EPA 550/9-77-201
                               PROTECTION

                                 AGENCY
                               OALIAS, TEXA5
        NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
      FOR TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
              PROPOSED
              BUS NOISE
       EMISSION REGULATION
                 PART 1.
       DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                 PART 2.
            BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
                AUGUST 1977
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

-------
                                              EPA 550/9-77^201
             NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
               TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
                      PROPOSED
                     BUS  NOISE
                EMISSION  REGULATION
                       PART  1
      DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT

                       PART  2
               BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
                     AUGUST  1977
      U, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
                WASHINGTON, D.C,  20U60
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification or
regulation,

-------
                                            EPA 550/9-77-201
              NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
                TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
                       PROPOSED
                      BUS  NOISE
                EMISSION  REGULATION
                       PART 1
      DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  STATEMENT
                     AUGUST 1977
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
                WASHINGTON, D.C.  20U60
This document has been approved for general availability,
It does  not constitute a standard, specification or
regulation.

-------
                      UNITED STATES

             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
                          DRAFT

             ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT



                         for the


          PROPOSED BUS NOISE EMISSION REGULATION


                       August 1977
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

-------
                             SUMMARY SHEETS
                                  FOR
                  DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                              Prepared By

                  OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
                  U.S. ENVIRCNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1.   Title of Action:  Regulation of Noise Emissions for  intercity,

school and urban transit buses.  This is an Administrative Action.

2.   Description of Action:  The Environmental Protection Agency's

proposed regulation is intended to reduce the level of noise emitted

from intercity, school and urban transit buses.  The regulation is also

intended to establish a uniform national standard for such vehicles dis-

tributed in commerce, thereby eliminating inconsistent state and local

noise source emission regulations that may impose an undue burden on

the bus manufacturing industry.  The recommended action proposes to

establish noise emission standards for newly manufactured buses and to

establish enforcement procedures to ensure that these vehicles comply

with the standard.

     The proposed regulation is based on anticipated health and wel-

fare benefits to the public by reducing noise emission from buses.

In arriving at the proposed regulation, the Environmental Protection

Agency investigated in detail the bus manufacturing industry, noise

'control technology, noise measurement methodologies, and  costs of

compliance.  Three major issues were identified requiring resolution:

(1) identification of vehicles to be regulated, (2) noise measurement

methodologies to be employed, and (3) noise levels and effective dates.

-------
     All newly manufactured school buses, transit buses and intercity



buses are subject to the proposed regulation. Included are both gasoline



and diesel powered buses.



     Incremental reductions in vehicle noise levels were concluded to



be preferable to a one-step requirement that all vehicles meet the most



stringent levels achievable and desirable.  To minimize market impacts



from substitution of unregulated vehicles, identical effective dates



were set for all vehicles subject to the,standard.



3.   Environmental Impact:  Compliance with the proposed exterior noise



standards for buses, should result in a reduction of approximately 48.2



percent in potential speech interference impacts due to buses, a 39.5



percent reduction in potential sleep awakening impacts due to buses and



a 33.4 percent reduction in potential sleep disturbance impacts due to



buses by the year 2000.



     Compliance with the proposed standards for interior noise levels



would result in a 42.7 percent decrease in potential passenger speech



interference impacts due to buses, a 92.4 percent decrease in potential



hearing loss risk for passengers exposed to 60 dBA prior to bus transit,



a decrease of 68.8 percent in potential hearing loss risk for passengers



exposed to a 70 dBA prior to bus transit and a reduction of 2.6 percent



in potential hearing loss risk for passengers exposed to an 80 dBA level



prior to bus transit.  Similar percentage impact reductions will occur



for bus operators.



     List price increases to quiet new buses to the most stringent level



(77 dBA) are estimated to range from 1.8 percent to 8.8 percent, depending
                                  11

-------
on the bus type and size.  The average list price increase for all buses

considered is estimated to be 3.2 percent.

     The maximum impact of the proposed regulation on transit and inter-

city bus fares would occur if the total costs of the regulation were to

be financed entirely by fare increases. This is an extreme case since

transit systems and intercity bus carriers typically try to absorb

costs in order to forestall fare increases.  Utilizing such an (worst

case) assumption, the Agency projects a maximum of a 1.0 to 1.7 percent

fare increase as a result of this regulation.

     Annualized costs to users of all buses beginning in 1979 through

the year 2000 are expected to increase nearly $69 million as a result

of bus manufacture cost pass throughs plus normal markups as a result

of meeting the interior and exterior noise level limits.

     Air quality, water quality, land use, solid waste disposal require-

ments, employment, regional economics, foreign trade, national GNP and

energy consumption are not expected to be significantly impacted by the

noise levels proposed.   Fuel (energy) consumption of buses is expected

to increase by no more than an average of 3% with the implementation of

the proposed levels.

     Persons wishing to obtain copies of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement and the Background Document for the Proposed Bus Noise Emission

Regulation or the Proposed Regulation itself may receive them on request

from:

               EPA Public Information Center (PM-215)
               Room M2194D, Waterside Mall
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, D.C.  20460.
                                111

-------
     Persons wishing to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, the Background Document or on the Proposed Regulation,

should write to:

            Director, Standards and Regulations Division
            Office of Noise Abatement and Control (AW-471)
            Attn:   Bus Noise Regulation Docket Number ONAC 77-6
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
            Washington, D.C.  20460.
                                  IV

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

                           PART I

            DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                                       Page
                                                      Number

ABSTRACT                                                 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT                     2
   INTRODUCTION                                          2
   PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION                             3
      Statutory Basis                                    3
      Alternatives Considered                            3
      Proposed Regulatory Schedules                      5
      Enforcement                                        6
      Relationship with Other Federal, State,
         and Local Government Agencies                   6
   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT                                  8
      Impact on the Population of the U.S.               8
      Impact on Other Environmental Considerations       9
         Energy Conservation                             9
         Land Use                                        9
         Water Quality                                   9
         Air Quality                                    10
         Solid Waste Disposal Requirements              10
         Wildlife                                       10

-------
                PROPOSED BUS NOISE EMISSION REGULATION




                                DRAFT




                    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ABSTRACT



     This Draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses a proposed noise



emission regulation for buses.  In arriving at the proposed regulation,



the Agency carried out detailed investigations of bus design and manu-



facturing and assembly processes, bus noise measurement methodologies,



available bus noise control technology, costs attendant to bus noise



control methods, costs to test vehicles for compliance, costs of record



keeping, possible economic impacts due to increased costs, and the poten-



tial environmental and health and welfare benefits associated with the



application of various noise control measures.  Data and information



generated as a result of these investigations are the basis for the



statements made in Part I of this document.  Part I has been designed to



present, in the simplest form, all relevant information regarding the



environmental impact expected to result from the proposed action.  Where



greater detail is required, the Agency encourages perusal of Part II, the



Background Document.
                                 -1-

-------
INTRODUCTION



     Congress passed the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972, in part, as



a result of their findings that inadequately controlled noise presents



a growing danger to the health and welfare of the nation's population,



particularly in urban areas.  For this and other reasons, the Congress



established a national policy to "promote an environment for all Ameri-



cans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare."  To



further this policy, the NCA provides for the establishment of Federal



noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce and speci-



fied four categories of important noise sources for regulation, of which



surface transportation is one.



     Approximately 93 million Americans are exposed to levels of urban



traffic noise which may jeopardize their health and welfare.  Although



a small component of the urban noise problem, bus noise  is perceived by



many as a major concern in comparison with noise from other vehicles.



     Inasmuch as bus noise is only a part of urban traffic noise, quieting



buses alone is not sufficient to reduce traffic noise to a level requisite



to protect health and welfare. Accordingly, noise emissions from medium



and heavy duty trucks have already been regulated and noise regulation



levels for motorcycles are currently being developed.



     Pursuant to the mandate of the NCA and EPA's approach to the control



6f surface transportation noise, noise emission regulations for medium



and heavy trucks (41 CFR 15538) were promulgated on April 13, 1976.



     The Agency determined that regulation of all buses  meeting the fol-



lowing definition is requisite to protect the public health and welfare:
                                  2

-------
     A bus is defined as any motor vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight



Rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 Ibs, designed for the transportation



of passengers on a street or highway, and includes a partially or fully



enclosed engine compartment, and an enclosed passenger compartment.



Details regarding identification of these vehicles as candidates for



regulation, their design features and functional characteristics are



contained in Sections 1, 2 and 5 of Part II, the Background Document.



PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION



     This proposed regulation is intended to reduce the level of noise



emitted from buses.  It also establishes a uniform national standard for



these vehicles when they are distributed in commerce, thereby eliminating



differing State and local noise control source emission regulations which



may impose a burden on the bus manufacturing industry.



     Statutory Basis  The proposed action establishes noise emission stand-



ards for newly manufactured buses and enforcement procedures to ensure that



this equipment complies with the standard.  This proposed rulemaking is



issued under the authority of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-574,



86 Stat. 1236).



     Alternatives Considered  The alternatives to the proposed regulation



available to EPA are the proposing of different regulatory levels and



effective dates, taking no regulatory action at all and labeling.  The



latter two actions may be taken only if (a) the product does not contribute



to the detriment of the public health and welfare, or (b) in the Adminis-



trator's judgement, regulation is not feasible.



     In Tables 6-1 and 6-2 (Section 6 of Part II the Background Document)



and Tables E-l and E-2 (Appendix E of Part II, the Background Document)
                                -3-

-------
are presented 15 alternative regulatory actions, for both exterior and



interior bus noise, the Agency considered as possible regulatory levels.



The regulatory alternatives presented for both exterior and interior



bus noise ranged from no action at all (Schedule 1) to a theoretical



maximum action (Schedule 15).  In point of fact, the Agency considered



many more possible regulatory alternatives, however, detailed information



regarding health and welfare benefits (Section 6) and economic impact



(Section 7 and Appendix E) are presented only for the 15 exterior and



15 interior regulatory schedules outlined in the above tables.



     Pursuant to section 5(b)(l) of the Noise Control Act, buses were



identified as major noise sources in May 1975.  Subsequent to this



identification, comprehensive studies were performed to evaluate bus



noise emission levels requisite to protect the public health and wel-



fare, taking into account the magnitude and condition of use of buses,



the degree of bus noise reduction achievable through application of the



best available technology and the cost of compliance.



     Representatives of the Agency carried our extensive interviews with



key members of firms in the bus industry to gain firsthand knowledge of



the industry and its products and to obtain and verify technological and



financial information.  Similar interviews were conducted with key persons



in intercity bus companies, transit authorities, school districts, and



bus industry trade associations as well as officials of various Federal



agencies including the U.S. Department of Transportation.



     The results of the above studies show that the regulation of



bus noise is feasible through available technology taking into account
                               -4-

-------
the cost of compliance.  Accordingly, the Act permits no alternative

action to be taken other than regulation.

     It should be noted, however, that if information is received during

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) public comment period which

indicates either (1) buses should be regulated to different standards

or (2)  buses do not constitute a major source of noise, then in the

first case the proposed standards should be revised or in the second

case the standards should not be issued.

     Proposed Regulatory Schedules

     The proposed noise emission standards and effective dates are shown

in Table 1.

                              Table .1
                 Proposed Noise Emission Standards
                Average A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)

                                        1979   1983   1985

           Exterior Bus Noise            83     80     77

           Interior Bus Noise            86     83     80

           Exterior bus noise levels are measured at a distance
           of 50 feet.  Interior bus noise levels are measured
           at the noisiest seat location nearest the main body of
           the engine.

     The proposed regulatory levels for exterior bus noise are repre-

sented by Option 10 in Tables 6-1 and E-l of Part II, while the proposed

regulatory levels for interior bus noise are represented by Option 11

in Tables 6-2 and E-2 of Part II.

     The above standards are required to be met by each product distri-

buted in commerce.  To assure 100% compliance with such not-to-exceed

standards EPA predicts that manufacturers will design products some two

to three decibels below the standards.
                                 -5-

-------
     To eliminate designs which may fail rapidly when in use, the



proposed regulation also requires an acoustical assurance period, a



period over which manufacturers will be held responsible for designing



and building their products such that the sound control performance



of the manufactured vehicles will not deteriorate above the applicable



standards.  For buses, this period is two years or 200,000 miles,



whichever occurs first.



     Enforcement   The EPA will use the following two methods to deter-



mine whether buses comply with the acceptable noise emission standard:



     o    Production verification - Prior to distribution into commerce



          of any bus, as defined in this regulation, a manufacturer



          must submit information to EPA which demonstrates that the



          product conforms to the standards.



     o    Selective enforcement auditing - Pursuant to an administrative



          request, a statistical sample of buses may be tested to deter-



          mine if the units, as they are produced, meet the standard.



     Relationship with Other Federal, State, and Local Government



Agencies   The proposed regulation will affect several other government



regulatory efforts.  It will also require supplementary actions by State



and local governments.



     Federal Government Agencies - The General Services Administration



 (GSA) currently has set no regulations on maximum sound emission levels



for bus vehicles.  With the promulgation of this proposed regulation,



all bus vehicles procured by the Federal Government after the date of



implementation would have to comply with the standards.
                                -6-

-------
     State and Local Governments - Although the Noise Control Act pro-



hibits any State or political subdivision thereof from adopting or



enforcing any law or regulation which sets a limit on noise emission



from such new products, or components of such new products, not iden-



tical to the standard prescribed by the Federal regulation, primary



responsibility for control of noise still rests with State and local



governments.



     Nothing in the Act precludes or denies the right of any State or



political subdivision thereof from establishing and enforcing controls



on environmental noise through the licensing, regulation or restriction



of the use, operation or movement of any product or combination of pro-



ducts.



     The noise controls which are reserved to State and local authority



include, but are not limited to, the following:



     1.   Controls on the manner of operations of products.



     2.   Controls on the time in which products may be operated.



     3.   Controls on the places in which products may be operated.



     4.   Controls on the number of products which may be operated



          together.



     5.   Controls on noise emissions from the property on which



          products are used.



     6.   Controls on the licensing of products.



     7.   Controls on environmental noise levels.



     By use of the noise controls reserved to them, state and local



governments are able to supplement Federal noise emission standards and



to effect near-term relief from traffic noise.  The EPA has developed a
                                 -7-

-------
 model ordinance to indicate the form and content of an instrument whereby



 state and local governments may control transportation equipment noise



 in the absence of Federal regulation or in the time frame before Federal



 regulations become effective.   The model ordinance is contained in Appen-



 dix G of Part II, the "Background Document."



