACT: Mr. George; Albert L., Jr.; Joseph Luce, Presiden ts

Blue Bird Body Company, a builder of school and other type buses, has been
in business under the Luce family for over 60 years. Mr. Albert L. Luce, Sr.
was the founder of the company. His sons, George, Albert, Jr., and Joseph now
own the Blue Bird Body Co. busines s. Their product lines are school buses,
transit buses, and motor coaches.

In 1975, Blue Bird entered the transit bus business because of GMC's and
Flxible 's exit from the small bus market and also because of a decline in the
school bus market. Current ly, Blue Bird offers a 26 foot and 30-foot version of
the City Bird for the transit bus market. The advantag e of the City Bird is a
shorter turning radius and a clearer driver percepti on in city driving. Blue
Bird now has buses operatin g in over 60 differen t city transit propert ies. Blue
Bird's manufac turing plants are in Fort Valley, Georgia ; Brantfo rd, Ontario; Mt.
Pleasan t, Iowa; and Buena Vista, Virginia . City transit buses are built in the
main plant at Fort Valley.

A-3
COMPANY: Boyertown Auto Body Works, Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 418, Boyertown, PA 19512-0418
PHONE: (215) 367-2091
CONTACT: Mr. Harry Yoder

Boyertown Auto Body Works, Inc. was formed in 1872. The first vehicle
produced was a doctor's buggy. In 1890 the company produced its first transit
stagecoach. The main product line of the company became trucks and medium size
buses during the 1920's and '30's. The company produces 16 to 44 passenger
trackless trolley buses and other small buses. Average annual production is
2000 vehicles of all types, including 100 small buses and 70 trolleys. The
company has four plants with its main offices in Boyertown. Recent customers
include the Lowell National Park; Anheuser Bush, Inc.; and the University of
Oklahoma; Fort Worth, Texas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania.

COMPANY: Braun Corporation

ADDRESS: 1014 S. Monticello, P.O. Box 310, Winamac, IN 46996
PHONE: (219) 946-6157
CONTACT: Mr. Michael Bruno

The Braun Corporation was founded in 1964 by Ralph W. Braun, himself a

handicapped individual, as a producer of wheelchair lifts and converted vans for
the handicapped. When the 16 (b) 2 program was started these two programs were
combined and the company currently modifies stock 15 passenger vans with
paratransit interiors, semi-automatic and fully automatic wheelchair lifts,
wheelchair restraint systems, and a reinforced roof that meets Federal Motor
Vehicle Standard #220. Wheelchair lifts are still the company's main product.
Total annual paratransit production is over 100 vehicles. Major customers
include 16 (b) 2 programs, nursing homes, hospitals, and individuals.

COMPANY: Broughman Industries, Inc.

ADDRESS: 14320 Romona Ave., Chino, CA 91710
PHONE: (714) 597-1893
CONTACT: O.J. Hawkins, Pres.; Lee Moses, V.P. Engineering

The company began building converted and modified van type vehicles 14
years ago. Their primary product line is motor homes. Annual production of
small transit vehicles is currently low since the company is concentrating on RV
and special executive vehicle construction. Recent small transit vehicle
customers include Northrop Aircraft Co., Hawthorne Co., Southern California
Edison, and Bacthel Power Co. Broughman has abandoned all aspects of the bus
market except fleet orders and/or ride-sharing customers.

A-4
 COMPANY: Bud Indus tries, Inc.
ADDRESS: 100 Pulas ki Stree t, West Warwick, RI 02893
PHONE: (401) 822-2352
CONTACT: Mr. Edward Viggi ano, Mr. Edward Weygand

This company was founded in 1971 and starte d build ing its
vehic les in 1973. The main produ ct line is evenl y divid own small trans it
ed betwe en light trans it
vehic les, elder ly and handi cappe d vehic les, and small schoo
l buses . Other
produ ct lines inclu de the manu factur e of a full line of
fiber glass components
used in the trans it indus try. Bud Indus tries, Inc. also
offer
windows made for small bus appli catio n. Total annua l produ s a line of glass
appro ximat ely 500 vehic les. Major recen t custom ers includ ction is
ed
in Massa chuse tts, Rhode Islan d, Conn ecticu t, New York, Penns 16 (b) 2 progra ms
ylvan ia, West
Virgi nia, and Ohio.

COMPANY: Bus Indus tries of Ameri ca, Inc.

ADDRESS: Base Road R.D.I ., Orisk any, NY 13424
PHONE: (315) 768-8101
CONTACT: Gord Nevis on, Sales Manager

Bus Indus tries of America is the U.S. subsi dary of Ontar

Inc., a Canad ian firm headq uarter ed in Missi ssaug a, Ontar io Bus Indus tries,
io. Ontar io Bus
Indus tries, Inc. is desce nded from anoth er company, Ontar
io
had been in the busin ess of repai ring and rebui lding buses Bus and Truck , which
years . In 1976- 1977, this company develo ped a proto type and truck s for many
purpo se-bu ilt bus and
went into actua l produ ction in 1978. In 1979, Ontar io Bus
licen se to manu factur e and sell the bus in the U.S. to TMC, Indus tries sold a
subsi diary of Greyhound locate d in Rosw ell, N.M. The TMC a manu factur ing
Cityc ruise r, produ ced
from 1979 to 1981, was the resul t. Ontar io Bus Indus tries
licen se in late 1981 and resumed sellin g in the U.S. Bus repur chase d the
Indus tries of America
was estab lished with a plant near Utica , N.Y. and began
produ ction in 1982.
The princ ipal produ ct of Bus Indus tries of America is a
trans it bus, calle d the Orion , avail able in 30-fo ot, 35-fo purpo se-bu ilt
ot and 40-fo ot
lengt hs. Inclu ding appro ximat ely 950 TMC-produced Cityc
Orion s have been produ ced. In late 1983, the company began ruise rs, over 1400
marke ting the Orion
II, a low-f loor trans it bus design ed to also be appro priate
servi ces by virtu e of its high degre e of acces sibili ty. for handi cappe d
Sever al proto types are
being tested and produ ction is plann ed for late 1984.

Two produ ction plant s are in opera tion, with the Missi ssaug
produ cing appro ximat ely one and one-h alf Orion s per week a, Onatr io plant
and the Bus Indus tries
of America plant in Orish rang, N.Y. turnin g out about five
per week. About 80
peopl e are employed at the Orish rang plant .

A-5
COMPANY: Califo rnia Custom Design
ADDRESS: Fabric Engine ering Space Center Buildin g 831A, Mira Lorna, CA 91752
PHONE: (714) 685-0151
CONTACT: Mrs. Sherley Kowalke, Admin istrativ e Secreta ry

The company was founded in 1966 to conver t and custom ize vans. The main
s per
activit y is van conver sion. The company conver ts approx imately 150 vehicle
year. They have built commuter van vehicle s for the Fluer Corpor ation and
Xerox's souther n Califo rnia operati on.

COMPANY: Carpen ter Body Works, Inc.

ADDRESS: 1500 W. Main St., P.O. Box 128, Mitche ll, IN 47446
PHONE: (812) 849-3131
CONTACT: Mr. Mike Mayden
60
Carpen ter Body Works has been a leading bus manufa cturer in the U.S. for
buses for the transi t market: the
years. Curren tly, it produce s two types of
300,
midsize Carpen ter CBW 300 and the small Carpen ter Cadet. The 30-foo t CBW CBW
seats 35 passen gers and is designe d for long-l ife, heavy-d uty service . The
y in North Vernon , Indiana .
300 is produce d at Carpen ter's $7.5 million facilit
The smalle r Cadet is availab le in capaci ties up to 27 passeng ers with an
interio r height of 6 feet 7 inches and width of 90 inches .

COMPANY: Champion Home Builde rs, Co., Commercial Vehicle s Divisio n

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 158, 331 Graham Road, Imlay City, MI 48444
PHONE: (313) 724-6474
CONTACT: Robert Maison

Champion was founded in 1953 to produce mobile homes. In 1968 the company
first
produce d its first Class A recrea tional vehicle , and in 1971 produce d its
-duty buses at the
Class C RV. In 1981, the company started produci ng medium
C
Imlay City Plant. In 1982, the company produce d 559 Class A and 680 Class Class
RV's, and 175 medium-duty buses. The company produce d 284 Class A and 370
has
C RV's and 151 medium-duty buses from January to June of 1983. The company
28 plants in the U.S., with its home office in Dryden, Michig an.

