Kneeling buses
Overview
Background & policy context:
The (then) Mobility and Inclusion Unit of the Department for Transport commissioned this research to inform a policy decision as to whether to,
- require buses that can kneel to do so at every stop, or;
- implement a policy whereby the bus kneels either on request from a passenger, or at the discretion of the driver.
This referred to the requirement for drivers to use a bus’s kneeling mechanism in order to reduce the gap between the vehicle’s first step and the kerb, at stops where passengers wish to get on or off the vehicle.
Objectives:
The objective of the trials was to evaluate the costs and benefits of requiring drivers of buses with a kneeling capability to kneel at every stop, instead of kneeling being a matter for the driver’s discretion, or on passenger request, which was the status quo. The trials were commissioned by the DfT to enable a possible change in regulations to be evaluated.
The research also looked at the possibility that extra time involved in the kneeling process may be offset by speedier boarding.
Methodology:
In order to provide the required information, the research required the collection of both cost data, and an estimate of the benefits of these two options for current and potential bus users. The assessment of the cost implications necessarily involved accurate measurement of a number of technical aspects, and initial discussions with operators shed light on what the important parameters were likely to be; these included:
- Stop dwell time effects;
- Fuel consumption;
- Additional wear on components.
The following aims of the pilots were clearly explained to each operator participating in the project,
- To set up trials involving two buses that eliminate, as far as practicable, the many variables that influences fuel consumption, so that the impact of the two policy regimes in question (i.e. compulsory and discretionary kneeling) could be studied in isolation. The crucial variables to keep constant were,
- The fuel consumption variances between the buses; here it was necessary to set base consumption figures before the trial began, which entailed capturing data without any change from the buses' usual routine;
- Driver influence. Given that a reasonable number of drivers were involved in the trial, it was expected that the combination of many drivers would balance out any driver-related differences over time;
- The route, which needed to be the same for each bus;
- Traffic & weather. These variables were controlled by ensuring that the two buses ran at very similar times on the same route, i.e. one behind the other in the schedule on the chosen route. Any roadworks or holdups of a short-term nature would therefore be similar for buses running consecutively;
- Passenger loading. Allowing for frequency of stops and passenger numbers. This factor was also controlled by the buses being scheduled to follow each another.
- To have a large set of pre-trial, or base, data (1 to 2 weeks)
- Bus 1 kneeling compulsorily for one week, and bus 2 in the same week and on the next scheduled run kneeling on demand;
- Swapping around in week 2, with bus 1 only kneeling on demand and bus 2 kneeling compulsorily with the same conditions.
The reasons for this process were,
- To set base fuel consumption data for each bus;
- To
Share this page