 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT



      Impact on the Population of the United States



      Assessment of the intrusive nature of bus noise impact led the



 Agency to a single event passby noise exposure analysis for assessing



 the health and welfare impact of bus noise control for exterior noise



 exposure.  Measures of the three indicators of intrusiveness (sleep



 awakening, sleep disturbance,  and speech interference) were used for



 the single event analysis.  Compliance with the proposed standards for



 exterior bus noise would result in a 39.5 percent reduction in potential



 sleep awakening impacts due to buses, a 33.4 percent reduction in



 potential sleep disturbance impacts due to buses, a 52 percent reduction



 in potential speech interference impacts for people indoors due to buses,



 a 39.3 percent reduction in potential pedestrian speech interference



 impacts due to buses and a 49.8 percent reduction in potential speech



 interference impacts for people outdoors due to buses.



      The health and welfare effects from the reduction of interior bus



noise were assessed in terms of potential passenger and operator hearing



 loss risk and passenger speech interference.  Compliance with the proposed



 standards for interior noise levels for buses would result in an average



 of a 42.7 percent decrease in potential passenger speech interference



 impacts.  In terms of the reduction of hearing loss risk due to lower
                                 -8-

-------
interior bus noise levels the reductions will range from a 92.4 percent



decrease in potential hearing loss for passengers exposed to 60 dBA prior



to bus transit to a reduction of 2.6 percent in potential hearing loss



risk for those exposed to an 80 dBA level prior to bus transit.  Similar



percentage impact reductions will occur for bus operators.  These reduc-



tions are percentages taken from present day impacts to those that will



be realized in the year 2000.



     For a detailed discussion of the analysis employed to assess the



health and welfare benefits due to bus noise regulation refer to Section 6



of Part II, the Background Document.



Impact on Other Environmental Considerations



     Energy Conservation  Additional weight, increased cooling system



capacities and possible greater muffler back pressures are expected to



negatively impact the fuel economy of buses by an overall figure of about



3%.  Incorporated into this estimate are the fuel savings expected by the



implementation of viscous fan clutch technology, which will most probably



be used to reduce fan noise on various bus vehicles.  The 3% estimate



translates into about a 1800 barrel daily increase in fuel consumption



for all buses as a result of the proposed regulation.  This estimate is



based on industry submitted data.  The actual impact on bus fuel con-



sumption will be a function of the design changes manufacturers implement



to comply with the standards.



     Land Use  The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact on



land use.



     Water Quality  The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact



on water quality or supply.
                                -9-

-------
     Air Quality  The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact



on air quality.



     Solid Waste Disposal Requirements   The proposed regulation will



have no adverse effects on solid waste disposal requirements.



     Wildlife   Although wildlife may possibly benefit from reduced noise



levels of transportation vehicles, not enough is known to conclude to what



extent any benefit on wildlife may result from the noise reduction achieved



from the proposed regulation.
                                   -10-

-------
                                             EPA 550/9-77-201
             NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
               TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT '
                       PROPOSED
                     BUS NOISE
                EMISSION REGULATION
                        PART 2
                 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
                     AUGUST 1977
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
                WASHINGTON, D.C.  20U60
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not  constitute a standard, specification or
regulation.

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
              SUMMARY                                           1

Section 1     PROLOGUE                                          1-1

              Statutory Basis for Action                        1-1
              Preemption                                        1-2

Section 2     IDENTIFICATION OF BUSES AS A MAJOR NOISE
              SOURCE                                            2-1

Section 3     THE BUS INDUSTRY                                  3-1

              General Industry Background                        3-1
              The Bus Market                                    3-5
              Product Classification and Characteristics         3-9
              Size and Growth of the Industry                    3-21
              Product Life Cycle                                3-28
              Nature of the Bus Industry                        3-30
              Bus Manufacturers Profile                         3-37
              Exports and Imports                               3-59
              Raw Material-Component-Aftermarket Suppliers       3-62
              Baseline Industry Forecast                        3-64

Section 4     BUS NOISE DATA BASE                               4-1

              Gasoline-Powered Conventional School Buses         4-1
              Diesel-Powered Conventzoned  School Buses           4-11
              Forward Engine, Forward Control School Buses       4-13
              Parcel Delivery Chassis Buses and Motor
                Home Chassis Buses                              4-14
              Mid-Engine School Buses (Integral)                 4-15
              Rear Engine School Buses (Integral)                4-17
              Rear Engine School Buses (Body on Chassis)         4-18
              Urban Transit Buses                               4-19
              Intercity Buses                                   4-31

Section 5     NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY                        5-1

              Component Noise Abatement Technologies             5-2
                   Engine Noise                                 5-2
                   Exhaust Noise                                5-11
                   Air Intake Noise                             5-20
              Overall Noise Abatement                           5-25
                   Conventional Gasoline-Powered School Buses    5-25
                   Conventional Diesel-Powered School Buses      5-45
                   Front-Engine Forward Control School Buses,
                     Parcel Delivery Chassis School Buses
                     and Motor Home Chassis Buses                5-49

-------
                  Mid-Engine School Buses                          5-50
                  Rear Engine School Buses  (Integral and
                    Body-on-Chassis)                               5-53
                  Urban Transit Buses                              5-55
                  Intercity Buses                                  5-74
              Degradation  of Noise Control Technology               5-83
                  Engine  Noise Control Degradation                 5-83
                  Exhaust Noise Control Degradation                5-84
                  Cooling System Noise Degradation                 5-85

Section 6     POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BUS NOISE
              REGULATION SCHEDULES ON THE ENVIRONMENT               6-1

              Introduction                                         6-1
              Health and Welfare Benefits of Bus Noise
                Regulation                                         6-2
                  Measures of Benefits to Public Health
                     and Welfare                                    6-2
                  Regulatory Schedules                             6-3
                  Outline of the Health and Welfare Analysis       6-6
              Reductions  in the Impact from Traffic Noise           6-7
                  Description of Traffic Noise Impact              6-8
                  Urban Street and Highway Traffic Noise           6-18
                  Vehicle Noise Levels in Urban Street
                     and Highway Traffic                            6-19
                  Bus Noise Levels                                 6-21
                  Traffic Noise Levels                             6-30
                  Reduction of Traffic Noise Impact                6-40
              Reduction of Individual Passby Noise Impact           6-46
                  Sleep Disturbance                                6-48
                  Speech  Interference                              6-70
              Reduction of Interior Noise Impact                    6-87
                  Hearing Loss Reduction                           6-87
                  Speech  Interference Reduction                    6-97
              Summary                                              6-110

Section 7     ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BUS NOISE CONTROL                  7-1

              Overview of  Economic Impact Analysis                  7-1
              Economic Impact of Noise Regulations on
                Users and  Manufacturers                             7-15
                   Economic impact of Noise Regulations on
                     Intercity Motor Bus Carriers and               7-15
                     Manufacturers
                       Analysis of User Costs                      7-16
                       Costs Estimates From Appendix C             7-18
                       Estimates of Incremental Capital Costs      7-21
                       Estimates of Incremental Prime Costs        7-27
                        Impact on Quantity of Bus Service Demanded  7-30
                        Impact on Equilibrium Bus Production        7-30
                       Financial Impacts on Users                  7-33
                       Financial Impacts on Producers, Including
                          Exporters  and Importers                   7-34
                       Annualized Costs for Intercity Bus Noise
                          Abatement                                 7-35
                                  11

-------
                   Economic Impact of Noise Regulations  on Urban
                     Transit Motor Bus Carriers and Manufacturers     7-37
                        Analysis of User Costs                       7-37
                        Cost Estimates from Appendix C                7-40
                        Estimates of Incremental Capital Costs        7-43
                        Estimates of Incremental Prime Cost           7-48
                        Effect of UMTA Subsidies for Equipment
                          Purchases                                  7-50
                        Impact on Quantity of Bus Service Demanded    7-50
                        Impact on Equilibrium Bus Production          7-56
                        Financial Impacts on Producers,  Including
                          Exporters and Importers                     7-58
                        Annualized Costs for Urban Transit Bus Noise
                          Abatement                                  7-61
                   Economic Impact of Noise Regulations  on School
                     Bus Carriers and Manufacturers                   7-63
                        Introduction                                 7-63
                        Timing of the Regulation                     7-64
                        Costs of Noise Abatement                     7-67
                        Important Industry Considerations             7-68
                        Analysis of User Costs                       7-77
                        Cost Estimates from Appendix C                7-79
                        Estimates of Incremental Capital Costs        7-79
                        Estimates of Incremental Prime Cost           7-85
                        Impact on Quantity of Bus Service Demanded    7-85
                        Impact on Quantity of Bus Production'         7-88
                        Financial Impact on School Bus Users          7-93
                        Financial Impacts on Producers,  Including
                          Exporters and Importers                     7-93
                        Annualized Costs for School Bus  Noise
                          Abatement                                  7-97

Section 8     MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY                                8-1

              Existing Procedures                                    8-1
              Bus Noise Characteristics                              8-6
              Work Cycles                                            8-8
              Measurement Distance                                   8-10
              Enforcement Requirements                               8-10
              Test Measurements                                      8-11
              Summary                                                8-15
              Recommended Test Procedure for Measurement
                of Exterior Sound Levels                             8-17
              Recommended Test Procedure for Measurement
                of Interior Sound Levels                             8-27

Section 9     ENFORCEMENT                                            9-1

              General                                                9-1
              Production Verification                                9-2
              Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA)                    9-7

-------
              Administrative Orders                              9-11
              Compliance Labeling                                9-12
              Applicability of Previously Promulgated
                Regulations                                      9-12
              In-Use Compliance                                  9-13

Section 10    EXISTING NOISE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
              BUSES                                              10-1

              Introduction                                       10-1
              Review of Existing Noise Ordinances                10-1
              Analysis of Existing Regulations                   10-3

Appendix A    FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY BUSES                           A-l

Appendix B    NEW TECHNOLOGY BUSES                               B-l

Appendix C    BUS NOISE ABATEMENT COSTS                          C-l

Appendix D    ESTIMATES OF DEMAND ELASTICITIES FOR URBAN
              BUS TRANSIT AND INTERCITY BUS TRANSPORTATION       D-l

Appendix E    UNIFORM ANNUALIZED COSTS OF BUS NOISE ABATEMENT    E-l

Appendix F    ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR HEALTH
              AND WELFARE ANALYSES (SECTION 6)                   F-l
Appendix G    MODEL NOISE ORDINANCE
G-l
                                 IV

-------
                                Summary



     The subjects addressed in this document are intended to provide



background information on various aspects associated with the develop-



ment of regulations relative to the noise emissions from newly manufac-



tured buses.



     Section 1 - "Prologue." sets forth the legal basis for the regu-



lations which may be promulgated under the Noise Control Act of 1972,



the procedure followed in the promulgation of such regulations, and a



brief statement relative to preemption of state and local regulations



by Federal regulations.



     Section 2 - "Identification of Buses as a Major Source of Noise."



This section addresses the reasons for the classification of buses as a



major source of noise.



     Section 3 - "The Bus Industry."  This section presents general



information about the U.S. Bus Industry.  It covers industry growth



statistics, descriptions of intercity, transit and school bus systems,



bus classifications, product life cycle estimates and other useful



descriptive material.



     Section 4 - "Bus Noise Data Base."  This section details the



results of exterior and interior bus noise level measurements conducted



by EPA on school, transit, and intercity buses.  Bus noise data from



existing studies and from industry submissions are also presented.



     Section 5 - "Noise Abatement Technology."  In order to establish



regulations restricting bus noise emissions, it was necessary to deter-



mine what constitutes the "best available technology" for bus noise



reduction.  Section 5 reviews the various components of exterior bus



noise:  noise radiated from the engine surface, fan, intake, exhaust



                                  -1-

-------
system and chassis.  In addition to the exterior noise generating



components, the interior noise of buses is also discussed along



with the associated technology needed to reduce bus interior noise



levels.



     Consideration is given to the total bus noise problem.  The tech-



nology is examined to determine what modifications or redesign work



might be performed on buses in order to quiet them to levels below



those which presently exist.



     Section 6 - "Potential Impact of Proposed Bus Noise Regulation



Schedules on the Environment."  This section describes what health and



welfare benefits would accrue from the institution of various regulatory



standards for exterior and interior bus noise.  The percentage of the



population affected by noise and the extent of the effect  is measured



by the Equivalent Noise Impact  (ENI) method.  The reduction of potential



equivalent impacts of sleep disturbances, sleep awakenings, and speech



interferences from the lowering of exterior bus noise are  detailed.  In



addition, the reduction of potential equivalent impacts of hearing loss



risk and speech interference effects from a lowering of interior bus



noise are presented.



     Section 7 - "Economic Impact of Bus Noise Control."   In this section,



the economic impact of increased bus costs due to the basic engineering



changes  (outlined in Section 5) that are believed to be required to achieve



various  levels of interior and exterior bus noise is presented.  The econ-



omic impacts on the three main types  (intercity, transit,  and school) of



bus manufacturers and bus operators are evaluated.



     Section 8 - "Measurement Methodology"  This section reviews and



examines the various test procedures that have been used to determine

-------
noise levels for buses.  The EPA recommended procedures for the measure-



ment of exterior and interior bus noise emissions are presented.



     Section 9 - "Enforcement."  Enforcement of new product noise emission



standards applicable to buses is discussed in terms of production verifi-



cation testing of vehicle configurations, assembly line testing using sel-



ective enforcement auditing procedures or continuous testing of production



vehicles, and in-use compliance provisions.



     Section 10 - "Existing Noise Regulations Applicable to Buses."  This



section presents existing bus noise regulations, both foreign and domestic,



and the history of such regulations.







     Appendix A - "Foreign Technology Buses."  This appendix presents a



description of urban transit buses produced by European bus manufacturers



which are claimed to be considerably quieter than any similar transit bus



produced in the United States.



     Appendix B - "New Technology Buses."  This appendix looks at new



technological designs of quiet buses.



     Appendix C - "Bus Noise Abatement Costs."  Presented in this appendix



are the estimated cost increases and decreases required to manufacture



quieter buses, as compared to currently produced buses, for the various



technology levels discussed in Section 5.  In addition, the lead time



estimates believed necessary for the industry to comply with the various



technology levels are presented.



     Appendix D - "Estimates of Demand Elasticities for Urban Bus Transit



and Intercity Bus Transportation."  This appendix reviews some of the



pertinent economic literature and reports estimates made of the fare



elasticity of demand for both transit (intracity) and intercity bus riders.





                                  -3-

-------
     Appendix E - "Uniform Annualized Cost of Bus Noise Abatement."



This appendix presents the annualized costs of various bus noise abate-



ment regulatory schedules.  The costs are presented in terms of capital



costs and operating and maintenance costs due to the application of



additional noise abatement equipment to buses.



     Appendix F - "Additional Supporting Information for Health and



Welfare Analysis (Section 6)."  This appendix provides various tables



and figures in support of the health and welfare analysis presented in



Section 6.