A-6
COMPANY: Chance Manufacturing Co., Inc.
ADDRESS: 4219 Irving, Wichita, KS 67277
PHONE: Sales Office: (214) 742-3802 Factory: (316) 942-7411
CONTACT: Mr. Joe Diehl, Sales Manager, Coach Division

The company traces its history to the Ottaway Amusement Co., founded in
1945. In 1950, R. Harold Chance decided to establish a separate manufacturing
operation to build miniature steam trains and other amusement park rides. The
manufacturing operations were situated on their present site in west Witchita in
1960. Chance remains today a leading producer of amusement park rides.

In 1976 Chance purchased Minibus Co., a Los Angeles-based subsidiary of

MCA, Inc., the entertainment conglomerate which owns Universal Studies. Minibus
Co. produced small buses which were used for Universal Studio tours and which
had been marketed to transit operations since the mid-1960's. Shortly before
the sale, Minibus introduced a new, more heavy-duty model, the RT-50, replacing
the body-on-chassis bus which it had been building for several years. In 1981,
the company introduced its Articulated Modular Transit Vehicle (AMTV). The AMTV
consists of an RT-50 pulling an unpowered, but nearly-identical-looking
"trailing module." Both axles of the trailing module steer. The RT-50 25-foot
bus seats 25; the AMTV seats 55. The RT-50 features an extra-wide side door
which can be equipped with a wheelchair lift. Chance also produces a trolley-
replica bus using the RT-50 running gear.

Chance produces about 50 vehicles a year.

COMPANY: Coach & Equipment Manufacturing Corp.

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 36, Penn Yan, NY 14527
PHONE: (315) 536-2321
CONTACT: Richard L. Kreutziger

The company is an outgrowth of a carriage/wagon building company which

moved to bus building in the 1920's. Currently, the company builds small to
medium size transit buses, tram units, specialty vehicles and small school
buses. Total annual production is approximately 250 transit type vehicles and
500 school buses. The vehicles are built to order. Recent sales have been made
to Chicago RTA, UPTRAN in Michigan, and New York State 16 (b) 2 Programs.

A-7
COMPANY: Collins Industries Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 58, Hutchinson, KS 67504-0058
PHONE: (316) 663-4441
CONTACT: Mr. Ron Peters

Collins Industries, Inc. started producing Type II school buses in 1972,

and added small transit buses in 1979. Production of school buses and transit
buses totals nearly 1000 per year, with transit buses representing approximately
150 of this total. Collins' main product lines, in addition to buses, are
ambulances, electro-hydraulic wheelchair lifts for handicapped transportation,
fire trucks and funeral coaches and limousines. This mix of specialty vehicles
is built to order, and is sold to distributors across the country who deal with
the vehicle's owners. Collins Industries buses are marketed in Canada by
Girardin Vehicles Industries, Ltd.

COMPANY: Continental Co.

ADDRESS: 16951 Murphy Ave., Irvine, CA 92714
PHONE: (714) 863-0511
CONTACT: Mr. Miles Mallard

In 1980, Continental Co. started producing a medium-sized 32 passenger

transit bus. The company's main product line is transit buses. The two models
it produces are the Midtrans 830, a 30 foot bus, and the Midtrans 825, a 25 foot
bus. Twelve buses are produced annually and there are 15 employees. Customers
include Dollar Rent-a-Car, Budget Rent-a-Car, and Dupont.

COMPANY: Coons Manufacturing (Diamond People Movers)

ADDRESS: 2300 West Fourth St., Box 489, Oswego, KS 67356
PHONE: (316) 795-2191
CONTACT: Mr. Bud Coons

Coons Manufacturing began as an innovative producer of RV's in the 1950's.

In 1978, the company expanded its production with converted van type small
buses. The main product line is now evenly split between RV's and small transit
vehicles, with total annual output between 850 and 1020 vehicles. The company
supplies its buses mainly to tour operators.

COMPANY: Dutcher Industries

ADDRESS: 7644 Trade Street, San Diego, CA 92121
PHONE: (619) 578-5502
CONTACT: Mr. Ian Stevenson
Dutcher Industries was formed in January 1970 in response to the "Caltrans
Clean Car Project," a program to develop a steam engine car. Later, the company
built a prototype taxi for an UMTA demonstration in New York. The company has
worked closely with the taxi industry. In 1983, the company was building a
production prototype small transit vehicle and marketing it to several cities.

A-8
 COMPANY: Flxet te, Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 410, Everg reen, AL 36401
PHONE: (205) 578-1820
CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Bell

Flxet te, Inc. was found ed in 1940 as the South ern Coach
produ ced its first vehic le, a schoo l bus, in the same year. & Body Company, and
South ern Coach & Body Company produ ced a varie ty of trans Until 1964,
it vehic les, prima rily
for the milit ary. In 1964 South ern Coach & Body was bough
t
Corpo ration . In the same year, the Flxet te was introd uced by the Flxib le
as a small body on
chass is versio n of Flxib le's large trans it bus. In 1970
Rohr acqui red Flxib le
and in 1975 produ ction at the South ern plant cease d. In
1976 the plant ,
equip ment, and right s to the Flxet te were acqui red by Leisu
re
Inc. The Flxet te was return ed to produ ction in August 1980, Time Produ cts,
being built in five versio ns from 19 to 35 passe nger capac and is curre ntly
ities. Total annua l
produ ction for 1982 was appro ximat ely 52 vehic les and 1983
estim ated at 100 vehic les. There are 74 peopl e employed produ ction is
by the company. The
company curre ntly produ ces a step van (Flex van), a small
bus (Flxe tte), and high
cube cargo body van conve rsions . The company is plann ing
to introd uce a
trolle y-bod y style bus in the near futur e and has an order
for five from the
city of Birmi ngham 's Trans porta tion Autho rity.

COMPANY: Funcr aft Vehic les Lt. (Canada)

ADDRESS: 165 Shedon Drive , Cambridge, ONT. CANADA NIR 6T8
PHONE: (519) 621-9310 (FTS: 970-6 200)
CONTACT:· Mr. Rodger Pasco e

Funcr aft Vehic les, which origin ated as an ambulance manu

build ing small trans it vehic les from ambulance bodie s. factur er, began
The compa ny's main
produ cts are RV's and speci alty vehic les, such as ambul ances
of STV's is very small . . Annual produ ction

COMPANY: Gener al Mobi lity

ADDRESS: 265 Rte 10, East Hanov er, NH 07936
PHONE: (201) 887-7500
CONTACT: Mr. Barry Colto n
Gener al Mobi lity, founded in 1978, is involv ed solel y
vans and build ings for use by the handi cappe d. Van produ in the conve rsion of
ction is curre ntly 24-
36 units per year. The compa ny's employment, curre ntly
six, has varie d betwe en
five and fiftee n peopl e. Gener al Mobi lity's custo mers,
who are prima rily in the
New Jerse y area, includ e NJ Assoc iation of Retar ded Citiz
Medic al Servi ce, and simil ar organ izatio ns. ens, Westc hester City

A-9
COMPANY: A. Girar din, Inc.
ADDRESS: 33 Highr idge Court , Cambridge, ONT., CANADA NIR 7L3
PHONE: (519) 622-0666
CONTACT: Mr. Jean-M arc Girar din
try. The
A Girar din, Inc. has 25 years of exper ience in the bus indus capac ity up to
seatin g
company produ ces schoo l buses and commercial buses with a disab led, saf-t -
vehic les for the physi cally
20 passe ngers . It speci alize s in din is also the
lifts , and the Queen restr aint system for whee lchair s. Girar
Canad ian distri butor for Colli ns Indus tries buses .

COMPANY: Gresham Drivi ng Aids

ADDRESS: 30800 Wixon Road, Wixom, MI 48096
PHONE: (313) 624-1533
CONTACT: Ms. Carol Gresham
the produ ction
The company was formed in 1958. Its origi nal busin ess was d perso n. The
found er was a handi cappe
of hand contr ols for motor vehic les. The in 1974. VA
began van conve rsions
company was first incor porat ed in 1971 and Van conve rsions ,
and FDA-approved hand contr ols contin ue to be produ ced.
les, numbe r about 250 per year.
inclu ding both 16(b) 2 and perso nal vehic

COMPANY: Hames Bus Sales

ADDRESS: 5602 East Belmo nt, Fresn o, CA 93727
PHONE: (209) 251-8332
CONTACT: Mr. Kent Hames
busin ess that sold
The company was formed in 1960 as Super ior Bus Sales , a
the busin ess changed to Hames
Thomas and Super ior buses . In 1965, the name of II schoo l buses .
into class
Bus Sales . In 1967- 68, Hames began to modify vans nt of its buses
with 90 perce
Hames is also involv ed in leasin g schoo l buses , ction has been
being lease d to "poli tical subdi visio ns." Total annua l produ
in the marke t. In 1972- 75
decre asing with the entry of large manu factur ers nt produ ction of 50
Hames produ ced 300-400 buses per year, compared to its curre
compa nies, senio r citize n
buses per year. Customers includ e indiv idual s,
villag es and hosp itals.

