Bus Operator Barrier Design: Guidelines and Considerations (2024)
Chapter: 4 Conclusions
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions
The TCRP Project C-25 research team sought to respond to the growing list of challenges to bus operators that can be mitigated with thoughtfully designed and carefully implemented bus operator barriers in low-floor transit buses. The team surveyed the transit bus industry, collected reference materials on the designs of barriers and heavy low-floor transit buses, produced a summary of design criteria, and produced and defined three bus operator barrier concepts that may mitigate the risks to transit bus operator safety and health.
A survey of 77 transit agency personnel, with an average of 9.7 years of experience from across more than 28 transit agencies and additional organizations, illustrated the need for bus operator barriers and the challenges with some existing designs. A majority of the respondents stated that their transit agency was currently using barriers, but only one-third of those stated that the barriers were in use before the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary reason for use before the pandemic was to prevent physical assault. Among the respondents who stated that their agency started using bus operator barriers after the pandemic, all indicated that their transit agency was planning to continue barrier use. Most of the respondents, 46 out of 50, who answered the question about agency barrier use policy stated that their transit agency actively required bus operators to use the barriers during revenue-generating operations. Among the 3 respondents who stated their agency was not using barriers, the reasons given were lack of assaults, concern for emergency evacuation of the operator, and the need for more information about the quality and effectiveness of barriers. Respondents also provided cost estimates for initial purchase and maintenance.
Thirty respondents answered questions about the success of implementation. The challenges most frequently listed by respondents were glare, operator dislike, operator access, and incorrect use. Approximately half of the respondents suggested that no training on the use of bus operator barriers was provided. A majority of respondents (81%) thought the bus operator barriers were an overall success.
The collection of criteria that directly or indirectly affect the designs of bus operator barriers is provided in Appendix A. Judgments were made by the research team about how each criterion applies to the three concept bus operator barrier designs provided in this report. The detailed criteria and classification of overall risk mitigations for each concept are not provided as a guarantee of performance, rather, the purpose is to educate readers on how the attributes of different bus operator barrier concepts can affect the overall success of implementation.
This report provided barrier concepts that can balance bus operators’ needs for security, usability, and visibility. However, it is critical that before arriving at final production designs, transit agencies involve intentional outreach early in the process to solicit the needs of the users—in this case, bus operators. It is suggested that design teams discuss with bus manufacturers the integration of features such as automatic bus operator barrier door positions, overrides for passenger service, and emergency egress release mechanisms. The balance of important requirements and
standards affected by bus operator barriers per each individual bus configuration also suggests that bus manufacturers be consulted during the design process of aftermarket and integrated bus operator barriers. Lightweight transparent materials are available that can meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 205, but their application might be the best fit for bus operator barriers with doors that automatically move during driving to reduce the impacts of glare on those surfaces. Such materials might benefit door designs with high rates of open and close cycles, for which weight can increase cost and affect the durability of the automation mechanisms.
Glare is a recognized challenge for bus operator barriers. Glare is also a challenge to all glazing surfaces in vehicles in which internal and external lighting can veil objects of interest or present false images on the glazing surfaces. Anti-glare coatings are available and can provide some aid, but the orientation and size of barrier glazing surfaces can be difficult to predict and are best attempted in pre-production prototypes in bus pilots. To ensure consistent performance with defogging of street-side or curbside exterior glazing, agencies could consider and contact their bus HVAC suppliers to discuss the effects on airflow and defogging of additional barrier surfaces that might be positioned between the bus operator and other bus components. It is also advised that design teams consider the effects on the overall bus systems’ performance and warranty for any components that directly or indirectly interface with new bus operator barrier assemblies.
A rough bill of materials was developed for the two concept bus operator barriers designed for retrofit or integration in first purchase. These bills of materials can be found in Appendix B. Note that these part lists do not include estimated costs for development labor or assembly and installation labor. Additionally, the costs of design integration with the bus should be carefully considered.
In this report, the VTTI team produced information for North American public transportation agencies, standards committees, and government and non-government policy-making organizations on designing, procuring, and installing bus operator barriers to prioritize the health and safety of essential operators and the public they serve.