     Appendix G - "Model Noise Ordinance."  This appendix provides infor-



mation for State and local governments to aid them in preparing local



noise ordinances for bus noise abatement.
                                  -4-

-------
                             SECTION 1







PROLOGUE



Statutory Basis for Action



     Through the Noise Control Act of 1972  (86 Stat. 1234), Congress



established a national policy "to promote an environment for all



Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare."



In pursuit of that policy, Congress stated, in section 2 of the Act,



"that, while primary responsibility for control of noise rests with



State and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with



major noise sources in commerce, control of which requires national



uniformity of treatment."  As part of that essential Federal action,



subsection 5(b)(1) requires the Administrator, after consultation with



appropriate Federal agencies, to publish a report or series of reports



"identifying products (or classes of products) which in his judgement



are major sources of noise."  Further, section 6 of the Act requires



the Administrator to publish proposed regulations for each product,



which is identified or which is part of a product class identified as



a major source of noise, where in his judgement noise standards are



feasible and when such products fall into various categories of which



transportation equipment (including recreational vehicles and related



equipment)  is one.



     On May 28, 1975, pursuant to subsection 5(b)(1), the Administrator



published a report which identified, among other new products, new buses
                                  1-1

-------
as a major source of noise.  As required by section 6, the Administrator



has proposed regulations for buses, which are "requisite to protect



the public health and welfare, taking into account the magnitude and



conditions of use of such product  (alone or in combination with other



noise sources), the degree of noise reduction achievable through the



application of the best available technology and the cost of compliance."



Preemption



    Under subsection 6(e)(1) of the Noise Control Act, after the



effective date of a regulation under section 6 of noise emissions from



a new product, no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or



enforce any law or regulation which sets a limit of noise emissions



from such new product, or components of such new product, which is not



identical to the standard prescribed by the Federal regulation.  Sub-



section 6(e) (2), however, provides that nothing in Section 6 precludes



or denies the right of any State or any political subdivision thereof



to establish and enforce controls on environmental noise  (or one or



more sources thereof) through the licensing, regulation or restriction



of the use, operation or movement of any product or combination of



products.



    The noise controls which are reserved to State and local authority



by.subsection 6(e)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:



    (1)  Controls on the manner of operation of products.



    (2)  Controls on the time during which products may be operated.



    (3)  Controls on the places at which products may be operated
                                1-2

-------
    (4)  Controls on the number of products which may be operated



         together.



    (5)  Controls on noise emissions from the property on which pro-



         ducts are used.



    (6)  Controls on the licensing of products.



    (7)  Controls on environmental noise levels.



Federal regulations promulgated under section 6 preempt State or local



regulations which set limits on permissible noise emissions from the



new products covered by the Federal regulations at the time of sale of



such products, if they differ from Federal regulations.



    Conversely, State and Local authorities are free to enact regul-



ations on new products offered for sale which are identical to Federal



regulations.
                                  1-3

-------
                               SECTION 2


           IDENTIFICATION OF BUSES AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF NOISE


     In pursuit of subsection 5(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the

Administrator has published a report (Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 103,

pp. 23105-7) which identified buses as a major source of noise.

     The following paragraphs will briefly describe the basis on which

buses were identified as such a noise source.

     LEGISLATIVE BASIS

     Subsection 6(a) of the Noise Control Act set forth four categories

of products for which a noise emission standard can be proposed for each

product identified as a major source of noise.  The categories are:

          1.  Construction equipment

          2.  Transportation equipment (including recreational vehicles
              and related equipment)

          3.  Any motor or engine (including any equipment of which
              an engine or motor is an integral part)

          4.  Electrical or electronic equipment

     PRIORITY BASIS

     The criteria developed by EPA to identify products which are

major sources of noise and for which noise emission standards are requi-

site to protect the public health and welfare stipulate that at this time

first priority be given to products that contribute to community noise

exposure.  (Medium and heavy duty trucks have been classified in this

category and have already been regulated.)  Community noise exposure is


                                  2-1

-------
that exposure experienced by the community as a whole as a result of the

operation of a product as opposed to that exposure experienced solely by

the users of the product.  To determine which sources ought to be identi-

fied for regulation, EPA consideres their functionally weighted noise

impact.  This measure includes both the intensity (loudness) and extensity

(population affected) of noise source impact.

     DAY-NI'SHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL BASIS

     The day-night average sound level, L  , has been specifically
                                         dn
developed as a measure of community noise.  Since it is a cumulative

energy measure, it can be used to identify areas where noise sources

operate continuously or where sources operate intermittently but are pre-

sent enough of the time to emit a substantial amount of sound energy in

a 24 hour period.

     EPA has identified an outdoor L   of 55 dB as the day-night average
                                    dn
sound level requisite to protect the public from all long-term adverse

health and welfare effects in residential areas, and an L   (24) of 70 dB
                                                         eq
as the threshold of hearing impairment.

     An abbreviated summary of the identified levels is given in Table 1.

                                 TABLE 1

                NOISE LEVELS PROTECTIVE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE

         Human Response                               Leg       Ldn

         Hearing Loss (8 hours)                       75
         Hearing Loss (24 hours)                      70
         Outdoor Interference and Annoyance                    55
         Indoor Interference and Annoyance                     45

     The fractional impact of a noise environment on an individual as

used by EPA is proportional to the amount (in decibels) that the noise
                                   2-2

-------
level exceeds the appropriate level  identified  in the  "Levels Document"



as shown in Table 1.  The fractional  impact  is  zero when  the noise



level is at or below the identified  level.   The fractional  impact rises



to 1.0 at 20 decibels above the  identified level and can  exceed unity



in situations in which the noise level exceeds  20 decibels  above the



identified level.  The range from zero to 20 decibels  above the



criterion level represents the range  between those noise  levels that



are totally acceptable and those noise levels that are totally



unacceptable to the individual in terms of annoyance responses.  The



total Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI)  is then  determined by summing the



individual fractional impacts for all people affected  by  the environment.



     Thus, two people exposed to 10 decibels above the identified



level (fractional impact = 0.5)  would be equivalent to one  person



exposed to 20 decibels above the identified  level (fractional impact



=1.0).



     OTHER PRE-REGULATION CONSIDERATIONS



     The drawing-up of regulations necessitates other  considerations.



Included among these other factors are available noise reduction techno-



logy, voluntary industry noise standards, the interrelationship of



regulations, lead time necessary for the development of a regulation,



economic impact, and the relative availability  of data.   All these factors



have been considered in the development of the proposed regulatory noise



levels for buses.
                                   2-3

-------
                            SECTION 3



                        THE BUS INDUSTRY








GENERAL INDUSTRY BACKGROUND



     Early buses, many of which utilized steam power, were designed



and constructed in Europe and America at various times during the 1800's.



Although some of these primitive buses were effective in passenger trans-



portation, none of them were used for more than short periods of time.



Reasons for their lack of success included poor roads, competition from



railroads and stagecoaches, and the unreliable operating characteristics



of the units themselves.



     Bus transportation, as it is now perceived, began to take form in



the early 1900's following the development of the internal combustion



engine.  Bus service was started in New York City and on the Pacific



Coast in 1905.  In many cases the vehicles used were ordinary passenger



touring cars.



     Development and improvement of bus design and construction were



begun early and have continued to the present time.  Touring car



chassis were elongated to provide somewhat larger passenger carrying



capacity and eventually passenger carrying bodies were mounted on truck



chassis to provide the basis for the modern bus.  During the middle



1930's, transit and intercity bus manufacturers began combining the





                                3-1

-------
chassis and body, utilizing principles of airplane construction.  At



the same time, it became common to mount the engine at the rear of the



bus or under the floor instead of the traditional underhood mounting at



the front.  These developments resulted in greater strength and longer



wear of buses, as well as greater comfort and safety for passengers,



better driving vision, greater passenger capacity, and improved riding



qualities.



     The most significant development in the bus industry in recent years



is the Transbus Program.  Performance specifications for a revolutionary



transit coach were established by the U.S. Department of Transportations



(DOT) Urban Mass Transit Administration.  Three different prototypes



were built by AM General, CMC Truck & Coach Division, and Rohr Industries0



Flxible Company.  The three buses underwent a year-long series of tests



involving engineering, performance, and public acceptance.  Upon comple-



tion and evaluation, a "composite" bus incorporating the most significant



features of each of the three prototypes was to have been built for



further testing.



     The purpose of the DOT-funded program was to build and evaluate



buses incorporating new design and mechanical features.  As a result,



the present three prototypes are experimental and do not represent the



current state-of-the-art.  For example, totally new powertrains and



suspensions are used.  In an effort to make the buses more attractive





                                 3-2

-------
to senior citizens, low curb height with the ability to "stoop" to



pick up handicapped people and wheelchairs was included in the specifica-



tions.  A floor height of less than 20 inches was achieved by using



specially developed low-profile tires, revolutionary suspensions, and



chassis-mounted differentials with swing axles.  Other specifications



called for noise and odor levels to be 90% below current levels and



emission levels that meet the 1975 California standards.



     Given the above historical perspective, the following facts from



the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association exemplify the present size



of the bus industry:



          -  1975 bus registrations = 470,000



          -  1975 bus sales         =  40,530



     The general structure of the bus industry is schematically outlined



in Figure 3-1.  The figure illustrates:



          1.  Bus manufacturing operations obtain raw materials and



components used in the manufacturing process from raw materials suppliers



and component manufacturers.



          2.  Channels of distribution differ from integral (transit and



intercity)  buses and school buses.  Integral bus manufacturers deal



directly with end-users, while the distribution channel for most school



buses is through body and/or chassis distributors.



          3.  Finished products are sold to school boards, intercity bus



companies, transit authorities, sightseeing bus companies, or airports for





                                3-3

-------
    fi
    CO
3)  H
id  g
    o
    H
    CO
                                                                                                    OC
                                                                                                    LU
                                                                                                    to

                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    z
                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                    OC

                                                                                                    I
                                                     3-4

-------
passenger transportation.
     It should be stressed that Figure 3-1 is an overview of the struc-
ture of the industry and not all buyer/operators of buses are represented.
Most significant of those excluded are government departments and agencies.
Also, some integrally constructed buses are used as school buses.
THE BUS MARKET
     The bus market is comprised of bus users and operators who provide
multiple passenger transporation to the public.  The bus market includes
the following:
          -  Commercial Intercity Class 1, 2 and 3 Carriers
          -  Local or Regional Transit Systems
          -  School Boards or Administrations
          -  Churches, private schools and related organizations
          -  Federal, State and Local Government Agencies and
             Departments
          -  All Other
             o  Airports
             o  Hotels
             o  Demand Response Agencies or Organizations
             o  Social Services
     A brief overview of the most significant end-users is presented
below.  In 1974, the following three market segments, intercity, transit
and school boards, accounted for approximately 75% of the buses in use.

                                3-5

-------
     (a)    Commercial Intercity  -,
           Class 1, 2, 3 Carriers

     The intercity bus operation in the United States is performed by

approximately 950 operating companies utilizing some 20,500 motor coaches

(Figure 3-2).  They provide regularly scheduled service over 270,000 miles

of highway and employ an estimated 46,600 people.   Intercity bus oper-

ations service over 15,000 cities and towns and are the only public

intercity transportation service available to some 14,000 of them.  In

1975, an estimated 354 million trips were taken by passengers traveling

a total of 25.6 billion passenger miles.

     Operating revenue from intercity bus lines was $1,165.4 million

in 1975, up 29.3% from the 1970 level.  During this same period, miles

operated and the number of revenue passengers declined 7.4% and 11.7%

respectively.  In 1976, net operating revenues before income taxes

declined 24.3% of the 1970 figure.

     (b)   Transit Systems

     Some 941 transit systems utilized 50,811 buses in 1975.  They

transported 4,080.9 million passengers and employed almost 160,000

individuals  (See Figure 3-3).  Operating revenue attributed to motor

bus operations reached $1,437.7 million in 1975.

     Inspection of the total industry figures indicates that in spite

of continued increases in revenue, transit systems have shown operating

losses through the last six years.  These revenues have increased 17.3%

while losses are 5.9 times larger than they were in 1970.  These losses

were $1,703.5 million in 1975 and $288.2 million in 1970.
 1
  Class designations are formed using annual revenue dollars.
   Class 1 Carriers have revenues of $1,000,000 or more.
   Class 2 Carriers have revenues between $300,000 and $1,000,000.
   Class 3 Carriers have revenues less than $300,000.

                                3-6

-------
o
o
m

o
CM
O
O
vD
                  O
                  CM
                       in
                       CO
                             sa-

                             in
                                            vO
o
m
o
o
vD

o"
CM
o
o
o
                 00
o
00
co
CM
VO
O
CM
00
                                                  rt
                                                  o

CO
f^
ON
O
O
O
rH



CM

ON
i-H
o
o
o

rH






rH

ON
o
o
o
rH





O
r*s
^
0
0
o
H





0
o
00
o
CM


o
o
<3"
r>
rH
CM





o
o
ON
rH
CM




O
O
o
CM
CM




O
O

ocT
"*


O
o
rH
V,
ON

s
3
B
CO
Pi
O
rl
i-H
rH
iH
a
o
T3
CU
4-1
rt
^
CO
a.
o
to
CU
rH
H
a
(Millions)

CO
M
CU
60
d
0)
CO
to
rt


CU
c!
01

fll
09
($ Millions)

CO
CU
3
(3
CU
1

00
PI
H
4-1
rt
M
CU
p.
o
CO
a
o
rH
H
rH
a
co-

co
CU
CO
fi
CU
Cu
w

00
C
H
4-1
rt

cu
p.
O
ues, Before
PI
01

1

r?
iH
4-1
rt

cu
c-

4-1
CU

Millions)

*^s

CO
CO
X
rt
QJ
a
O
O
M




ssociation of

-------

in

-H



*

rH



co

rH



CN

i-H





rH

ON
rH








O

rH




































rH
 CU
ri cO
CU M
00 CU
C P.
CU O
CO
01
CO
O
00
O
^j.

VO
r^
r^
ON
CO

00
CN
m
vO
CO

00

d
vO
m
co


00

>^-
CO
t-~
co





co

00
m
o
,3.












,-v
01
a
o
iH
^^
rH
H
^
s_x

CO
IH
CU
a
cu
01
01
CO
PH

CU
3
C
CU

&
l~-
co
-*
,_!

CO
,vl
p^
co
i-H

ON
CN
VO
CN
H

rH

0
CO
CN
rH


CN

O
00

rH





CO

VO
CO
CN
,_!