COMPANY: HCI (Hand icappe d Conve rsions , Inc.)

ADDRESS: 2516 W. Pennway, Kansas City, MO 64108
PHONE: (816) 471-0305
CONTACT: Mr. Larry Wanger
1980 by
HCI/HANDICAP CONVERSIONS, INC. began opera tion in Febru ary idual . The
cap indiv
conve rting stand ard vans into priva te vehic les for the handi multi -purp ose
and
vehic les built by HCI has expanded to inclu de mini- buses
handi cappe d, retire ment
vehic les for state and priva te agenc ies for the aged and
Vehic les built HCI
comm unitie s, trans it compa nies and car-r ental compa nies. buses seatin g up to 25
range from mini- buses seatin g of 8-14 passe ngers to small
passe ngers .

A-10
COMPANY: Landmark
(Note: see National Coach)

COMPANY: Mid Continent Conversion Company

ADDRESS: MAILING: P.O. Box 10649
PLANT: 700 N.E., 76th Street, Gladstone, MO 64118
PHONE: (816) 436-7550
CONTACT: Mr. Jim Olson

The company was founded in 1972. Their main product line is specialty
vehicles, ambulances, converted vans and 16(b) vehicles. In 1979 the company
expanded into STV production from ambulances. Current total annual production
is 50-75 units per year, which is much less than its production of 100 vehicles
per year before 1981. The decrease in production is attributed to the
recession. The company employs 20 people.

COMPANY: Mid West Handicap Equipment (Mike's Mobil)

ADDRESS: 510 W. 5th St., St. Charles, MO 63301
PHONE: (314) 946-5310
CONTACT: Mr. Michael Gilbert

The company went into business when another company in the van coversion
business went under and sold its equipment. The company's main product line is
converted vans. Total annual production is approximately 20 to 25 vehicles per
year. A recent customer has been the City of St. Louis.

COMPANY: Mobility Dynamics

(see Adaptive Driving Systems)

A-11
COMPANY: National Coach Corporation
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2309, Gardena, CA 90247
PHONE: (213) 538-3122
CONTACT: Roger Hess

The company's main product line includes small and mid-size transit and
paratransit vehicles. The commercial bus division is some ten years old. The
total corporation annual sales approach $50 million.

The company has expanded its product line to include van pool units, high
head room mini-buses, body on chassis mid-size units (with and without rear
storage) and a million mile 30-foot transit bus.

COMPANY: Matthews Buses, Inc.

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 369, Danville, NY 14437
PHONE: (716) 335-6091
CONTACT: Mr. Matthews

The company was incorporated in 1971. Currently, the company produces

specialty vehicles; police cars, fire trucks, and mobile libraries. Matthew
Buses distribute Thomas & Braun buses.

In 1967 Matthews buses started converting buses. Thomas buses are modified
for 16(b) 2 programs. The main product line of the company is air suspensions
for Thomas buses.

COMPANY: MCR Technology

ADDRESS: 55 Depot Road, Goleta, CA 93117
PHONE: (805) 964-0671
CONTACT: Mr. Romano

MCR Technology is descended from Minicars, Inc., an engineering consultancy

which was involved in producing prototype safety vehicles for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the 1970's. In 1980, the company, in a
joint venture with the West German firm, Walter Velter GmbH, sold some
specialized 40-foot electric shuttle buses to Denver. The company continues to
promote standard and articulated Velter buses in the U.S., having delivered 19
buses in 1982. In 1983, the company introduced the MCR 8200 DL Diesel, a 28-
foot bus capable of accomodating 22 seated passengers and 17 standees.

COMPANY: Medical Coaches, Inc. (Medicoach)

ADDRESS: Box 129, Oneonta, NY 13820
PHONE: (607) 432-2444
CONTACT: Mr. Al Collins
Medicoach began producing mobile medical units for Mexico and Cuba in 1949.
The main products of the company are specialty vehicles including ambulances,
van conversions, wheelchair vans and 16(b) 2 type vehicles. The company
produces an average of 300 vehicles per year with $5-6 million in sales.
Medicoach has resumed production of ambulances after a four year lapse. The
firm's customers include hospitals, nursing homes, and 16(b) 2 programs.

A-12
COMPANY: Neoplan (Rolf Ruppen thal & Assoc., Inc.)
ADDRESS: 825 s. Broadway, Boulde r, CO 80303
PHONE: (303) 499-4040
CONTACT: Mr. Shelli Villano

Neoplan was founded in 1935 in Germany. The first vehicle produce d was
a
bus, which was a wooden body placed on a truck chassi s. The company produce
full-li ne of integra lly-con structe d buses. The first small bus produce d s a
by
Neoplan was the 21-foo t Lit'l Bus. Althoug h brough t to the U.S., the Lit'l
was not sold here due to compli cations comply ing with EPA certifi cation s. bus
Since
December 1982, Neoplan has demons trated the prototy pe of a 26-foo t bus in
Pennsy lvania. Hertz Rent-a- Car was their first custom er. Neoplan has two
plants in the USA: in Lamar Co., 30-35- foot buses are manufa ctured, in
Montgo meryvi lle, Penn buses are finishe d and service d. Rolf Ruppen thal
Associ ates represe nts Neoplan in the U.S. as a market ing agent.
&

COMPANY: Premie re Bus Manufa cturing

ADDRESS: 12450 Lakelan d Rd, Santa Fe Spring s, CA 90670
PHONE: (213) 538-3795 or (213) 946-6881
CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Munoz, Sales Manager

The company began produc ing buses in the mid-'7 0's. Its main produc t is
small bus on a van cutaway chassis . The compan y's total annual produc tion a
is
200 to 300 vehicle s. Recent custom ers include severa l hotel chains and
city
transit author ities.

COMPANY: Quality Coach (forme rly Reo Vee)

ADDRESS: Stump Road & Commerce Drive, Montgo mervill e, PA 18936
PHONE: (215) 643-2211
CONTACT: Mr. Dick Boyd
The company was formed in 1969 to repair RV's. They began to do
modifi cation work and eventu ally began produc ing STV's. The main produc
t line
of the company is specia lized vehicle s. Total annual produc tion is
approx imately 50 units. Recent custom ers include individ uals and nursing
homes.

COMPANY: REV CON

ADDRESS: 10870 Kalama River Road, Founta in Valley , CA 92708
PHONE: (714) 968-3346
CONTACT: Mr. Bob Mitche ll

REVCON was started in 1969. Its main produc t line is RVs. It produce s
approx imately 35 transi t type vehicle s per year. Recent custom ers include
the
Armed Forces and the White House.

A-13
COMPANY: RJ Mobility Systems
ADDRESS: 715 South 5th Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153
PHONE: (312) 344-2705
CONTACT: Mr. Tom Cosack

The company was started 15 years ago by an individual who had sustained a
physical injury resulting in a handicap. The company's main product line is
evenly split between wheelchair lifts and van conversions . The company also
builds undercover police vehicles and designs and builds paratransit and
wheelchair lift accessible buses and vans. Total annual production is between
75 and 100 units. Recent customers include nursing homes, hospitals, and
private individuals .

COMPANY: Skill craft

ADDRESS: 355 Center Court, Venice, FL 33595
PHONE: (813) 493-8804
CONTACT: Mr. T.L. Huston
Founded in 1969, Skillcraft has been primarily a manufacture r of low-
floored, heavy-duty transit buses. The first vehicles produced by Skillcraft
were 13 vans used in a government Elderly and Handicapped demonstrati on program
in 1971-72. These vans are now used in a 16(b) 2 program. The Transmaster , the
company's 32.5-foot transit bus, was introduced in 1979 and is available in 20,
23, 27, 31 passenger models. Their plant in Venice, Fla. has been expanding.
Currently 40 workers are employed and production is one bus per week; with the
new $28,000 sq. ft. building, production capacity will be three buses per week.

COMPANY: Steyr-City Bus (Transbus of America)

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 119, Portland, ME 04104
PHONE: (207) 797-8466 Telex: 944417
CONTACT: Mr. E. Robert Brown
Transbus of America is the national distributor of the Steyr City Bus
manufacture d by Steyr Daimler Puch AG, in Vienna, Austria. The 20-foot bus is a
low floor, diesel powered, front wheel drive vehicle.

COMPANY: Target Industries, Inc.

