BusTalk

[RailBus63]

Sorry about that, Cliff - I now have a link to this thread in there.

[Dieseljim]

Remember that compact car built by Chevy in the early 70s that turned out to be a piece of junk known as the Vega? It seems to me that some of the low floor buses turned out these days might as well be built by the same people who built the Chevy Vega. Who in their right mind would want a bus that has the nasty and expensive tendency to chew up the steer tires as fast as the mechanics can change 'em?

[timecruncher]

The low-floor design is a nod to ADA regulations, not so much a design that the industry wanted fouisted upon them.

This is why a few notable systems have stayed away from low-floor vehicles -- DART down in Dallas and NJ Transit come to mind. Both of these systems are well-funded and can afford to maintain the hydraulic wheelchair lifts necessary on high-floor buses.

The rest of us bums gotta use ramps that can be hand-deployed if there is a motor failure on them.

Plus, transit administrations (and their marketing people) can roll out how "accessible" the low-floor vehicles are, "user-friendly," "no steps" and all kinds of other BS are used to describe them. It is as if MSNBC were describing the low-floor vehicles.

If the truth about them were given to the public, then politicians would be harrumphing all over the place wondering why the transit system purchased these design-deficient buses with OUR tax dollars!

The problem with the steering tire wear has something to do with the low floor design throwing the weight of the bus out of whack. I'm not sure I know all of the details, but the low-slung front axles don't have as much room to bounce as standard front axles do. There are probably other mechanical considerations, but no matter, we're stuck with low floor buses whether we like them or not.

timecruncher