^^
(0
C
O
H
rH
rH
rl
^


CO
4J
H
CO
C
cfl
H

i 1
<
CM -*
O CO
o m
CN CO

i-. -*
ON CM
CO O
ON i-H
rn" co"

vO 00
r^> ON
ON rH
t^. -*
rH CM

in CN

00 00
CM CN
l~ i-H
r-T CN"


i~- in
 ,
o o
*^~ "^
r^ O
i-H CM"





^ r^-
 
r^ rH
O ON
r- oo
I-H" I-H"






^^
^ CO
to a
a o
O -H
H rH
rH rH
i 1 -H
TJ S
J^
CO-
{/} **~s
^s
CO
CO CU
3 to
ti a
CU CU
^ pi
& w

oo bo
C C
iH -H
4-1 4-1
CO CO
>-> M
CU CU
ex a
o o



CM rH
co r^
m rH
rH
~
f^ o
CM r~
VO CO
rH i-H
r^

CM CO
CM VO
CN rH
VO rH


p -*
. 
ON oo
ON rH
00 rH



OO VO
, 
ON rH
ON rH
CN rH





f*i
CO ON
 
* OO
oo o
rH rH


^
01
a
o
H
rH
rH
,H
Jg

CO-
\^
^^
CO
CO
o
1 ^
v/
s~*
CU 01
3 C
C 0
CU -rl
> rH
CU rH
53
M ^
4J
cO to
IH CU
CU X
CX cO
O H

4J rH
1 3!
CO
o

rH
~
p
ON
ON
CM
rH
^
m
00
co
f~-


rH ^
o
CO O
H M
m
0
n)
4-1
-* to
C
rH CO
rH IH

VO
p^
ON
rH
^N.
,v in
CM l~>
. ON
00 rH
00
CN
^ 0
H
4-J
cO
H
O
O
01
01
M <
CU
4J 4-1
<4H -H
 <-* a
CU H cfl
C4 -H U
J2^ *rl
bO IH
e  cu
H ^ e
4J <
cfl co
M CU
4) X
cx (d cu
O EH 0
M
4J 3
HI O
Z CO





























CO
0
cu
4-1
to
t**>
CO

cu

o
H
4J
rH
J

CO
rH

*^
e
cfl

rH
iH
cO
K

vO

CO
CU
a
3
rH
O
C
H
1
4J
H
CO
C
CO

H
rH
iH
^C
x-\
iH
3-8

-------
     (c)  School Boards or Administrations



     Pupil transporation is provided by public school operations for



both public and private school children.  These operations of the



transportation systems are either assumed by local boards or contracted



to independent operators.  School bus operations are primarily funded



with public monies, although certain private schools receive no funding.



Depending on the local tax base and the area covered by the school



districts, these funds are allocated on a per capita pupil basis or



miles driven by the school bus fleet.



     In the 1973/74 school year, 21,969,060 public and non-public school



children were transported by 267,704 buses at an operating cost of



$1,858.1 million.  Figure 3-4 shows the average cost of a pupil transported



at public expense during the 1973/74 school year to be $87.04.  This average



figure reflects a significant upward trend in the cost of pupil transportation



since the 1959/60 school year when the average cost per pupil was $39.78.



PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS



     The most common bus classification is by end use which generally



determines the manufacturing process and the finished product.  Four



general classifications exist:



              Intercity



              Intracity or Transit



              School



              Special Purpose





                                3-9

-------

































I
CO

Q)
M
^
60
rl
fa






















































P
W
H
Pi
O
PH
(Zj
T
Pi
H
CO
I_J
H
PM
O
Q
e
C/D

o
H
hJ
P3
^D
PH

fa
o

1
KM
P^
A .
r*H
P
^
<
Pi
M
CQ
S
s


































*^
o
H
H
<5
H
Pi
O
P-i
JZj
T
pi
H
P*i r*"*
O 1
fa CO
PS ^
!=> 0
H H
H
P O
W 1
P-j OS
^s *n
W OS
rH
H
& >
W C/3
ps fl^
2 H
D <1
CJ H
P ^
 H
0^ 
t*5
W
1


u
H
. 1
r~l
^
P-I
H
<


























MH
O CO
*rj
0) C
!-i 3

4-J
H cj
^ *H
Pi r~l
0) rd
0- 3
X 0-
W











prj
Q) CU
4J CO
t_j pj
O 0)
pj PJ
co X
C 0)

U CJ
4J -H
H
CO ft
H P,

3 4-1





























4J
CO T3
O rH 0)
O -H 4J
& rl
Q; 3 O
60 PJ P
cd co
rl rl C
a) a) rd
^ Oi J-i

OS CO VO O
co ^ ^~ in
co-












00 rH in OO
CO vO *s3" *^~
co co oo co
vo vo co r^
oo r^ r~. oo
>^ if) vO t***

CO-





**o rH r^ r^
   
r^- oo oo os
CO CO CO CO








CM r-- oo r-
rH **o r^ in
m CM m \o
CM CM r^ CO
CM CM s3- in
CM CO -d- in
rH rH rH rH



O O CO r-

>,
rH
H
cfl
P
0)
60
cfl

Q)

^

cu

cfl

CO
cu
Cj
M
3
60
rl
fa
rH
H
"
PM

13
PJ
cd
4_J
c
g
rH
rH
0

PI
W

rH
rH
^


 
cu
4-1
O
a





pi
o
H
4J
cd
a
0
Tj
w

tj
o
UH

^i
cu
4-1
PI
CU

rH
Cfl
P!
O
H
4-1
Cfl
f,
0)
rl 
cd co
ii i g
rH S
a) 4-1
Is co
^i
13 CO
C
Cfl rH
0
a o
O fi
H CJ
4-1 CO
Cfl
O 0)
3 4-1
n3 cd
en
*
^ m
rH
Cfl CO
cu a
4-1
14H CO
O -rl
4-1
4-1 CO
C. i
P
QJ W
S
4-1 "
M CO
cd o
Pu iH
CU 4J
P CO
H
 4J
co cd
 4->
PD CO


 
OJ
a
^i
id
o
CO
3-10

-------
      (a)  Intercity Buses



     Intercity buses are integrally constructed vehicles combining body



and chassis into a single unit.  Size of these vehicles are determined by



practical limitations and state restrictions (Figure 3-5).



     As shown in Figure 3-6 there are five principal producers of inter-



city buses who, combined, offer some fifteen models.  The most popular



of these nave passenger capacities of 41 or 49 passengers with a complete



vehicle weight of between 20,000 Ibs. and 29,000 Ibs.  However, large



intercity carriers will generally order buses with restroom facilities



which reduces passenger capacity by six seats.  Depending on the size



of the vehicle, two or three axles are utilized.  Intercity buses usually



have one door for passenger boarding and exit.  Product features generally



include reclining seats, individual reading lamps, air conditioning, and



adequate storage space under the floor of the passenger compartment.



     Ihe typical intercity bus is utilized by a company engaged primarily



in providing passenger transportation over regular intercity routes with



regular time schedules.  Approximately 90 percent of the total bus miles in



the country are generated in regular route service.  Charter and special



service travel also play an important part in the industry's operation.



In addition, sightseeing bus operations and airports utilize a significant



number of intercity buses.





                                3-11

-------
                SBSUB)l
               BUBfpUI
              STTTTI
    Ed

    M
g
          jo
Pn
    1
    Cfl
              opeaojoo

BUf-JOJEO
H3aoN
^3.0^ M3N

OOTX3H Waft

Xasaaf M3N

ajTqsdDiBH
MSN
BpBAajj
B^SBjqsfcl

BUB3UOJ\1

-panoss-pw

TddTSSTSST^I

BtJOSaUirpK

UBS-pqOTW

srnas

-mpBSSBH

B a
r L .rx


au-EBW



BUBTSTnol


A on,ua
i *i

CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
1  .
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
-^
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
rH
CO
rH
CM
rH
CO
rH
*
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
v~.
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
-
rH
CO
rH
CM
rH
1
r-l
CM
rH
1
CO
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
H
CM
rH

CO
rH
CM
rH
1
CO
rH

NO
ON
NO
ON

NO
ON

NO
ON

NO
ON
NO
ON
NO
ON

NO
ON

NO
Ov

NO
ON

NO
ON

NO
ON


NO
ON


ON

CM
o
rH


NO



ON


o
>
ON

NO
ON

NO
ON

NO
ON
NO
ON

NO
ON

vO
ON
NO
ON

CM
o

NO
ON

NO
ON

CM
o
rH
NO
CJN

CM
0
rH
o
m
o
-d-

o
-d-
o

-------
    CO
    1
    H
VO  &
 I   U
fO  H
    Ou
 0)  CO













CO
4J
01
H

o
o



































































rH
CJ
d
1
01
C -d
H t3
60 re
C

_wj
s
in
O CO
SZ 3 m to
l-H rH CN 1
c^ i~ I-N i H
1 I 1 W B
^ VO ^ EC IE
vO OO X (25


10 *  _ -
4J 4J 4J e e
Q Q Q CJ CJ



O>
I-H 4J ^-s
CJ 43
H 00 >> 01
4= -H IH 43
0) CJ Q |J
> S ^




0 0
O 0
0 0
--III
i-H rH
CM CM



43 /^l
*^j Cl vO ^0 ^O ^O vO
T-) M CT\ ON ^ ^ O\
& s*^'|



43
4J /~N
60 
C 4J
01 pu,
rJ v^>



in in o m o
CO CO ^f CO si"





10
01
O HH i-H
65 3



CN CM CO CM CO





CJ
o in
IH id /-N
rt 43 
T3 rH C
C 01 hH

4-1 43
en S






C CM i-H CM 00
vo co m co in
CM CM CM CM CM




p
0)
00 M
6 c
01 iH
II) 4J
co id
CD p2
PH



i-H rH in
-3- si sj-
1 1 ON | ON









i-H
01
o

d
e


0)
,34
*3


rH
i-l rH i-H rH rH
rH rH rH rH |
1 1 1 1 H
vo vo oo u" m
CM CN vo m in
s si- in co oo
CJ | | | | |
5 Q CJ Q <3 ^
O K ^ 2 CM
u


33
1 1
oo oo


d T3
4J 4-1






CN l~
st CM
CO O
* r.
O CO
CM CM




VO VO
ON ON







in o
CO sj-





/ V
rH
^M/
CM CO





sj-
vO
CM ~^
-^ m
rH CO
1 1
ON 00
U-1 rH
CM CO









1-1 ON
*  N
^1
CO
60 ^^
C t-l
CO CJ
rH T3
CO i-H ID
43 CO Id CO
0 -rH 43 3
Id H CJ M
O 4J ^ U
CJ to M ^
3 m oo
rl "d 1 1

4-1 rH S S
g


rH rH rH rH rH
1 1 1 1 1
> > > > >
oo oo oo oo oo


'd *d 'd *d T3
4J 4J 4J 4-1 4J
P Q Q Q Q





o o o
o o o
co oo m
- I - I -
00 OO VO
fM CM CM




vD CM vO CN vO
ON O ON O ON
rH rH






O O O O O
si* sj- si* st sj~





*-N s~* x*-\ ^"v /r^
CM CN CN CM CM
**S VM^ ^-^ *^S v-^
CO CO CO CO CO







CM

rH

o o o o m
oo oo oo oo oo
CM CM CM CM CM





rH rH rH rH
m in in in
* n * *
ON ON ON ON
sj" SJ- si- sj- ON
i>T iC r-T r-T "* 'co
sr st si  O 4J 4J -H
to sj- i-H CO CO t-i >
o co cj cj m co
> CO CO H rl > 1 iH
COHHP-iP-, rHO 43
t-l -rH 43
PL, CO <






.
CO
cj
co
3
43
60
C
H
CO
CJ
co
4-1
43
60
 -H
O CO
C
M to
id
rH -d
cd co
rH C 4J
CJ O CO
cj -HA!
43 4-> tJ

C 3
CJ t-l
rH CJ O
60 4-1 tO
C C rH
H HH Id
to
CO CJ
CJ rH tJ
rH CO Hj
43 cd
id w CN
4J O
O ^ r-l
id 43
t-l CO
4J  -d H
CO CJ HI
lJ -<-\ 4J CO
60 3 60
dO 43 -H
CO 43 -rl 4J
4J M CO
Id CO 4-1 01
t-l > to ^i
CJ vH -rl PL,
(3, M T3
0 -d T3
1 -d C
rl C 13 Id
HO Id
cd C rs.
d sr
tO 01 CJ
H rH M CO
60 3 H
CO C 4-J
rH -H O CO
X to id 60
Cd rH 14H -H
C8 CO 3 4J
d to C 01
rl 01 01 Id CO
H -H -H 6 IH
43 O p..
4J CJ CO
rH CO 4J -|H 01
rH X 60 1-1 rH
id id co cj 01
C TH U rH -d
O T3 g 4J 60 O
rl IH 0) cd B
CU 42 CJ 4-1
OH 1 tJ co
I cj o

/-, x-v S 4J rH CO
rH CM 3 CJ iH >J
v-^vx CJ o to PL,














,
m

ON
rH
*
J^
01
43
o
4-1
o

*
rH
id
C
IH
3
o


t-l
id
o

i-H
id
rl
O
t-l
g
S
o
u

 *
CJ
H
3
4J
id

CJ
4J
H
rH

4-1
O
3
d
o
t-l

M
Ol
t-l
3
4J
o
id
<4H
3
C

^

CJ
o

3
O
CO

                                                3-13

-------
     (b)  Intracity or Transit Buses



     Intracity or transit buses are similar to intercity buses in that



both are integrally constructed vehicles.  Intracity bus vehicle size



and weight are determined by practical limitation and state restrictions.



In 1975, as shown in Figure 3-7, four domestic manufacturers produced



some twenty-six models of transit buses.  However, Highway Products has



ceased manufacturing operations for its Twin Coach line of transit



and suburban buses.  The most popular transit buses seat between 44 and



53 passengers with a complete vehicle weight of between 17,500 Ibs. and



23,800 Ibs.  Transit buses generally have two axles and utilize two doors



for passenger boarding and exit.  Product features include seats designed



for both durability and comfort, and capacity for standing passengers



about equal to seating capacity.



     The typical intracity bus is utilized by a transit company engaged



primarily in providing passenger transportation over regular local routes



with regular time schedules.  Charter and special service travel play



a relatively minor role in the total intracity operation.