ADDRESS: 55 Newbury Road, East Windsor, CT 06088
PHONE: (203) 627-9329
CONTACT: Mr. John Quandt, Vice Pres.-Marke ting
Target Industries, Inc. manufacture s lifts, steering systems, braking
systems, and a substantial line of products for the disabled driver or
passenger. Annual production is approximate ly 200 to 400 vehicles. End users
include private non-profit agencies participatin g in the 16(b) 2 program, state
rehabilitat ion commissions , Veterans administrat ions, school bus and ambulance
services.

A-14
COMPANY: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2450, High Point, N.C. 27261
PHONE: (919) 889-4871
CONTACT: Mr. John W. Thomas, Jr., President

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. is managed and owned by the Thomas family. Perley
A. Thomas founded Perley A. Thomas Car Works in 1916, after Southern Car Company
curtailed operations. The company primarily manufacturers school buses.

Since the 1920's, Perley A. Thomas Car Works, now called Thomas Built
Buses, Inc. has been expanding and developing its product lines and plants.
Thomas began mass producing school bus bodies in 1935. During World War II,
Thomas produced mobile arms shops used for supplying and repairing rifles,
pistols and small compact weapons for the military. Following World War II
Thomas returned to producing school bus bodies, and the company's first transit
bus bodies. By 1960, Thomas also began penetrating foreign markets in North
America, South America and Central America. The International Division also
opened plants in Woodstock, Ontario (Canada); Quito, Ecuador; and Callao, Peru
(S. America). In the last decade, Thomas has introduced the Mighty Mite, first
with the conventional configuration mounted on the Dodge and International
chassis, later as the present forward control configuration on the Chevrolet
chassis. Recently, Thomas has introduced the Minotour, a small transit bus with
a 20 passenger capacity. A wide body Mighty Mite with a 96 inch width
permitting 2 to 2 adult seating is also available.

Production in the High Point headquarters in the past two years has been
affected due to decreasing student enrollments and tight budget constraints.
Problems with chassis deliveries and late state bids also affected production
schedules. To help overcome some of these obstacles Thomas designed, tested and
put into production their own chassis in the late '70's. This chassis has
opened other markets for the company. Thomas has tripled its production in the
last 20 years; sales since 1950 have increased 50 times. Currently Thomas
provides jobs for over 1100 people.

COMPANY: Transit Bus Manufacturing Inc.

ADDRESS: 2437 Minnis Drive, Forth Worth, TX 76118
PHONE: (817) 838-6789
CONTACT: Mr. Hyden

The company originally modified vans. The company began to build converted
vans for car rental companies and is now diversifying into building small buses
using Isuzu chassis. The main product line of the company is buses and modified
vans. Total annual capacity is approximately 50 large vehicles per year and
between 60 and 72 small vehicles per year. Recent customers include church
groups, car rental companies, beer companies, and several.small city transit
authorities.

A-15
COMPANY: Transportation Products Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 329, Suffer, NY 10901
PHONE: (914) 357-2510
CONTACT: Mr. Tony Appuzo

The company started producing van conversion school buses in 1976. Their
entrance into the STV market was to offset the cycles in the school bus market.
Recent customers include car rental companies, casinos and bus dealers.
Production is an average of 300 buses annually.

COMPANY: Turtle Top/Independent Protection Co.

ADDRESS: 118 West Lafayette Street, P.O. Box 537, Goshen, IN 46526
PHONE: (210) 533-4116
CONTACT: Mr. Marion Carlin

In 1965, the company started purchasing vans from GM and Ford and
converting them into recreational vehicles. The product lines expanded and the
company also started manufacturing a small RV and a small transit vehicle. The
main product line of the company is lightning protection. Total annual
production is approximately: van conversion: 143; mini motor homes: 40; small
transit vehicles: 150. Recent customers include universities, transit
authorities, colleges and dealers.

COMPANY: Universal Coach Corporation

ADDRESS: 210 Route 109, West Babylon, NY 11704
PHONE: (516) 587-6680
CONTACT: Mr. Hank Fichtner

This company got into the small transit vehicle business in 1978 during the
fuel crlsls. Prior to 1978, the company manufactured custom vans. The main
product line now is specialized vehicles. Total annual production is between
200 and 350 vehicles. These vehicles are used for airport transportation, local
transit, and handicapped transportation.

COMPANY: Urban Transportation Development Corporation

ADDRESS: 2 St. Clair Ave. W., Toronto, Canada M4V-1L7
PHONE: (16) 961-9569 (FTS 457-4411)
CONTACT: Ms. Debra Bennett

The company was originally founded in 1973 by the province of Ontario. The
company produced a small bus based on a motor home chassis during the mid-'70's
but is now involved in production of an intermediate capacity fixed guideway
transit system. The company's main product line is turn-key fixed guideway
transit system construction and research. Currently, systems are on order from
Detroit, San Jose, Toronto and Vancover, resulting in orders for 200 vehicles
over the next two years.

A-16
COMPANY: Wayne Corporation
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374
PHONE: (317) 962-7511
CONTACT: Mr. Curtis Atkisson, Jr., President
Ms. Carol Vanderpool, Product Manager

The company which is now known as Wayne Corporation was founded in Dublin,
Indiana, in 1837 as a producer of agricultural equipment. In 1868, the firm
expanded into the transportation equipment industry.

In 1875, the company moved its operations to Richmond and, around 1890
built one of the first horse-drawn "kid hacks" - forerunner of the motor-powered
school bus. In 1914, Wayne built one of the earliest school bus bodies designed
for mounting on a motor powered chassis. In 1930, it designed and built one of
the first all steel school buses. During World War II, Wayne produced all the
cross-country ambulances used by the Army, as well as signal corps radar van
bodies, mobile machine shops, and other materials.

Wayne acquired Welles Corporation, Ltd., the Canadian division in 1963. In

1967, Wayne moved its Richmond operation to a new plant, which is one of the
largest in the industry. In 1968, Wayne was purchased by Indian Head, a broadly
diversified company in metal and automotive products, pumping systems,
construction products, information technology, and containers. Indian Head has
since been absorbed into the corporate structure of Thyssen-Bornem isza, Inc., a
diversified international group of companies involved in agriculture, banking,
shipbuilding, ship repair, and transport and trading.

In 1973, Wayne introduced the Lifeguard, a new school bus which employs a
number of advanced concepts designed to increase strength and durability; reduce
the possibility of injury in the event of accident; permit faster and easier
escape, and increase driver visibility. The Lifeguard is constructed of one-
piece, full-length exterior and interior panels that eliminate seams, resist
penetration and increase safety.

In 1974, as the result of market studies indicating a growing need for a

highly maneuverable, economical smaller bus, Wayne introduced the Busette. Bus
operators requested a higher headroom version of this bus, so Wayne presented
the Transette in 1976. These buses have accelerated Wayne's expansion into a
broad spectrum of new commercial markets, including city bus lines, park and
fly, employee pooling, industrial and hotel shuttles, tour services, taxis,
rural transit, and church shuttles.

In 1983, Wayne introduced the Chaperone bus, which seats 22 students or 17

adults, for school and commercial applications. For 1984, the company is
introducing a longer version, the Chaperone II, which can accommodate 21 adults.

All models are available specially equipped for transportation of the

physically handicapped and elderly. Wayne buses are marketed throughout the
U.S., Canada, and overseas.

A-17,
COMPANY: Wide One Corporation
ADDRESS: 3051 E. LaPalma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806
PHONE: (714) 630-7933
CONTACT: Mr. Dale Hanson

Wide One Corporation was formed in 1978 after having re-purchased the
equipment and rights from their original company, Far West Coach, that was
formed in 1972 by the present owners. The main product line is that of small
transit buses, paratransit buses, ambulance shells, van limousines and
commercial vans. The products are distributed generally in the Western States.
The vehicles are based upon Dodge Maxivan chassis and are widened to an exterior
width of 94~ inches to provide proper room for use in the specified category.
Production annually is approximately 135 to 150 units.

A-18
 APPENDIX B

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials
444 N. Capital
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-5800
Francis B. Francois, Executive Director

Founded in 1914, ASHSTO has 63 members made up of highway and

transportation departments of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guan the
Virgin Islands, Marianas, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the highway departments of
Manitoba, New Brunswich, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

AASHTO's purpose is to develop and improve methods of admini-

stration, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a
national integrated transportation system. The organization
studies all problems connected with such a system; counceling
Congress on transportation legislation; to develop technical,
admininstrative, and highway operational standards and policies
for all transportation modes; and to cooperate with other agencies
in the consideration and solution of transportation problems.

American Bus Association

1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washongton, D.C. 20036
(202) 293-5890
Norman R. Sherlock, President

The American Bus Association is the national organization of

the intercity bus industry. Nearly 700 private intercity carriers,
including Greyhound and Trailways, are members of the ABA. Collec-
tively, ABA operator members provide more than 90 percent of all
intercity bus travel in the United States and Canada.

In addition to bus operator members, more than 1,500 organiza-

tions involved in travel and tourism are ABA members. More than
100 firms in allied industries, associations and 42 state travel
officies hold membership in the Association.

B-1
 The ABA Maintains a full-time research staff to collect and
analyze data on the bus industry from a variety of sources. On a
routine basis, the ABA shares the results of its analyses with
government agencies, educational institutions, and private con-
sultants, as well as members of the Association.

American Public Transit Association

1225 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 828-2800
Jack R. Gilstrap, Executive Vice-President
The American Public Transit Association 1s the national orga-
nization representing the urban transit industry APTA represents
over 300 local bus and rail transit systems in the United States,
Canada, and several foreign countries. APTA member transit systems
carry 94 percent of all transit riders 1n the United States. In
addition to transit systems, APTA members include manufacturers
and suppliers of transit equipment, consultants, state and local
departments of transportation and planning agencies, universities,
and transit construction contractors.

Community Transportation Program

Extension Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250
(202) 447-2602
Mr. Donald L. Nelson,
National Program Leader
Community Transportation
The Extension Service is the educational agency of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. It is one of three partners in the Cooperative
Extension System. State governments, through their land-grant
universities, and county governments are the other partners. All
three share in financing, planning, and conducting the Extension's
educational programs.
The Extension Service helps the public learn about and apply
to everyday activities, the latest technology developed through
research by land-grant universities, the Department of Agriculture,

B-2
 and other source s. Major areas of assist ance are agric ultura l
produ ction, marke ting, natura l resou rces, home econom ics and
human
nutrit ion, 4-H youth develo pment , rural develo pment , and relate
d
subjec ts includ ing rural transp ortati on improv ement.

The Exten sion Servic e has a small staff that provid es nation
al
level policy formu lation , progra m leader ship and manag ement,
organ izatio n, coord inatio n and repres entati on, and accou ntabil
ity
and evalu ation system s in suppo rt of the Coope rative Exten sion
System .

Feder al Highw ay Admi nistra tion

Depar tment of Trans portat ion
400 Seven th Stree t, S.W.
Washi ngton, D.C. 20
(202) 426-05 37
Ray A. Barnh art, Feder al Highw ay Admi nistra tor

The Feder al Highw ay Admi nistra tion (FHWA) became a compo nent
of the Depart ment of Trans portat ion pursua nt to the Depar tment
of
Trans portat ion Act (80 Stat. 932). It carrie s out the highwa y
transp ortati on progra ms of the Depar tment of Trans portat ion
under
pertin ent legisl ation or provis ions of law cited in sectio n
6(a)
of the act.

The FHWA encom passes highwa y transp ortati on in its broad est
scope , seekin g to coord inate highwa ys with other modes of trans-
porta tion to achiev e the most effect ive balanc e of transp ortati
on
system s and facili ties under cohes ive Feder al transp ortati on
polici es as contem plated by the act.

The FHWA is concer ned with the total opera tion and enviro n-
ment of highwa y system s, includ ing highwa y safety .

Motor Vehic le Manuf acture rs Assoc iation

of the United States , Inc.
Detro it, MI 48202
(313) 872-43 11
V.J. Adduc ci, Presid ent and Chief Execu tive Office r

The Motor Vehic le Manuf acture rs Assoc iation of the United

States , Inc. is the trade assoc iation for U.S. Car and Truck

B-3
manuf acture rs. Its nine members are Ameri can Motors Corpo ration ,
Chrys ler Corpo ration , Ford Motor Company, Gener al Motors Corpo ra-
tion, Intern ationa l Harve ster Company, MAN Truck & Bus Corpo ration
,
PACCAR Inc., Volksw agen of Ameri ca, Inc., and Volvo North Ameri ca
Corpo ration . These nine members produc e over 99 percen t of all
domes tic motor vehic les.
The MVMA has a legal and admin istrati ve staff as well as three
opera ting units. These opera ting units includ e Public Affai rs,
Techn ical Affai rs, and the Motor Truck Divisi on. These divisi ons
speci alize in areas of law, energy and mater ial, enviro nment ,
vehic le and safety engin eering , engin eering resear ch, tradem ark
and paten t record s, statis tics, educa tion progra ms, public rela-
tions, Feder al liason , State relati ons, Intern ationa l Affai rs,
person el and taxati on, Motor truck techn ical servic es, and traffi c
and freigh t rates.

Recre ationa l Vehic le Indus try Assoc iation

14650 Lee Road
Chant illy, VA 22021
(703) 968-77 22
David J. Hamph reys, Presid ent & Gener al Counc il
The RVIA was founde d in 1974. It has 281 members includ ing
recrea tion vehic le manuf acture rs (108), suppl iers of acces sories
and equipm ent used by manuf acture rs (148), and assoc iate members
(25). The organ izatio n seeks to provid e a unifie d recrea tional
vehic le organ izatio n for manuf acture rs of motor homes , trave l
traile rs, truck campe rs, foldin g camp traile rs, park traile rs, and
multi- use vehic les. The purpo se of the organ izatio n is to provid e
all eleme nts of the indus try with a single , active base from which
to commu nicate with legisl ators , variou s federa l and state govern -
ment depart ments and agenc ies, the finan cial commu nity, allied
indus tries, the media and the gener al public . The RVIA also
compl ies marke ting statis tics and presen ts awards for achiev ement s
in, and in suppo rt of, the indus try.

B-4
School Bus Manufac turers Institut e
Cherry Chase Building , Suite 1220
5530 Wiscons in Avenue
Washing ton, D.C. 20015
(202) 652-8004
Mr. Berkley Sweet, Secretar y
The School Bus Manufac turers Institut e was founded in 1949
and has 5 members ; the American Transpo rtation Company (Ward),
Blue Bird Body Company, Carpente r Body Works, Thomas Built Buses,
and the Wayne Transpo rtation Division of the Wayne Company , all
of these companie s manufac ture school bus bodies. The purpose of
the SBMI is "To promote the best interest s of the public in the
manufac ture of safe and qualifie d school bus bodies and to insure
fair and competi tive manufac turing practice s within the industry ."
The Institut e conducts research on crashes, minimum school bus
safety standard s and design and developm ent. It is a division of
the Truck Body and Equipme nt Associa tion.

Transpo rtation Research Board of the

Nationa l Research Council
2101 Constitu tion Avenue, N.W.
Washong ton, D.C. 20418
(202) 334-2000
Lawrence D. Dahms, Chairman
Thomas B. Deen, Executiv e Director
The Transpo rtation Research Board is an agency of the Nationa l
Research Council, which serves the Nationa l Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Enginee ring. The Board's purpose is
to stimulat e research concerni ng the nature and performa nce of
transpo rtation systems, to dissemin ate informa tion that th~
research produce s, and to encourag e the applicat ion of appropr iate
research findings . The Board's program is carried out by more
than 150 committe es and task forces composed of more than 1,800
adminis trators, enginee rs, social scientis ts, and educator s who
serve without compens ation. The program is supporte d by state
transpo rtation and highway departm ents, the U.S. Departm ent of
Transpo rtation, and other organiza tions interest ed in the develop-
ment of transpo rtation.

B-5
 The Transpo rtation Research Board operates within the Division
of Enginee ring of the Nationa l Research Council. The Council was
organize d in 1916 at the request of Presiden t Woodrow Wilson as an
agency of the Nationa l Academy of Sciences to enable the broad
communi ty of scientis ts and engineer s to associat e their efforts
with those of the Academy members hip. Members of the Council are
appointe d by the presiden t of the Academy and are drawn from
academic , industr ial, and governm ental organiza tions througho ut
the United States.
The Nationa l Academy of Sciences was establis hed by a con-
gression al act of incorpo ration signed by Presiden t Abraham Lincoln
on March 3, 1863, to further science and its use for the general
welfare by bringing together the most qualifie d individu als to
deal with scientif ic and technolo gical problems of broad signifi-
cance. It is a private, honorary organiz ation of more than 1,000
scientis ts elected on the basis of outstand ing contribu tions to
knowledg e and is supporte d by private and public funds. Under the
terms of its congres sional charter, the Academy is called upon to
act as an official -yet indepen dent-adv isor to the federal govern-
ment in any matter of science and technolo gy, although it is not a
governm ent agency and its activiti es are not limited to those on
behalf of the governm ent.
To share in the task of furtheri ng science and enginee ring
and of advising the federal governm ent, the Nationa l Academy of
Enginee ring was establis hed on Decembe r 5, 1964, under the authorit y
of the act of incorpo ration of the Nationa l Academy of Sciences .
Its advisory activiti es are closely coordina ted with those of the
Nationa l Academy of Science s, but it is independ ent and autonomo us
in its organiz ation and election of members .