     Suburban buses are very similar to  intracity or transit buses in



construction and design.  For this reason suburbans are generally not



considered as a separate bus classification.  General Motors offers



two models of its suburban bus to the industry (Figure 3-8).  As noted



above, Twin Coach suburban buses are no  longer manufactured.  Suburban





                                3-14

-------
              01
              d


           *
           a  -d
          rl  d
           60 Cd

          W  01
01  -, CO
0 '41  *






^^
1
co

cu
M
3
DO
H
fe




CO
B
H
H
O
JT"^
H
a
w

C/3

CO
j  t
FQ

B
pH
co






0






T3
M
cd
d
cd
4J
J=
60 
d i-'
QJ rvi
"

CO
0)
KH rH
^




0)
co
Cd /-N

rH d
0) rH
1) s^
Ol
60  M
d  ?
Ol -H
CO  4-1
co  cd
cd p3
              P-. P-.
               I    I
                         a a
                         rH rH
                             I
                                        I

                                       
a  a a  a a  a
rH  rH rH  rH rH  rH
7  7 7  T 7  7
>>>>>>
^O  CO vO  CO ""iD  CO
 I

oo
                        ""U  'O 'O  *T3 T3 ""O T3
                        4J  JJ 4J  4-i 4J 4J 4J
                         CJ  \DvOCMCMvOvlCMCM
                                             rHOsOSOSOOOsOSOO
                                             ^lOOOi-HrHOOrHrH
                                             riininmmincocococo
rH 3 rH
1 1 1
> sO sO
O T3 -d
Ol 0) O
OOP
rH rH sO
CO rH O
CO -3- sO
CO OS C^
rH rH rH
^p ^O CM
Os os O
rH
m in o
CO CO sj-
CM CM CM
-a-
1
m m s3-
CO CO OO
CM CM CM




in in co
s3" *3" in









???
ro f") r^
CM CM O
tO u~t ro

rl
P

H
O

0)
d
rl
rH
0
CO
cfl
O
rH









i-H
01
CO
01
H
P

M 4-1
0) -rl
rH O
CO U
>-, 4J
!H O>
J3 P
CJ
1
d


roducts.
(^
Highway

>%
&
d
acture
UH
3
d

3

CO
H

y
cd
cS
rl

m
rH
e; Commercial Car Journal, October,
M
3
literat

4J
0
3
d
o
n
o.
j-i
01
H
3
4-1
O
cd
MH
3
d
cd
Source: H
                                                                           3-15

-------
    C/3

    g
    M


    s
    H
00  PM
 I   H
ro  U
    W
 60

rl
    PQ







oi a>
Gomplet
Vehicl



































0) ^
C T3
H C
00 rt
W 01
y
rH
I!

4-1 . >
00 X 01
H (J X>
0) Q iJ
DS -^
ll co m
> > rH 1
oo oo i 4J
Ol Ol XI Ol
PR UP
in
oo oo o o r>
00 CM VD 0 5
r- oo m o rH
CM CM O CM "
CM CM rH rH rl
0)
r-1
O
XI /-^
4J 
T3 C
H H
13 H
M
CJ
vO v0 ^D \D O
O"< CJ> O^ O>
rH
0)
C
Xi
4J ^-~.
00 
Cl)
*J
01 Pn
hJ '-'
n
-J
O
o o m oo '-J

O UH rH
SS 0 M
<4
rH
tfl
H
Q
CM CN CS CM J->
CU

6
o
0
01
T3 01
rl ) ^
n) Xi 
O rH fi
C 0) H
tfl O) ^
4-1 XI
c/l ^c
QJ 0)
^^: s 3
CO CO f) tj
1 1 rH ^0
-* -a- co CT\ 1-1 u
oo oo co vo n. 01
CM CM rH rH > 4J
03 vn
QJ
c ^
r-l
Passenge
rl *-
00 3
C T3
o\ a- 01 o
CO CO CM CO VJ
in m ii rH o
!rH O " H
CM CO 01 01 rH U
0) Ol Ol Ol
4J -rl 01 IH
OP Ol 3
S5 -H 4J
(-1 P CJ
T3 o n
C M 4-1 4-
OJ O) Ol "H S
, 1 C rH O P
a
T
J
T
(
(
<
^
J 01 -rl 01 to K
3  T3 V
H3 ffi II 0) .-N >> 4J -
S oS?S -S^ ^ d g^ J
a s 5 5
                                                      3-16

-------
buses generally have one door for passenger boarding and exit and



utilize many features of any intercity bus, such as reclining seats



and underfloor baggage compartments.  The CMC suburban buses currently



being put into service, seat 53 passengers with a complete vehicle



weight of around 22,800 Ibs.



     (c)  School Buses



     The vast majority of school buses, over 98% in 1974, are manu-



factured in a two stage process.  The chassis, which is primarily the



same as a medium-duty truck chassis, is produced by a manufacturer and



then shipped as an incomplete vehicle to another manufacturer who



assembles the body on it.  The chassis manufacturing process utilizes



the assembly line concept, while the body manufacturing and assembly



process utilizes the station or bay system concept.



     Various configurations of two-stage school buses are available.



The most popular type, approximately 90% of school bus production in



1974, is the conventional school bus, which has the engine located for-



ward of the driver and passengers.  The other two types of two-stage



school buses are the forward control type which resembles a transit



coach in appearance and the parcel delivery type which utilizes a



smaller chassis than does the conventional.  Gas or diesel engines are



available for the above types of school bus with the exception of the



parcel delivery type school buses which are powered by gasoline engines.





                                3-17

-------
     The remaining small number of school buses are integrally constructed



vehicles.  The floor, sides, ends and roof are joined into a one-piece



construction to form the bus shell.  These units are powered by diesel



engines located either at the rear or the mid-point of the bus.  Only



two firms, Crown Coach and Gillig Brothers presently offer integrally



constructed school buses.



     The size and weight of all school buses are limited by state and



local restrictions.  In the case of the two-stage vehicles, the chassis



GVWR  (Gross Vehicle Weight Fating) is also a determining factor.  Figure



3-9 shows representative chassis specifications by manufacturer for the



conventional school bus.  The most popular school bus models currently



being produced utilize chassis with seating capacities of between 30 and



72 passengers and a GVWR of between 16,000 Ibs. and 30,200 Ibs.



     Six firms build school bus bodies which are assembled on the chassis.



Bodies are built according to customer specifications, consequently manu-



facturing flexibility is essential.  Figure 3-10 presents the various types



of bodies manufactured by the six companies.  Only Carpenter and Superior



have product offerings in all three types of two-stage school buses.



     School bus bodies are designed for occupant safety and for durability.



Typically, there is one door for passenger boarding and exit, with an



emergency door at the rear.





                                3-18

-------
CM CM CM CM

0)
to s~.
to 
r^ C*
rH M
3 o to 
 4-1 ^1 C
H^ fn M
rH ^--
H 3 14H
<3 o o
U 0
M

O ,-s
CTv W co
1 PH -H
CO CO 'r)
J ^ 0,
cu co ilp3,
!-( H o
3 CO CO in
60 CO ft 0
rl  W W W W
0) CO CO CO CO
43
U

oo ON
m r^
CM CM

1 1

f** 1^5
LO "^
rH CM






c*o c^
rH rH
*"3" *d"

i i

so r^
co oo
CM CO





ON ON
sr sr
CO CO

i i

CM CO
r^ CM
rH CO







SO CM
1 1

so O
CO SO




o o
0 O
o in
sr in
CM CM
1 1
o o
0 0
in r~
scT oC
rH rH




O O





CM CM
PS ?S












O O
CU O O
60 so r--
T3 CO CO
O
O
rH rH rH rH
1 1 1 1
CM O O O
sr oo oo oo
SO CM CM CM CM
in 1 I 1 I
rH CM CM CM CM
^^' 	  . ^^
rH rH rH rH
1 1 1 1
00 CM CM CM
ON -^- 3" *3"
rH CM CM CM



SO CO CO CO
CM OO CO CO CO
--. co sr sr sr
rH
1 1 1 1 1
 r^ ^^
so
co 1 1 I 1

CO O O O
sj- so so so




O O O O O
o o m in LO
CM O CM CM CM
ON ~3" r^ r^ r^*
rH CM CM CM CM
1 1 1 1 1
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o r^ m CM
ST SO ON rH O
rH rH rH CM CM




o o o o o





"CM CM CM CM CM
X X X X X










0
00000
O o O in o
in so r^ r*^ r~
O 1 1 1 1 1
ti qq M cq CQ CQ
O




ON oo in sr
oo rH co in
rH CM CM CM










-3- sr sr sr
^ -^ -^ *^^
rH rH rH rH
1 1 1 1
CM ON r^ CO
CM sr r^ .0
co co co sr







sr sr sr sr

CO CO CO CO
1 1 1 1
r~- sr CM oo
so ON CM sr
CM CM CO CO








oo sr o so
sr m so so
i i I i

CM co sr O
sr sr m so




o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
sr sr sr sr
CM CM CM CM
1 1 1 1
o o o o
o o o o
ON ON ON ON
rH rH rH rH




O O O O





CM CM CM CM
X X X X
sr sr sr sr









o m oo rH
CM CM CM CO
SO sO SO so

W LL] PJ W
U CO CO CO CO

6

sr sr m
m m r-
CM CM CM

I I I

rH r- r-
in oo oo
rH rH rH



CM
ON ON  ^
O O rH
sr sr i
CM
1 1 CO
sr
CM CM |
 . -v. CM
rH rH -v.
1 1 rH
CO SO 1
r^ CM so
CM CO CM
CO
CM CM
rH rH

SO SO O
in m co
CO CO CO

i i i
rH sr sr
CM r^ p^
CM CM CM






so sO sO
so sO sO
1 1 1

O OO O
co sr so




o o o
o o o
o in CM
so r- O
CM CM CO
1 1 1
O O O
000
00 00 CM
ON ON O
rH i 1 CM




O O O





CM CM CM
XXX
-t sr sr





rH CO
co e
C 0
O -H
H 4J
4-1 CO
CO -H
C co co co p>
>-i O O O CU
0) so r^ CO )-i
4J rH rH rH ,Q
C . o
M -a;




























m

o>
rH


^,
cu
o
4-1
0
O
1_J-
CO
C

3
0
^
CO
u

rH
CO
H
O
CU
E
O


cu

to

01
4-1
rH

4J
O

T3
O
a.

^
01
I-l
s
o
a)

^
rH C
ID CO
CO S
CO CU
CO 1H
O Q
cu
1 1 U

O O 3
o
CO
  3-19

-------
                     Figure 3-10

      SCHOOL BUS BODIES BY MANUFACTURER AND TYPE

Manufacturer
Blue Bird
Carpenter Body
Superior Coach
Thomas
Ward
Wayne

Conventional
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forward
Control
X
X
X
X


Parcel
Delivery

X
X


X
Source:  EPA interviews with above manufacturers;
         Manufacturer's Product Catalogues.
                         3-20

-------
     (d)  Special Purpose Buses



     Manufacturers will often custom build a vehicle for an end-user's



specific needs, such as airports, hotels, demand response agencies,



amusement parks, or prisons.  These buses can be either two-stage or



integrally constructed.  From the manufacturer's perspective, such



vehicles are generally treated in the same manner as their standard



units in terms of production and sale statistics.  In addition, firms



not in the bus industry such as recreational vehicle manufacturers



may occasionally convert one of their products to fulfill an end-user's



specific needs.  Consequently, for the remainder of this overview of the



industry, with the exception of the section devoted to end use, these



special purpose vehicles will not be treated in a separate and distinct



fashion.



SIZE AND GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY



     The demand for bus units is a derived demand based upon user/



operator requirements.  This section will develop the current size



of the market for buses and identify the growth trends within each



principal segment.



     (a)  Geographic Concentration



     In 1974 there were 446,558 buses registered in the United States



(Figure 3-11).  Over fifty percent of these registrations were concen-



trated in eleven states.





                                3-21

-------
                                     Figure 3-11

                 U.S. MOTOR BUS REGISTRATIONS  BY STATES-1974

Private and
Commercial
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Dist. of Columbia
Total
(1) Includes municipal
(2) In some instances
Buses (1)
1,102
424
568
393
9,586
448
1,784
295
2,301
1,203
1,444
328
6,569
3,204
895
299
682
1,004
200
2,126
3,333
2,321
1,615
983
750
323
410
159
253
3,142
539
12,077
1,972
63
4,807
355
820
7,632
266
817
253
1,420
2,799
321
99
2,101
385
744
1,491
940
2,027
90,072
Commercial
School and
Other (2)
746
378
106
1,485
2,859
818
5,350
942
1,010
2,365
326
391
8,747
4,213
732
1,005
772
10,177
578
5,576
4,681
3,363
3,866
1,829
3,155
725
479
93
760
4,277
2,392
5,800
6,576
541
3,465
1,540
1,498
10,729
542
1,421
401
1,163
11,743
79
391
30
3,429
-
4,814
226
33
128,617

Publicly
Federal
15
21
233
7
89
26
4
-
53
37
8
141
33
24
8
5
45
11
6
55
4
12
10
44
38
41
5
44
3
14
341
39
19
40
29
62
30
44
2
9
39
34
119
40
-
61
106
6
10
2
132
2,200

Owned
School (3)
6,349
18
1,882
5,460
10,935
3,568
551
88
11,369
8,796
81
1,788
5,723
5,873
7,596
3,650
4,980
3,445
1,180
2,950
450
8,437
8,718
5,018
5,449
643
1,915
652
203
3,497
284
12,606
15,238
1,167
12,951
6,145
3,998
4,240
118
6,859
1,320
5,289
11,784
623
555
8,724
6,865
1,529
3,053
853
193
225,658
Total
School
Buses
7,095
396
1,988
6,945
13,794
4,386
5,901
1,030
12,379
11,161
407
2,179
14,470
10,086
8,328
4,655
5,752
13,622
1,758
8,526
5,131
11,800
12,584
6,847
8,604
1,368
2,394
745
963
7,774
2,676
18,406
21,814
1,708
16,416
7,685
5,496
14,969
660
8,280
1,721
6,452
23,527
702
946
8,754
10,294
1,529
7,867
1,079
226
354,275

Total
Buses
8,212
841
2,789
7,345
23,469
4,860
7,689
1,325
14,733
12,401
1,859
2,648
21,072
13,314
9,231
4,959
6,479
14,637
1,964
10,707
8,468
14,133
14,209
7,874
9,392
1,732
2,809
948
1,219
10,930
3,556
30,522
23,805
1,811
21,252
8,102
6,346
22,645
928
9,106
2,013
7,906
26,445
1,063
1,045
10,916
10,785
2,279
9,363
2,021
2,385
446,547
owned transit buses.
church, industrial and other
private buses are included here;
and in
     other instances privately owned school buses could not be segregated from commercial
     buses, and are included with the latter.
(3)   This column consists primarily of publicly owned  school buses but  include a few privately
     owned school institutional and industrial buses registered free or at a reduced rate.
Source:  U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
                                           3-22

-------
      (b)   Buses in Service by End Use and
           Product Classification	

      End  users generally utilize the type of bus that is manufactured

 and designed for a specific application.   In other  words, intercity

 carriers  utilize intercity buses, transit systems utilize transit buses,

 and school districts,  private schools and churches  utilize school buses.