B-6
Urban Mass Tran sit Adm inist ratio n
Depa rtmen t of Tran spor tatio n
400 Seve nth Stre et, S.W.
Wash ingto n, D.C. 20590
(202) 426-4 043
G. Kent Wood man, Actin g Adm inist rator

The Urban Mass Tran spor tatio n Adm inist ratio n (UMTA
) oper ates
unde r the auth ority of the Urban Mass Tran spor
tatio n Act of 1964 ,
as amen ded (49 U.S.C . 1601 et seq. ). The Adm inist ratio n was
estab lishe d as a comp onent of the Depa rtmen t of
Tran spor tatio n by
secti on 3 of the Pres iden t's Reor ganiz ation Plan
No. 2 of 1968 ,
effec tive July 1, 1968 .

The miss ions of the Adm inist ratio n are: to assi st in the
deve lopm ent of impro ved mass trans port ation faci
litie s, equip ment ,
techn ique s, and meth ods; to enco urage the plan
ning and esta blish -
ment of areaw ide urban mass trans port ation syste
ms wher e they are
cost effe ctive ; and to prov ide assis tanc e to State
and loca l
gove rnme nts in finan cing such syste ms; and to
enco urage priv ate
secto r invol veme nt in loca l mass trans port ation
syste ms.

B-7 /B--8
 GLOSSARY

Aver age Cost per Pass enge r - The aver age tota
l cost s per
vehi cle- hour divi ded by the aver age numb er of
pass enge r trip s
made per hour .
Aver age Ride rship - The tota l numb er of pass enge
r trip s di-
vide d by the tota l numb er of serv ice days (usu
ally dete rmin ed on
an annu al basi s).
Axle Weig ht - The amou nt of weig ht carr ied by
one axle .
Body - The part of the vehi cle desi gned to carr
y pass enge rs
or payl oad.
Body -on- Chas sis Con struc tion - A vehi cle desi
gn feat ure and
a meth od of man ufac ture in whic h the chas sis
and body of the
vehi cle are buil t as sepa rate unit s and join ed
toge ther to form
the com plete d vehi cle. Chas sis and body of the
same vehi cle are
comm only buil t by diff eren t comp anies and in
diff eren t plan ts.
Crit eria for deno ting body -on- chas sis vehi cles
vary , but by the
most rigo rous crit eria , the chas sis alon e must
be a "dri veab le"
unit , exce pt perh aps for the lack of a driv er's
seat and body -
moun ted ligh ts and sign als, and it must be poss
ible to demo unt the
body from one chas sis and moun t it agai n on a
new chas sis. Chas sis
for body -on= chas sis cons truc tion gene rally have
heav y fram e rail s
to whic h the body is attac hed.
Scho ol buse s, many smal l tran sit vehi cles and
most sing le-
unit medium and ~eavy truc ks are body -on- chas
sis vehi cles . See
also "int egra l cons truc tion ."
Brok erag e - A mana geme nt tech niqu e whic h brin
gs peop le in
need of tran spor tatio n (age ncie s or ride rs) toge
ther with a tran s-
port atio n prov ider . The brok er coor dina tes the
tran spor tatio n
serv ices for clie nts and for prov ider s.
Bus - A moto r vehi cle desi gned to carr y a larg
e numb er of pas-
seng ers.

G-1
 Cab - The part of the vehic le which enclos es the driver and
vehicl e opera ting contro ls includ ing the sheet metal housin g, the
power plant and the fende rs. Vehic les witho ut a separa tion be-
tween cab and load areas are not consid ered to have a cab.
Carpo ol - A group of people who share their autom obile trans-
s
portat ion to design ated destin ations , usuall y altern ating driver
and vehic les.
Carryi ng Capac ity - The payloa d or maximum weigh t the vehic le
can accep t, usuall y GVW minus curb weigh t.
CETA - The Compr ehensi ve Employ ment and Traini ng Act of 1973,
as amend ed, provid es job traini ng and employ ment oppor tuniti es
for econo micall y disadv antage d, unemp loyed, or undere mploy ed per-
sons, and also funds for transp ortati on to traini ng cente rs, work
sites, and educa tional ana couns eling cente rs.
Chass is - The frame and workin g parts of the vehic le such as
the engine , transm ission , suspen sion, axles, steeri ng gear and
brakes .
Check points - In a point devia tion system of parat ransit , a
set numbe r of regula rly schedu led stops distri buted throug hout a
geogr aphica l area, with which a vehic le must touch base during
each run.
Common Carrie r - A provid er of transp ortati on which is open
to the genera l public , and for which a fare is paid.
Conve ntiona l Schoo l Bus - A body- on-ch assis schoo l bus built
on a long frame, front engine chass is derive d from a mediu m-duty
truck chass is. Conve ntiona l schoo l buses are distin guish ed by
the placin g of the front axle and engine ahead of the driver creat-
ing a front siloue tte with a long nose.
Cowl - The portio n of a motor vehic le forwar d of the front
doors to which are attach ed the winds hield and instru ment panel .
Schoo l bus chass is are often sold with a cowl in place of a full
cab so that the bus body can be constr ucted in a way which in-
cludes the drive r's area.

G-2
 Curb Weight - Weight of the vehicle with all items of standar d
equipm ent, 150 pounds per passen ger in each design ated seating po-
sition , and maximum capaci ty of fuel, oil, and coolan t.
Demand -Respon sive Paratr ansit - A public transp ortatio n service
charac terized by the flexibl e routing and schedu ling of relativ ely
small vehicle s to provide shared occupa ncy, door-to -door person -
alized transp ortatio n on demand for a modest fare.
Dial-A -Ride Service s - A demand -respon sive type of serv1ce
whereby a person can telepho ne a dispatc her and arrange to be
picked up by a vehicle either shortly after the call or at anothe r
specifi ed time. Nearly all dial-a- ride systems in the country are
operate d by some type of public author ity, whethe r the system
serves the genera l public or only specia l groups .
Dispatc h - The relayin g of service instruc tions to drivers .
Door-T o-Door Service - A demand -respon sive transp ortatio n
service whereb y a person can be picked up at his door and deliver ed
to his exact destina tion.
Doorste p Service - In a point deviati on system , a deliver y or
pickup service to or from the exact point design ated by a rider.
Riders have the followi ng service option s: doorste p-to-do orstep
(otherw ise called "door- to-doo r" servic e); doorste p-to-ch eckpoi nt;
and checkp oint-to -doors tep.
Drivet rain - The group of compon ents used to transm it engine
power to the wheels . The drivetr ain include s the clutch , trans-
missio n, univer sal joints (U-joi nts), drive shafts , and drive axle
gears and shafts.
Dynami c Routing - The proces s of modify ing a vehicle route to
accomm odate service reques ts receive d after the vehicle has been
dispatc hed.
Expres s Service - An operati on designe d to make a limited
number of stops between relativ ely long distanc es along a given
route.
FHWA - Federa l Highwa y Admin istratio n.

G-3
 Feeder Service - A local transportation service which provides
connections with a major public transportation service.
Fixed-Route - A regularly scheduled transportation service
operating over a set route.
Forward Control Chassis - A front engine chassis on which the
driver's controls are placed above or in front of the front axle.
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) - The maximum allowable fully laden
weight of the vehicle and its payload, it is the most common
classification criteria used by manufacturers and by states, for
trucks, tractors, and buses.
Headway - The time required for successive vehicles traveling
at the same speed and direction to pass the same point (used to
plan orderly dispatch of vehicles).
Horsepower - The unit of power used by the engine industry.
The rate at which the twisting force (torque) is applied. If 802
lb-ft of torque is generated at a rate of 1900 revolutions per
minute (rpm), the power generated is 290 horsepower.
Integral Construction - A vehicle design feature and a method
of manufacture in which a single structure serves as both chassis
and body of the vehicle. The most important advantage of integral
construction is its greater rigidity-to-weight ratio which permits
a strong body with a larger seating capacity for a given weight
than body-on-chassis construction. Low floor height may also be
easier to achieve, since the heavy chassis frame rails associated
with body-on-chassis construction are not necessary. Large transit
buses and intercity buses are usually integral construction vehicles.
See also "body-on-chassis construction and "monocoque".
".Journey- To- Work" Zone - A geographical area subdivision which
is used by the U.S. Census Bureau for locating residential and work
sites.
Lift - A device which raises and lowers a platform to accommo-
date the entrance and exit of wheelchair users and others with dis-
abilities.

G-4
 Limite d-Mob ility Users - Those person s for whom access to
either private automo biles or public transp ortatio n is limited :
the elderly , the handica pped, the poor, the young, and the unem-
ployed , for exampl e.
Loop Config uration - A fixed, circuit ous path along which a
vehicle operate s continu ously, picking up and discha rging passen gers
along the way.
"Many-T o-Few" Service - A demand -respon sive transp ortatio n
service which picks up passen gers at their homes or other logica l
startin g points , but dischar ges passen gers only at certain pre-
establi shed points , such as health center s, shoppin g center s, or
regula r transi t station s.
"Many-T o-Many " Service - A demand -respon sive transp ortatio n
service in which passen gers are collect ed from multip le locatio ns
(origin s) and transpo rted to their individ ual destin ations ; gen-
erally , service offered betwee n any combin ation of origin -destin a-
tion points in the service area.
"Many- To-One " Service - A demand -respon sive transp ortatio n
service which picks up passen gers from a variety of places , but
has only one dropof f point.
Mass Transp ortatio n - Transp ortatio n by bus, or rail, or other
convey ance public ly or private ly owned, which provide s genera l or
specia l service (not includi ng school buses or charte r or sight-
seeing service ) on a regula r and continu ing basis.
Monoco que - A type of integra l constru ction in which the outer
skin of the vehicle body carries all or a major part of the stress .
Semi-m onocoqu e differs from monoco que structu re in that the skin is
reinfor ced stringe rs.
"One-To -Many" Service - A demand -respon sive transp ortatio n
service having only one pickup point for passen gers, but severa l
deliver y points scatter ed over the service area.

G-5
 Paratransit - Flexible transportation services, operated pub-
licly or privately. Typically, small scale operations using low-
capacity vehicles closely related to public transportation, e.g.,
dial-a-ride, shared-ride taxi, carpools, vanpools, and subscrip-
tion buses.
Passenger Trip - One person traveling one way from origin to
destination.
Peak Hours - Specified time periods during which the volume
of traffic and/or the number of passengers is greater than at other
periods.
Prearranged Ridesharing - A paratransit service whereby riders
sign up in advance and travel with a group of people on the same
route every day. Services are provided mostly between a residen-
tial neighborhood and a particular employment area with some route
deviation for minor collection and distribution patterns at either
end of the trip. Examples include carpools, vanpools, and sub-
scription buses.
Primary Transmission - Attached directly to the rear of the
engine, the primary transmission contains a number of gears which,
when a connection is made between a specific set, provides a spe-
cific reduction of power to the line axles.
Public Transportation - A common term for mass transportation.
Pulsed Schedule System - A dispatching technique in which lo-
cal and regional transit routes arrive at the same point (transfer
station) at the same time. It allows for quick and convenient
transfers between vehicles, and it increases the number of destin-
ations that can be reached.
Route-Deviation - A demand-responsive transportation service
pattern in which a fixed-route bus will leave the route upon re-
quest to serve patrons not on the fixed route.
Section 3 - A section of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964,
as ammended, which authorizes UMTA to make discretionary grants or
loans in response to individual applications for capital improvement

G-6
 proj ects , inclu ding equi pme nt. A fixe d perc enta
ge of Sect ion 3
appr opri atio ns are used to fund Sect ion 16 and
unti l 1982 were used
to fund Sect ion 8 of the Urba n Mass Tran spor tatio
n Act of 1964 , as
amen ded. As of 1983 Sect ion 3's matc h fund requ
irem ents chan ge
from 80% Fede ral/2 0 % Stat e and Loca l to 75%
Fede ral/2 5% Stat e and
Loca l.
Sect ion 5 - The Sect ion 5 form ula gran t prog ram
for urba nize d area s
divi des its fund ing prog ram into four tier s.
The firs t two tier s
base fund ing upon a popu latio n and popu latio n
dens ity form ula. The
thir d tier is devo ted to rail and fixe d guid eway
tran sit. The
four th tier fund s bus capi tal gran ts whic h are
also appo rtion ed by
popu latio n and popu latio n dens ity. Fede ral fund
s avai labl e unde r
Sect ion 5 are expe cted to supp leme nt rath er than
subs titut e for
dist rict tran sit incom e such as fare box rece
ipts , adve rtisi ng and
conc essio n reve nues , prop erty leas es and stat
e and loca l publ ic
fund s.

NOTE: Sect ion 5 ends in FY83. Afte r FY83 fund

s will be car-
ried forw ard unti l Sept embe r 30, 1985 afte r whic
h time the fund s
will be adde d to the Sect ion 9 Bloc k Gran t prog
ram for reap port ion-
ment .
Sect ion 8 - Sect ion 8 of the Urba n Mass Tran spor
tatio n Act of 1964 ,
as amen ded, prov ides for cont ract s and gran ts
to stat es and loca l
publ ic agen cies for the plan ning , engi neer ing,
desi gnin g and eval ua-
tion of urba n mass tran spor tatio n proj ects ; for
the deve lopm ent of
regi onal tran spor tatio n plan s and for vari ous
othe r tech nica l
stud ies. Act iviti es unde r this head ing may inclu
de (1) stud ies
rela ting to mana geme nt, oper atio n, capi tal requ
irem ents and econ omic
feas ibil ity of tran sit proj ects ; (2) prep arat
ion of engi neer ing and
arch itec tura l surv eys, plan s and spec ifica tion
s; (3) eval uati on of
prev ious ly fund ed proj ects ; and (4) simi lar acti
viti es prel imin ary
to the cons truc tion of an impr oved oper atio n
of mass tran spor tatio n
syste ms, faci litie s or equi pme nt. Sect ion 8
fund s, gene rally
avai labl e to regi onal and metr opol itan plan ning
agen cies , prov ide
an 80 perc ent fede ral shar e of the tota l proj
ect or stud y cost ;
the rema ining 20 perc ent of proj ect cost must
be prov ided loca lly
or by the stat e.

G-7
 capit al
Secti on 9 - Secti on 9 (9A in FY83 only) is a block grant
of 80/20 per-
expen se fundi ng progr am with a formu la appor tionm ent
cent Feder al/Lo cal share . It is funde d from the Mass Tran sit Ac-
count of the Highw ay Trust Fund. This progr am allow s a singl e ap-
idual appli ca-
plica tion for a Progr am of Proje cts rathe r than indiv
tions for indiv idual proje cts. Proce dures under this Secti on are
simil ar to those under Secti on 5.
tion Act
Secti on 16(b) 2 - Secti on 16 of the Urban Mass Trans porta
and loans to
of 1964, as amend ed, autho rizes UMTA to make grant s
trans it
state s and local agenc ies spec ifica lly to provi de mass
handi cappe d
servi ces which meet the speci al needs of elder ly and
perso ns. The Act also autho rizes UMTA to assis t priva te nonp rofit
group where
organ izatio ns in provi ding trans it servi ces for this
ficie nt or
trans porta tion servi ces provi ded are unav ailab le, insuf
inapp ropri ate for their use.
secti on
Subse ction b, parag raph 2 of the Act is the speci fic
which regul ates how the fundi ng may be appli ed. 16(b) 2 is a capit al

grant s progr am for equip ment purch ase only.

1978 inclu des
Secti on 18 - The Feder al Publi c Trans porta tion Act of
sive use in
a $420 milli on progr am of capit al assis tance for exclu
the perio d
nonur baniz ed areas (unde r 50,00 0 popu lation ) durin g
from 1979 throu gh 1982. Funds under this progr am are avail able for
ion progr ams,
plann ing and progr am devel opme nt activ ities , demo nstrat
suppo rt of
vehic le acqu isitio n and other capit al inves tment s in
ces provi ded
gener al or speci al trans it servi ces, inclu ding servi
perso ns.
for elede rly, handi cappe d and other trans it-de pend ent
ce
The Secti on 18 progr am has been conti nued by the Surfa
Trans porta tion Assis tance Act of 1982.
porta -
Servi ce Area - The geogr aphic al area withi n which trans
tion servi ce is offer ed.