 However,  exceptions do exist and an  end user may utilize a type of bus

 which is  not necessarily designed for the specific  application.   Accord-

 ing to manufacturers,  trade associations, and end users, such  situations

 are rare.  Thus, for purposes of analysis, Figure 3-12,  which  is  the basis

 for the following discussion, treats end  use of the three types of bus

 according to the traditional applications.

           1*  Total Buses.  Bus registrations have  increased 27%  during

 the period 1968 to 1974.   The size of each segment  in 1974 was as follows:

                Intercity                     4.6%

                Transit                      10.9%

                School                        79.4%

                Federal Government            0.5%

                Others                         4.6%

           2.  Intercity Buses.  Intercity buses are primarily  utilized

by Intercity Class 1,  2 or 3 Carriers, sightseeing  bus companies, and

 firms-providing transportation to and from airport  locations.  The National

 Association of Motor Bus Owners estimates that in 1974,  20,600 intercity

 buses were operated by intercity carriers.  Robert  A. Kay, Director of the


                                3-23

-------


























S3
5
j
s""'
-^
pg


































































CN
CO
p
3

. T
8
S
CO



















CO
CO


H
M
CO

*3
pa
*"*
^g

S
M

W

M



















rH CO
cd cu
4-1 CO
O 3
H 




/^x
en

4J
rH (3
cd cu
cu G
*rj M
CU CU
PM >
cS





rH
cd
4-1
o
H




G
0
H
4J
cd cu cu
4J 4J CO
M Cd (3
0 > CU
CX *H P-
CO M R
G PM W
id

EH
(3
O
H
4-1 CU
cd U CO
4J -H t3
M rH CU
O Q Q-
CX 3 r?
en PM W

cd
M
EH




f^
rH
S 	 '
en
M
CU
o



4-i en
H E
CO CU
G 4-1
CO CO
M >s
EH CO


en
4J CN CO
H " M
O rH CU
CU CO M
4-1 en t-i
C cd cd
H rH U
o


M
 i-H
CO >-, C C -H 1
0) 4J CU -H 60 >
CO -H S S
vo r~- * en rH CN ON 3 K o 4J co cu
O CN i/N, 00 CN OO ON 43 -H M M 4-1  M CU
ON U~t ON IO O CN r*- CU CU Cd H rH CO rH
vD in vO f>- ON < rH 43 4-143 (3 CU 34J4JCO
* CN O ON I-. vO in 4J 4J -H O OC3H
*^ *^ *^ en m en en G f> 4_j Q)
MH -iH C3 MH CUO S"
O -H O 43 O CU 3 -*
CO 4J  43 M I
CO CUT3 M 00 4-1 CU O>
CU CDCU CU > rH > rH
CJ 3 *C3 43 43 MH O 1
M 433 S T3 O O 00
3 rH 3 T3 CJ vO
O rHCJ G CU 4-1 6-S rH ON
O ON rH CN 00 f^ en CO O G G COOCOH
O in rH 00 -* rH rH O ft rH ? B rH M
CN rH 00 VO -* en -* CU 43 rH O -iH CU 
CNCNrHrHrHrHrH 43 COM 0 CO COrHCUO
cd cd co CU-CUCUFHTH
H MH en ON 4-i . >-, 3oot3cdcu en
CU rH M WCNCda43'H
M t-l 4J CU " -H 4-1 W
CUt3 > rHMX Cd
rH343CU -rHOOMH 4J
-a-cNi-Hinocn-* cooss cd ca MHMOCO
en o^ CN oo in i^^ c^ M rH 3 cj1 4-1 cu cu
vooo^fcNr^ONCN cu cu C cu cu .  at 43 *d rx in f^
^tenvor ooencN cu rH(3 -HC 04-1 43 S
menrHOOOr^vD en*OrHO rHE(34-JC3MO 43
cnenenencNCNeN cucdo -H3O 3O(3 M
>,4-lE 4JrH-HraOM-ICd -H
jacoco-a 3O4-icuo M w
H C O Cd 4-1 O 4-1 ,0
corHtx.co eo Medcd(3 "
cu M 0) w 4-1 g 3C3C
4JcucuT3 coscn-iHcnocd o
cdM>CU 3P3vH4-l3CJ-iH -H
Ecd -H 43 MCOOCJrH 4J
OenONi^enrHO -H edm Heucu-Hcd-H cd
en fH ^ r^ rH r^ co 4J TJ H rH o M 4-1 ^ M
ON en vO vO *^ OO C^ cn(3cU44 OO QJcdO *r4 4-1
VOrHinrHstmen -rlCU 43CJ4-ICUCU -H
oo ^^ m *>o *^ en *^ c TJ rH *^ o co cd & ex r& o 13
O CU -H -iH CO 4-1 O CU 43 -H
00 -U CUCOCO 4J 4-1 6
CUCU rH O4-ICCnMSMH  C (H CO CT\ tti O

\O vO vO *^ "^ CO i^ CO W M C ** *H ccj ^H Cj *H ^i M
CNCNCNeNCNCNCN CUC04-lCd.CU E -iH43rH CU
3 OCO>CU'HCCUSt3 T3
% O O ^^ O CU T) 00 3 CO O
MO -U-HO ediH MCU-H43 CU -H
cd cd *H 43 ^-^ 43 cd TJ en en 4-1
MOCU4J S 3 rH3Cd

r^ONOT-to M
r~-encNinrHr-vi-H OO4J43I3 cuoc 43MH o
OOoor~i--r~.r^ cdc-H3t-iw3n) cuco co
C MH O ao3HCUcO
eUCO-<4> 4JCUC3 MD. M
>-H en CU-H> en >-,H
HCO COB>N43CO-THCU CU CO 4-1

OvOinOOOO MCU'HvH CO c03cOrH O
Ooor~mooo encuen4JocoMen 43rHrH
r^cNOrHr^voo MO3eoMcd4-iMcu ocd 4-1
OOOOONONONONO 43 T3CU4-I -O43(34-JCncO CU
CU *H CU CU E
MH O 13 T3 4-1
C CO C3CUM33M
3 Q CU H rH cd
CU^N s-^ CU 4JOOO.
43|3rH CN 43MHCe3C CU
OOOOOOO H-H^ ^ HOHHH O
o o o o o o o
vOOO-JONOvOO 
OOrHrHCNHrH CO 43 rHCNCn-
 
en
cu
o cu
en CO
-J-encNrHOONOOCU 4J M
r^-r^r^-r^r^-v*DvD4J o 3
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON O O O
i-lrHrHrHrHrHrHSS fn CO



CO

1

vO
ON
rH

>
en
ft
S
4J
en
>,
CO
rH
o
o

u
CO

cu
4-1
cO
4-1
CO
MH
o

CO
a
H
4-1
en
4-1
cd
4-1
CO

*
c
0
H
4-1
cd
3
3
^
IH
0

cu
o
H
MH
0
^
cu
M
cd
rH
CU


-a
B
cd


c
o
H
4J
cd
o
3
m

fl
4-1
rH



MH
0

4J
CU
4J
M
ed
S









c
o
,J
4-1
CO
4-1
M
0
p.
en
a
cd
M
EH
rH
0
o
43
o
CO
<4H
o

r*
4-1
^
M

n
en
cu
o
H
>
M
cu
CO

o
H
4J
cd
4-1
M
0
a
CO
g
M
H
H
a
3
p 1
M-l
o
en
M
0
4J
o
CU
M
b

cu
4-1
CO
4-1
co

G
o
iH
4-1
CC
H
c.
o
CC
<

rH
rt

o
H
4-1
2

 f
;*
1
en
ON
rH
o
4J
















 n
vO
f"^.
ON
rH

cd
o
H
M
CU
1

o
4J

CU
o
>
cu
CO
MH
o

t^
M
3
4J
(11
w
o

MH
rH
cd
S
1
CU
(3
o
co
M
rj
g
o

CO
M
M
o
4-1
^

Q

c
o
H
4-1
cd
H
o
o
co
en
^

rH
cd
o
4J
ed
S3


in
r^
ON
1



CO
p
a
43
4-1
H














M
o
4-1
Q
5^

f>

H
4-1
ed
H
o
o
co
en
^

en
M
CU
3
^ 1
o
ed
3
G
ed
JJ2

cu
rH
o
43
CU


t-l
o
4J
S

vO
ON
r 1

f\
^
o
0
M
4-1
o
cd
fe
4J
H
CO

M
EH

M
G
0
H
4-1
cd
H
0
o
CO
en

H
CO
13
cd
M
H

o
H
rH
43
3
PM
c
cd
o
H
M
nl
I











en
3


^
4-1
H
o
M
cu
4-1
rH
ft
4-1
M
o
p.
en
(3
cd
M
H

cu
M-4
cd
CO

^
4-1
CU
MH
ed
CO

M
cu
H
M
M
CO
u

M
o
4-1
.g
MH
o
3
cd
cu
M
FQ
13
o
H
4-1
CO
M
4-1
en
H

H
E
Tl

eo
^
43
01
H
K

r-j
1-
QJ
a
dl



o
r^
ON


CC
4-1
o
cd
tn
t v
c.
r-
M
H














































































*
m
ON
1

r>

CO

p

cu
4-1

c
H
e*-
M
4J
co
3
H









3-24

-------
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, has



estimated that in 1974, approximately 18,000 buses were operated by



sightseeing and airport bus lines.



     The number of intercity buses utilized by Class 1, 2, 3 Carriers



has remained rather stable since 1968.  However, a downward trend has



developed since 1970 when the population reached 22,000.  In 1974, the



population was estimated to be 20,600, while preliminary estimates for



1975 are 20,500. Influencing this downward trend have been a 5% decline



in operating companies, a 7.4% decline in miles operated, and an 11.7%



decline in revenue passengers (refer to Figure 3-2).



          3.  Transit Buses.  Transit buses accounted for 10.9% of the



total bus population in 1974.  In the early 1970"s, transit bus popu-



lation demonstrated a downward trend which reached a low point in 1973



of 48,286 buses in use.  The following two years have seen the transit



bus population on the rise, 48,700 units in 1974 and 50,811 units in



1975.  Influencing this growth situation has been a rise in revenue



passengers, 3,560.8 million in 1972 compared with 4,080.9 million in



1975, a growth of some 14.6%.  Related to this growth in revenue pas-



sengers has been a corresponding growth in operating revenues, from



$1,230.1 million in 1972 to $1,437.7 million in 1975, and increase of



16.9%.  Despite these growth factors, net operating losses after taxes



have continued to mount, $288.2 million in 1970 compared to 1,703.5



million in 1975, an increase in losses of 591%.





                                3-25

-------
          4.  School Buses.  School buses accounted for a significant



number, 79.4%, of total buses in 1974.   The majority of school buses,



are utilized in transportation of students, the handicapped, etc.,  at



public expense.  The vehicles used in this function are either owned by



a school district (or other public entities) or by a private company



which operates under contractual arrangement with a school district.



The remaining school buses are privately owned and operated in a variety



of situations without public funding.  Common examples of users include



churches, private schools, and related groups or organizations.



     The number of school buses in use has increased dramatically since



1968 when 262,204 vehicles were registered.  In 1974, total registrations



of school buses had reached 354,634, a growth of some 35% since 1968.



     Included within the above school bus figures are vehicles with a



GVW of 10,000 Ibs. or less and seating capacity of 16 or less.  Such



vehicles are commonly called "Class II" school buses.  Generally, Class II



school buses are converted vans or cab cut-a-ways.  A converted van is a



type of light duty truck which is modified to meet state and local safety



regulations for pupil transport.  Modifications include reinforcing the



floor, raising the ceiling, and adding windows.  A cab cut-a-way is also



a light duty truck which comes to the body manufacturer with an enclosed



cab and a chassis upon which a small school bus body is built according



to required safety guidelines.





                               3-26

-------
     Station wagons used as school buses along with the above vehicles
accounted for approximately 31,282 units according to 1973-74 estimates
by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Office of Education.
Such vehicles are not included in the scope of this proposed regulation.
     According to several manufacturers, these types of school buses have
enjoyed increasing popularity over the last few years.  However, data to
substantiate such opinions cannot be documented from existing published
records.
          5.  Federal Government.  Buses used by civilian branches of
the Federal Government represent only 0.5% of the total bus population.
All three types of bus are utilized by this end use segment.  A signifi-
cant growth rate of almost 57%, 1,413 units in 1968 compared with 2,200
units in 1974, has characterized this market segment.
          6.  Others.  As discussed earlier in the intercity bus section,
the majority of vehicles in this end use category are buses used in sight-
seeing and airport applications.  Ihe remaining buses in this category
have many and varied applications.  For example, amusement parks, hotels,
rental car companies, etc., use buses to provide transportation in con-
junction with some other activity-  Ihis general end use category has
grown almost 21% to 20,772 vehicle in 1974 from 17,182 in 1968.  From
industry interviews with several manufacturers, it can be assumed that
some part of the total 20,772 buses in this segment are smaller than

                               3-27

-------
16,000 Ibs. GVWR and seat less than 16 passengers.



     (c)  New Product Shipments



     In 1974 manufacturers of buses shipped 35,729  units.   Figure 3-13



presents a history of these shipments.



          1.  Intercity Buses.  In 1974 total shipments of intercity



buses were 1,350 units, 26.9% above shipments of 1970.   Intercity bus



shipments show a great deal of variation from year  to year.



          2.  Transit Buses.  Transit bus shipments have shown constant



growth through the last five years.  1974 shipments of  4,818 units are



3.3 times greater than shipments in 1970.



          3.  School Buses.  In 1974 school bus shipments were 29,561



units, which is a slight decline from the peak level of 30,635 units



in 1972.  Although the trend in school bus shipments has been upward



since 1965, the trend has not been constant with cyclical rises and



declines in annual shipments.



PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE



     Beyond the end-use industry conditions outlined above, product life



cycle dictates the replacement activity within bus fleets.  It is very



difficult to determine an average product life for  the  three major types



of bus.  Product life is contingent on factors such as maintenance rou-



tines and procedures, geographic location, miles traveled, and the





                                3-28

-------
                          Figure 3-13

SHIPMENTS BY YEAR AND BUS CLASSIFICATION BASED ON REGISTRATIONS
Year
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
Intercity
1,350
1,276
1,353
977
1,064
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
Transit
4,818
3,200
2,904
2,514
1,442
2,230
2,228
2,500
3,100
3,000
School
29,561
30,039
30,635
28,358
27,468
28,064
29,015
28,214
26,419
24,276
            Source:  National Association of Motor Bus
                     Owners; American Public Transit
                     Association;  Interviews with Gen-
                     eral Motors and International
                     Harvester.
                              3-29

-------
economic conditions of the end-users.   Given  this situation,  the  follow-



ing are estimated ranges for product life with the original owner:



          Intercity  -  12 to 15 years



          Transit    -  10 to 15 years



          School     -  8 to 12 years



     Certain factors can affect these ranges.  For example, when  a bus



is first put into operation it incurs its heaviest utilization.   A



typical intercity bus will travel 250,000 miles during the first  two years



of utilization.  Transit buses, depending on  the geographic location and  the



attendant route size, will travel between 30,000 and 60,000 miles per year.