G-8
 Shar ed-R ide Taxi s - A type of dem and- resp onsi
ve serv ice in
whic h taxi s are allow ed by the regu lato ry auth
orit ies to carr y at
any one time seve ral unre lated pass enge rs with
diff eren t orig ins
and dest inat ions .
Shu ttle Serv ice - A tran spor tatio n serv ice oper
atin g excl u-
sive ly betw een two fixe d stop s.
Sub scrip tion Bus Serv ice - A serv ice prov ided
thro ugh adva nce
rese rvat ions for regu lar trip s over a spec ified
peri od of time .
Tandem Axle - Two axle s oper ated from a sing le
susp ensi on.
Torq ue - The twis ting forc e of the engi ne cran
ksha ft whic h is
tran smit ted to the axle s to turn the tire s and
move the vehi cle.
Torq ue is expr esse d in unit s of poun d-fe et (lb-
ft).
Turb ocha rging - Usin g a turb ocha rger to incr ease
eng1 ne per-
form ance , impr ove fuel econ omy, and redu ce engi
ne smoke and nois e
leve ls. The turb ocha rger uses the exha ust gas
ener gy (in its tur-
bine ) to comp ress the engi ne inta ke air (in its
com pres sor) and
thus prov ides pres suri zed air in the inta ke man
ifold .
UMTA - Urba n Mass Tran spor tatio n Adm inist ratio
n.
Urba nize d Area - An area with a city of over
50,0 00 pers ons
so desi gnat ed by the Bure au of Cens us, with in
boun darie s whic h
shal l be fixe d by resp onsi ble stat e and loca l
offi cial s in coop er-
atio n with each othe r, subj ect to the appr oval
by the Secr etar y of
Tran spor tatio n.
Van Cuta way Chas sis - An auto mob ile van whic h
is sold with out
any body behi nd the fron t seat s and door s.
Vanp ool - Ride -sha ring serv ices by van for eigh
t or more
trav eler s with rout es and sche dule s to meet thei
r part icul ar trav el
need s.
Whe elbas e - The dista nce betw een the cent erlin
es of the fron t
and rear axle s or, if tand em, the dista nce from
the cent erlin e of
the fron t axle to a poin t midw ay betw een the
two rear axle s.

G-9/G -10
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Transit Fact Book, American Public Transit Associa tion, 1980-81

Edition.
Andrle, S.J., Spielber g, F. and Hungerb ushler, A., Operatin g Costs
and Charact eristics of Minibus es, prepared for Urban Mass Transpo r-
tation Adm1n1 strat1on, Report No. UMTA-M A-06-012 6-81-1, Washing ton,
DC, August 1981, (Reprodu ced by NTIS, No. PBB2-10 7038).
Armour, R.F., "An Economic Analysis of Transit Bus Replacem ent,"
Transit Journal, Winter 1980.
Bakr, Mamdouh M. and Kretschm er, Steven L., "Schedu ling of Transit
Bus Mainten ance,'' Transpo rtation Enginee ring Journal, January 1977,
pp. 173-181.
Brogan, J.D., et al., "Equipm ent and Maintena nce Requirem ents for
Light Weight Accessib le Bus Operatio ns," Departm ent of Civil and
Sanitary Enginee ring, Michigan State Univers ity, May 1980.
Brown-W est, O.G., "The Life Cycle Cost of a Bus--A New York City
Case Study," Transit Journal, Winter 1981.
"Mainten ance By The Book", Commerc ial Car Journal for Fleet Manage-
ment, June 1972, pp. 108-113.

Urban

Encyclop edia of Associa tions 18th Ed. 1984, Denise S. Akey, Editor,
Gale Research Company Book Tower, Detroit MI 48226
Fletcher , P.B., et al., Small Bus Program: Vehicle Operatio n
Efficien cy Report, Michigan Departm ent of State Highways & Trans-
port, Lansing, Michigan , No. FHWA/PL -77-007, NTIS PB-26513 1/3ST,
Novembe r 1976.
Flusberg , ~4artin, Kullman, Brian, and Casey, Robert, Small Transit
Vehicle Survey, Prepared under contract to the U.S. Departm ent of
Transpo rtation, Transpo rtation Systems Center, Kendall Square,
Cambridg e, MA 02142, by ECI Systems, Inc., Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-
75-17, June 1975 (distrib uted by NTIS No. PB-2432 28).
H. Holcomb e, et al., Impact of Fare Collecti on on Bus Design, Booz-
Allen and Hamilton , Inc., Bethesda , MD, UMTA-IT -06-0132 -79-1, 2.
Jenkins, Ion A., An Analysis of Bus Defects, Their Consequ ences
and Methods for Remedyin g Them, Newcast le upon Tyne Univers ity
(England ), July 1979. (NTIS Report No. PB81-20 2327.)

BIBL-1
Kosin ski, M., J.F. Foers ter, and F.G. Mille r, Develo pment of Trans it
Js,
Bus Compo nent Failur e Statis tics from Conve ntiona l Bus Card Recnr TA,
Unive rsity of Illino is at Chicag o Circle , prepar ed for U.S. DOT/UM
Februa ry 1982, Repor t No. UMTA -IL-11 -0028- 82-2.
Lave, Roy E., et al., The Roche ster New York Integr ated Trans it
Demo nstrati on - Volume II: Evalu ation Repor t. SYSTAN, Inc., Los
Altos , CA, March , 1979.
------ , Metro , Volum es 70-79, Bobit Public ations , Redond o Beach ,
CA. 1974-1 983.
- - - - , Mass Trans it, Volum es 1-10, Washi ngton, DC. 1974-1 983.
Motor Vehic le Manuf acture rs Assoc iation , Facts & Figure s (Vario us
Years ), Washi ngton, DC.
Parat ransit for the Work Trip: Commuter Rides haring , prepar ed by
Multis ystem s, Inc., Januar y 1982, for Urban Mass Trans portat ion
Admi nistra tion, Repor t No. DOT-I -82-16 .
Parat ransit , Technolo~y Sharin g, State- of-the -Art Overv iew, Urban
Mass Trans portat ion A minis tratio n, Decem ber 1981.
Small Trans it Bus Requir ement s Study: Opera tions of Small Buses
in Urban Trans it Servic e in the United State s, prepar ed by RRCporta-
Intern ationa l, Inc., Latham New York, for Urban Mass TransPB-269
tion Admi nistra tion, Washi ngton, DC, July 1975. (NTIS No.
39 3.)
Bus Chara cteris tics Needed for Elder ly and Handic apped in Urban for
Trave l, prepar ed by RRC Intern ationa l, Inc., Latham , New York,
U.S. Depart ment of Trans portat ion, March 1976. (NTIS No. PB-269
394.)
Small Trans it Bus Requir ement s Study 0Eera ting Profil es & Small
Bus Perfor mance Requ1 rement s in Urban Trans it Servic e, prepar ed by
or-
RRC Intern ationa l, Inc., Latham , New York, for Urban Mass TranspNo.
tation Admi nistra tion, Washi ngton, DC, Decem ber 1976. (NTIS
PB - 2 6 9 39 5 . )
the Design
Small Trans it Bus Requi remen ts Study: Guide lines formodate
of Future Small Trans it Buses and Bus Stops to Accom the
Elder ly and Handi capped , prepar ed by RRC Intern ationa l, Inc.,
Latham , New York, for Urban Mass Trans portat ion Admi nistra tion,
Washi ngton, DC, Januar y 1977. (NTIS No. PB-269 396.)
Small Trans it Bus Requir ement s Study: Gener al and Pe-rfor mance
by RRC
S ecifit ation s for a Small Urban Trans it Bus, prepar ed Trans
nterna t1ona l, nc., at am, ew or , or rban Mass porta-
tion Admi nistra tion, Washi ngton, DC. Decem ber 1976. (NTIS No. PB-
269 397.)

BIBL-2
 Small Tran sit Bus Requi remen ts Study Perfo rmanc e Spec ificat
Advan ced Desig n: Small Urban Tran sit Bus, Repor t prepa ions for
red
Inter natio nal Inc., 24 Wade Road, Latha m, New York, 12110 by RRC
, March
1977, for the Depar tment of Tran sport ation , Urban Mass Trans
tion Adm inistr ation , under Contr act No. DOT-U T-500 06. porta -
by NTIS No. PB-26 9 398.) (Repr oduce d

Seek ell, F.M., Asses sment s of the Skill craft Small Bus,
Trans porta -
tion Syste ms Cente r, Camb ridge, MA, DOT-TSC-UM129-PM-81-45
MA-0 6-012 0-82- 5, June 1982. , UMTA-

Small Tran sit Vehic les: Confe rence Summ ary, Prepa red by
Incor porat ed, Octob er 1982, for Urban Mass Trans porta tion Dyna trend
tratio n, Repo rt No. DOT-DTC-UMTA-82-44. Admi nis-

Stew art, Carl F., Small Tran sit Vehic le Perfb rmanc e Surve
lishe d by the State of Calif ornia , Depar tment of Trans y, pub-
Scram ento, CA July 1978. porta tion,

"Tran sit Bus Main tenan ce, Equip ment Manag ement Routi ne Maint
and Impro ving Work Zone Safet y," Recor d No. 864, Trans enanc e
Resea rch Board , 1981. porta tion

{{ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985--500 -798--638

1000 copies BIBL-3/BIBL-4

,