School buses travel an average of 38 miles per day, but individual mileage



totals vary substantially around this mean figure.



NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY



     This section will describe the nature of the bus industry in terms of



channels of distribution, sales practices, pricing, and resale.   It is



organized according to the three major product segments of Intercity,



Transit, and School Buses.



      (a)  Intercity Buses



     The nature of the intercity bus segment is generally determined by



the following:



          1.  Channels of Distribution.  The flow of new intercity buses



is incorporated in Figure 3-1.  Note that the manufacturer deals directly



with  the end-user and that a dealer or distribution network does not exist.





                               3-30

-------
     All intercity bus prices are F.O.B. factory, and delivery of the



vehicle is the responsibility of the end-user.  Ttoo alternatives are



primarily utilized:  end-user personnel are sent to the factory to



drive the units to their destination, or an independent bus delivery



company will drive the completed unit from the factory to an end-user



designated location.



          2.  Sales Practices.  Manufacturers of intercity buses deal



directly with intercity operators.  Generally, bus requirements and



specifications are determined by the end-user, with custom units made



in accordance with a variety of special requirements.  Each order is



separately priced in competitive bids.



     Certain exceptions to the above exist.  For example, the Greyhound



Corporation, the largest Class I Intercity Carrier, purchases its



vehicles from a subsidiary, Motor Coach Industries.  Continental



Trailways, another large end-user, has maintained a purchase agreement



with Eagle International.



          3.  Pricing.  The variety of end-user bus requirements and



specifications makes the determination of an average price difficult.



However, based on interviews with the National Association of Motor Bus



Owners, General Motors and Crown Coach, current prices would range



between $75,000 and $96,500.



          4.  Resale/Used Buses.  The impact of the resale of used



buses on the nature of the intercity bus market is relatively insigni-



ficant.  Original end-users of intercity buses generally utilize the





                                3-31

-------
vehicle throughout the usable life of the unit.   After the useful life



of the vehicle is expended, the original end-user will either  sell the unit



for salvage or strip the unit for useful parts and sell the remainder for



salvage or sell the unit to another end-user.  Purchasers of used vehicles



generally are smaller intercity carriers and usually do not purchase new



vehicles.



      (b)  Transit Buses



     Ihe nature of the transit bus segment is generally determined by



the following:



          1.  Channels of Distribution.  The flow of new transit buses



into distribution as shown in Figure 3-1 is the same as the flow for new



intercity buses.



          2.  Sales Practices.  The sales practices utilized in the transit



bus market segment are very similar to those practices employed in the



intercity segment.  In. summary, manufacturers deal directly with end-users.



Also, transit coaches are custom-made according to customer specifications



and each order is separately priced in competitive bids by industry.  The



significant difference lies in the formality of the bid procedure in the



transit market segment.  This formal bid procedure is dictated by govern-



mental guidelines which are prerequisite to the awarding of grants and



subsidies.



          3.  Pricing.  The most popular transit buses in use are 35 foot



and 40 foot vehicles which are manufactured according to customer specifi-



cations.  Based on interviews with General Motors and several transit





                                3-32

-------
companies, current price ranges for the most popular models are:



               35 foot  -  $55,000 to $68,000



               40 foot  -  $60,000 to $75,000



          4.  Resale/Used Buses.  Transit buses are generally utilized



by the original owner throughout their useful life.  The original end-user



will dispose of a unit by either selling it for salvage or by stripping the



useful parts and selling the remainder for salvage, or by selling it to



another transit authority or end-user.



     Transit authorities may occasionally purchase used buses to fill an



unexpected demand, to cover delays in new bus delivery, to obtain parts,



or to avoid costs of new bus purchases.



     (c)  School Buses



     The nature of the school bus segment is generally determined by the



following:



          1.  Channels of Distribution.  As depicted in Figure 3-1,  dis-



tribution of conventional school buses differs greatly from that of



intercity and transit buses.  School bus distribution is a complex two-step



distribution process.  The difference principally is that either a chassis



dealer or a body dealer can sell the complete bus to the end-user.  Most



orders will typically be handled by the school bus body manufacturer.



     The distribution process begins with a bus body builder's pool



(inventory) of chassis.  Given a local body dealer's order, a chassis





                                 3-33

-------
is taken from inventory and a body installed to end-user specifications.



Typically, when a chassis is used the regional chassis manufacturer



representative is notified and credit is given to the local  chassis



dealer.



     In the case where a chassis dealer takes an order for complete



buses, the process is similar.  The principal difference is  that the



local body distributer is given commission on the sale of the body.



In both cases warranty service is provided on a local dealer basis



for the part of the product that each represents.



          2.  Sales Practices.  As expected by the type of distribu-



tion, the principal sales of school buses are through dealers.  National



selling responsibility for each part of the product is maintained by



body and chassis manufacturers.



     There is a principal difference between the selling efforts of



chassis and body manufacturers.  Chassis manufacturers view their



customers as body builders and principally concentrate their activites



at that level, although chassis manufacturers will become involved



in large bid situations.  Body manufacturers, on the other hand,



promote their companies' products and services directly to the school



administrations.



          The majority of school bus sales are made in public bids



to predetermined specifications.  As previously noted, these specifi-



cations, beyond meeting minimum safety standards, vary greatly from



locality to locality.





                               3-34

-------
          3.  Pricing.  Due to the variety of school bus model types,
a single price range would not accurately portray the proper perspec-
tive.  Therefore, the following Table 3-1 presents school bus prices
by vehicle type.

          4.  Resale/Used Buses.  School buses find rather a large
resale market:  Typically, school authorities will sell used buses
to brokers.  These buses in turn will be sold to such groups as
churches, boys' clubs, P.T.A.'s, Y.M.C.A.'s, and a wide variety
of other groups.
                                3-35

-------
                            TABLE 3-1

                     August, 1976 Prices for
             Completed School Buses, by Type of Bus
Type of Bus                 Range of Prices       Average Price

Gasoline Powered:
  Conventional               $11,000-18,000           $14,500
  Forward Control            $26,000-30,000           $27,000
  Parcel Delivery            $10,000-11,500           $11,000

Diesel Powered:
  Conventional               $17,000-25,000           $19,000
  Forward Control            $28,000-30,000           $30,000
  Integral Mid-engine        $37,000-90,000           $50,000
  Integral Rear-engine       $37,000-75,000           $50,000


Note:     The average price expressed here is the price given by
          respondents as closely approximating the mean price paid
          for units of the respective type.

Source:  Telephone interviews conducted between EPA consultants
         and manufacturers and school bus distributors.
                                3-36

-------
BUS MANUFACTURERS PROFILE



     The remainder of this discussion will profile individual bus manu-



facturers in terms of a general description, financial resources/ employ-



ment, production facilities, and market share.  It is organized into four



sections as determined by the basic bus classifications and market segments



as follows:



               Intercity Bus Manufacturers



               Transit Bus Manufacturers



               School Bus Chassis Manufacturers



               School Bus Body Manufacturers



The basic information used in this section is developed from composite



tables of manufacturers shown in Figure 3-14 and 3-15.  Market share



data are represented in Figure 3-16 through 3-19.



     (a)  Intercity Bus Manufacturers



     The firms, subsidiaries, or divisions shown below account for the



vast majority of intercity bus production:



               Crown Coach Corporation



               Eagle International, Incorporated



               CMC Truck & Coach



               Motor Coach Industries, Limited



               Prevost Car



          1.  Crown Coach Corporation.  Established  in 1904,  this family



controlled business has operated on a profitable basis and  has increased





                                3-37

-------
TJ
P
4J
O
a
.
  o
1  a
1 1
&j

Tl
'O 4J
ai M in
C 0 <0
5 3
in a>
 c  -
H 0) fO 3 -P
i-l N  & 01
rl -H 3 tO 01
u to o fr
Id 43 "
fc E 
c
c

-1
n
t
(

in in
H ^
 O
 3
n] M
g*
m&
S5
H g
83
H
J= T)
u a>
ra E
tN
"

0
0

3


O



rH
CT>
t^
in
*
i-i
* C
) U rtJ
4 J ty
J -H -H
3 -P 4=
J C T3
3 0 -H
1 ft E



in

                              g  c
                              5. H
                                                u  o
                                                s  

                                                i1^
                                                   }-l
                                                C  0)
                                                nj  C
                                                U  CJ
                                                H  O
                   S3
                   H tj
             3-38

-------































^_^
4J
C
O
o
""
1
CO
0)
3
60
H
P"4




































W


Fn
O
PH
H
M
M
3
pM
8
g
P
CJ
<)
5
g
<3






PQ

















w
0)

4J
H
H
rH
U

O

H

O
U
^
5;
rH
r\
CO
W
H
H
r/i
W
H

H
c
o






Q
t-
fa
C
H
-P
O

T)
O








TJ
rH


O
fd
3
c
s

W
-P
O
3




tn en
tn tn w  3 >
tnxi tn> tnxi tnxi
3 Oi 3 >< 3 >i
XJ - O>, Xlr-i-P XJrH-P
fdtncij (flrH fdrH
rHS-tOJdJfd HMfd rHrHffJ

0
SH (D
01 >,


&
H



O O
o < o
co 2 tn




O
13 0)
0) H W
  S
6 j


o < o

ffl OJ
-P s ra ^
H OJ tfl 3 -P
rH N 0) &1 O)
H -H 3 W 0)
O W 0 fa
,2 go
CN
CO CN
m < *r
rd
fi
H
C
O
H
-P
ffl
O
O
rJ
""ft -P" 0
o a c ^
X -H H rfl
tn tn o o
3 w cw
 -H -H 
ffl 0 o in ,c -P
E -r-( tn tn en in
H  O -H -HO
JO *: S K S

rd
H

OJ OJ
-P -P C
rd H 0
i-l ffl -H
a 3 -P
t?1 rd
SH 'd rj
Sid O
 rH
P 0
C M
H fd
 o y


OJ 0 JS 4J
H -H CP JJ
o .c -HO
EH O K 2:










2











rf







SS


<
'Z.

O *
0 0
-P -H ffl
in in T3
'O ffl rd
0 4J C
O d nj
S O O











O tP-H
0 0)  O

S  &
rtJ rd


T?
^ 0
O 0)
fa o
                                         rH  ^ fd
                                         0  tP-H
                                         0  0) O
                                         -  +J g
                                         JJ  +J QJ
                                         u  c a
                                         rH  (0

                                         0)  C

                                           3
nway

kans
O  XI  >
w


rH  -fr ^
rd  -H rH
H  O  rd
tji ^ -H
0>  0)  U
4J  -P  (U


H  H Ul
ge

rn
                                                                 0  fl
                                                                 J  U
           O -H

           n
          H H
             drH
             H
                                                   I
                                                    3 T)  M-l
                                                    CQ (U  O
                                                   T3  C i

                                                    r-( M 3
                                                              -P Dl
                                                              fd Rf
                                                              M C

                                                              g*
                                                              U H ^

                                                             5 
                                                              S &i
                                                             &, nJ td
                                                                "4 H
                                                                   a
           ^.o
           n) -rt
           S w w
            ^ 0
           B-3 O

           B 2
3-39

-------
8
 I
n

 (U
 M


I
   H
PH
    to

    





d
01
i-i
3
4J
O
CO
M-l
3
C

g

cn
4J
o
3

CO O
01 P
H PM
co
01
CO
3 CO
43 0)
i-H
rH O
O -H
0 43
43 0)
0 >
CO

rH 4J
cO i-H
lJ tO
60 iH
01 U
4-1 01
C CX
M C/3
4J
H
rH
H
O CO
CO MO)
fa 01 01
43 >i
C S MH O
o 3 o r- I
rl r^i d
4J g
o pa



O
in
rH



3

o
rl T3 T3
0! 01 01
Jl-l CO
O CO
01



O






co o)
>, T3 IH
4J C CO /~\
rl 01 CO 3 4-J
-I N cn a- 0)
H -rl 3 Cn 0)
CJ W O fa
CO 43 MH
fa HO



o
CM
i-H






cO
C
O
rl
4-1

CJ
O

H
- a
T3 rl
IH O
CO MH
^ , 	 |
Jl U


CO
01 I-l
4J 01 (3
CO 4-1 O

O CO 4-1
ex 3 to
n a- cj
o -d o
CJ CO J
01
W

CO
H

d M
rl O
10 MH
JS-H
CO CO
33 U



d
0)
4-1
cd
I-l
o 
CX O
IH
01
rl
3
4-1
o
cO
MH
c

S
IH 
O C/3
O

H 43
4J
CO
I-l MH
01 O
4-> >,
O IH
P cd
 -H
T3
60 -H
H CO
rH 43
rH 3
H cn
























































































^^
(3
0
rl
4-1
tO
M
O
ex
o
o

^
o
H
I-l
M
01
33













CO
1)
CO
3
43

>^
4J
H
CJ

0)
4-1
C
M






O

rH








, 1








1 
in
rH




*
0)
rH
rH
rl
CO
6 m
o x
M 0)
pq H



60

3 ^^
O 0)
43 CX
e o
0) IH
X 3
3 W_







O
13
H

*
rH
CO
13
0
rl
4-1
3

01
4-1
C
H

01
rH
60
CO









CO
0)
rH
CO CJ
0) -rl
CO 43
3 0)
43 cn >
D
^i 5 ^>
4-1 O 4-1
H W rH
O CO
IH l-i -H

^f
rH





i) -
IH M
H 01
CO 4-1
rH CO -
O 0) O CO
43 01 -d
 O 43 CO
01 IH 0) (3
4-1 0 3 tO
W R O1 U

A
a) -
P M
rl 01
CO 4-1
rH CO -
O 0) O CO
43 01 T3
. O 43 CO
01 M 01 C
4J O 3 to
C/i R O1 U


















IH
CO
U

4J
CO
0

01
V4
PH



4-1
H
CO
C
CO
IH
4-1

MH
0

01
a
H
rH

3
01
a

CO


o
c
o
H
4J 
CJ -d
3 0)
T) 13
0 13
IH CO
CX rH
cx
01
4J 60
CO 13
d -H
O 01
S 43
R
O CO
CJ -H
O
cO 
rH
O

13
rl

CO
01
01
^
O
1-1
CX
B
01

MH
O

IH
01

3
a

a)

H



CO
01
H

H
rH
H
CJ
CO
MH

00
C 
H 0)
4J i-H
tO ^
rl CO
41 rH

"'
0 CO
4J 4-1
0

r\
4J cn
H
c
H CO
01
co cn
01 3
01 43

O MH
i-H O
CX
e c
01 O
H
i-H 4-1
rH O
CO 3
d
cn o
4-1 I-l
C ex
01
CO 0)
0) 43
rl 4-1
Q-
Q) C
M -H
0) >-,
M rH
3 01
60 >
rl -H
MH CO
3
CO rH
H CJ

H 01


CM

























































cn
01

4-1
rl
rH
H
CJ
to
MH

4-1

01

4-1

a
H
CO
01
01
X
O
i-H
1
0)

i-H
rH
CO

CO
4J
esen
^4
CX
0)
IH
0)
^|
3
60
H
MH

CO
H
r;
H


/ \















































C
CO
60
rl
43
O
H
^

fi
01

^
CO

13
H

13
01
4-1
CO
U
0
i-H

0)
J^l
to
CO
IH
01
4J
IH
CO
3
0
CO
01
43

CO
f.
a
o
H
4-1
CO
l-i
0

^
O
O

i-H
CO

01
a
01
o

y
 13 0)
rl CO. 4-1


rH CO -H
CJ 4-1 X
X VJ 0
01 CO p
CX CX
d ex
0) < CO
N
H CO
rH  -H
H 4J
4J -H 4J
3 43 C
rl 01
-43 S
CO X S
d o) o
CO rH
(3 0) P.
tO 43 S
CJ 4-1 01

(3 B ><
HOC
IH CO
XMH CX
4J S
rl T3 O
rH 0) 0
H T3
U 3 rH
CO rH CO
MH O 4-1
X O
G 01 H
O
H C
4-1 O) 
cj o) *d
3 43 0)
T) -d
O 0) 3
IH > rH
CX CO CJ
43 rt
CO cu
43 CO 13
0) 01
CO -H 0)
IH 43
T3 4J
d (3 o
to 3 cn
0 rH
CO CJ CO
rH
CO d) CO
01 -rl 43
4-1 4-1
CO CJ CO
3 0) -H
CJ CX 60
CO IH
13 0) 0
rl I-l tU
O

U-H -
H 0) >-,
rH 4= 01
H 4J i-H
CJ rH
CO C CO
MH -H >
(3 4J 4J
O CJ IH
H 3 0
4J T3 fa
0 0
3 l-i C
T3 CX -H
O
rl MH >>
CX O 4J
H
co cn I-H
3 0) -H
43 i-H O
CO tO
< CO MH


S



















































































m
i^
OS
rH

H
d
01
CO
CO
01
o

13
o
H
4J
CJ
3
T3
0

PH


vO










































CO
S
01
H
^
IH
01
4J
G
H

^
p
4-1
CO
3
d
G
M

i-l
CO
3
CJ
S
rH
CO
H
I-l
4J
cn
3
"S
M
CO

d
o
0


 *
4-1
01
0)
I-l
4J
cn
n

^J
a
^
Q

* A
cn
4J
IH
O
ex

M

rH
3
a

<2


 
0)
CJ
M
3
0
cn
                                            3-40

-------
   a
H U
3!
Sfi
                                            01
                                           H
                                            01
1
rH
8
S
                                                   i
                                                    u
                                                   cn
                                   in
                                  rl
                                   01
                                          rl
                                          01
                                          4J

                                          C
                                          H
                                                                                                   01
                                                                                                   01

                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                  rQ
rH

O



I
01
                                                                                    rl

                                                                                    -8
                                                                                    XI
8
u
cn
                    oi ,-N
                    M 01
                    u c
                    a o

                    S3:
 (U
 r4
P>H
                                 00
                                 1C
       pq
                                           o
                                           (N
                                                   CD


                                                   CN
                                                   CN
                                                   in
                          rH

                          cn

                          o
                in
                vo
                                                     o
                                                     H
                                                     o
                                            m
                                            in
                                            fi
          m
          rH
                                  CO
                                  (N
                                   ^
                                  01
                                                               in

                                                               01
in
rH
10
                                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                                       o
                         3 H
                         >< u
                                                                                                      o

                                                                                                      o









M
111
H
3
Manufact








^^

 o
O -H
H m
ti 1
u .2
tors Corpo
Michigan
s Coach D:
General Mo
Detroit,
(GMC Truck
r-













Company
, Michigan
Ford Motor
Dearborn
r-













orporation
Michigan
Chrysler O
Warren, :
S
> 



>.
nl
a
B
5
u

n
CO
4J
nal Harves
Illinois
Internatio
Chicago,

* 





t5

l ^

t.
01
o
C -rl
Corporatio
Arizona
ch Industr
Greyhound '
Phoenix,
(Motor Coa
?
* 




rH

c
O
rl

la "c
n c o
O 10 -rl
otors Corp
Id, Michig
1 Corporat
American M
Southfie
(AM Genera
in
r-









O
CO
4-1
n
d Incorpor
, New York
poration)
ra x n
0) H O
X 0 U
c o>
,
ZI
S
\




T3


10
M (0
0 -rl
ft G
U >H
O O -~
0 IW >,
C -H C
H rH Id
-3 &
01 O
01  u
rl Ifl
M JJ 0)
P 01 rH
01 'H XI
3 > -H
C X
C Id rH
H H fe
H i! 01
x: u 
S B
in
r^








c
o
H
4J
id
obe Corpor
Ohio
Division)
Sheller-Gl
Toledo,
(Superior
*
i^



Tf
id
^ id
ac
rl

O O
U M
c id
H U
uT5
CO H
Sg
on
4J 4J
H C
H -H
3 O
m ft
01 .C
id tj*
o tc

in
r-
ti
4J
id

&
O
CJ
C
H

 id
C -H
SB1
S S
u o

O 01
PQ H
rH
O 10
H >
rl
m -P
M
Si f
p 64
rH
CD
r-

                                                                 3-41

-------



























^"S
n
*-

^^
0
o
s ^

*^
ix.

33

LO P^ **
.H t> w
I H 0
ro OH
< H


rH" j ' l~n

bO 

id

r) 01
fa 01

CO















n
0)

3
u
cd
IH
3
c
id
g







id T3
CD c



Ul
0)
 H
T3
o
J3


rj


rH
8

CJ
CO



CO
~-r
CO
0
CTl












SC
z




o

o
CN











T)
01
4-1
id
M
o
o
u
c
H


01
4^ id
tn C
o id
S -H

^i C
a H
o
rpenter B
litchell.
3 "
U

\
rH
ro
x^
CN



Ifl

H

0
&


Jj
.Q

rH
8
si
u
co






ft
z












ft




o


,  1













01
id
- 01 01
tH C 01
c id -H
4J "* 3
O  Ti
IS >i C
tH CO H
3 S
c; c -o
CO O H
S O id
01 *
3 T) , 4-1
o vi M id
O O CO rl
J3 ft-rl O
CJ M 13 Clj
CO O -rl rl
O 01 O
tj c ^ u
CO CO H
13

\
rH

\^
CN
0)
01
3


rH 01
O 01
O 01
 3
o a
01

rH 4-1
id -H
rl U
trt rl

c c
H -H





CN

CO
H











ft
z




o


rH

















CO
 H
c c
O M
H O
cd -H
H rH
aid
u

o -
CJ 01
01
A rH
U CD
id CT>
C 01
S O
rl
CJ

X
rH
CO
X
CN







01
CD
01
3
.a

4-1
H
01
c
CO
1-1
EH



in
^

0
in












CO




r~

rH
rH












^f -P
 C
T3 6
01 0)
4-1 CT1
CO CO
H C
a CO
S

O 4-1
U 01
C CD
H 
 -H
01 E
4-1
CJ 14H
3 O
T3 O
0 -H >,
M  H
0) O cd
H
^i "^13
CO 4-1 -H
S G 01
 1
H CO


X
rH
CO
X
CN









































































C
>rporatio
o







0)
01
3
ja

H
0
o

u
01

rH
id

tn

C
H




















ft




o

ID














O
-H

TS Vj
, 0
O - M -H
^ t! id -P
m n -H ro
id 13 H
tn S -H Q
rl S 01 ft
H CO fl rl
H CO U
o  
CM
r--
X
o
CO
X
rH





01
0)
01
3
fl

**i
-p
H
o


c
H






o
ro
1
IT)
(NJ









z




in




















{j

U]
0)
1
Q id
o
 id
CD C
H co
H -H U
id id
U H -
o o
4-1 CD
01  J3
O 01 01
> 4J 3
n M


X
rH
CO
X
CN





01
CD
01
3


s^
4-1
H
o
CD
4-1
c
H






ft













z




















o
CD
4-1
CO
in -~
a 01
fi
rl fi
O H
o
c 01
H CO
0)
* 0) 01
rH Id rl
a x Q
C 01 >
OHO
rH

cd 01 o
C rH
jle Inter
Srownsvil
Ibsidiary
id co


























o
o
o
CO
CO
rH


UH
o
0)
e
o
u
c:
H
4-1
CO
c


H

2
o
-H
,  1
rH
-rl
B

ro

O">
ro
ro


TJ
H
5
o
4J
01
0)
rH
CO
01

Ul
"c
o

id
1-1

rl
0
u
rH
CO
^ CN
o) <* r^
C r- x
CD X H
O rH CO
ro X
S X CN
< ro rH
rH CN ro











































rl
o
4-1
0
0)
rl
H
Q

o
in


01
c
3
4J
rl
o
Cu

4-1
0)
01
rl
4J
01
73
id
rl
n
in ca

en C
H 3
Q
c
H 
Ul
T3 4J
0) SH
0) O
id a
01 0)
O K
C rH
o co
H 3
-P in c
o p- c
3 X <
'O rH
O .H
SH x
& ro 0)
M" m O







3-42

-------






e'-
en
rH









n
r-
en
rH









CN
r-
oi
rH




2
ra
S

-|J
^
S

S
H
S
2
(0
S

4J
0)
X
Ti



Of
01

in
^r

o
CN
VO


o

1C





10
JJ
 H
g
2
w
fO
X
K

jj
0)
^
TJ

W
JJ
 H
S
r-
S


OP
1C

ro
in




in
CN
r-






it
r-
a\
rH







O
1
CT>
rH





(0
r;
55
jj
0)
fi

W
jj
i
2
fO
S

jj
o
,y
tj



dP

00

r-
r


(0
4J
 H
g
o\
o
in



in
0)
H
VJ
S
3
JJ
O
oach Industr
o


rH

(N
ro

^
ro
-*


rH

r-
CN




>j>
*r
ro



r-

o
CN




O
00
CN





a\
in
rH


in
in
rH


r~

CN
CN



rH
^
CN




Motors
rH


in

r-
rH

^D
ro
CN


CN

CN
CN




ro
rs



(N

CN
CN




O
O
ro





r-
s


o
o
ro


ro

r-
CN



,-H
a




ti
H
*
1
M


*
*

^


O
O
 1

O
in
o
IO

ro
rH


Of

1

^r

O
0
^H




o
vo

\O
~
H



OP

in

CO

O
O
i I




ro
in
00
^r



ro
*.
-(




of
o
VC
CN
0
rH


r~
in
CN
r*

O
i-H



rH
- 3
i e
2
0)
-S
















































H1
H
1

B
1
^3
!
tJ
(0
(4H
i
(0
JJ
 H
C
3
in
ite: Include
S


















H
JJ
(B
rH
B
t-H
S
>1
gj






EH
<
in
CJ
H
)H
jj

rj
*o
C

6
to
88
JJ -H
SK
QJ
"O *->
(0 "H
8*^^
C7
n JJ
JJ (0
rd 3

O] -H
O C
CJ -H
M "U
S*
fi-g

s ^
8|
CJ 4J

H O
S1S
Interviews
based on i
/n
i  S
P  $  R
* J-  S
       3-43

-------
                   Figure 3-17
           TRANSIT BUS MARKET SHARES

    ESTIMATED MARKET SHARES - TRANSIT BUSES
    	TOTAL TRANSIT BUS FLEET	

 Manufacturer                  Market Share

General Motors                     75.2%
Flxible                            17.8%
AM General                          3.4%
Highway Products                    1.1%
All Others*                         2.5%

Footnote:    *Includes imported buses.
Source:  EPA estimates based on data from
         American Public Transit Association,
         Fleet Inventory.
    ESTIMATED MARKET SHARES - TRANSIT BUSES
      NEW EQUIPMENT DELIVERED. 1970-1975

 Manufacturer                  Market Share

General Motors                     65.2%
Flxible                            26.9%
AM General                          4,2%
Highway Products                    1.7%
All Qthers*                         2.5%

Footnote:    *Includes imported buses.
Source:  EPA estimates based on data from
         American Public Transit Association,
         Fleet Inventory.
    ESTIMATED MARKET SHARES - TRANSIT BUSES
      NEW EQUIPMENT DELIVERED, 1974-75

 Manufacturer                  Market Share

General Motors                     44.6%
AM General                         26.3%
Flxible                            22.4%
Highway Products                    2.7%
All Others*                         4.0%

Footnote:    *Includes imported buses

Source:  EPA estimated based on data from
         American Public Transit Association,
         Fleet Inventory.

                      3-44

-------



























CO

p>
3
H-j
CO

r _.
w
K^
2
g
CO
O HH
J3 CO

00 ^c
iH CO SB


riH Cd
CO
4J
rl



4-1
01 OJ

rl Cd

s co



CO

H




rl
0)

4-1
0
cd

3
a

s

B^S
CM O O CO ON r*~
 *
i I CM ON r^ m  rH ON
>*
r^ in t-~ vo H CM
rH rH rH O-


^* v^ o^ *vf ON r*^
ON r^ O rH ON ON
CM O in rH 01 OO
A v v \ v
m rH m m CM
rH


in rH O rH in 00
~d- r^ o -d- H CM
CM CM rH 0-|
m o o ON rH o
 CU
rH f~f
O 4-1
rl 01 O
> 60 T3
O) T3 !-i O U rH
J3 O O S K rH
u o PH 5 rH <;
K
6s?
o

o
o

o
CM
00
*
CO
ro


.JC
&--S
o

0
o
rH


f^.
CO
o
n
on
on


K
5^2
0

CD
o
-1
r"l

CO
oo
00
ft
o
CO

KO
o
CD
o
rH
m
CM
o-i
oo
CN

K
B-S
0

o
o
rH


o
r 
1 
o
on






i-H
cd
4-1
o
H























































































J_(
01
rH
>^ CO
cd M
3* U
0
U T3
ti
60 cd
c
rl M
rl 01
3 4-1
4-J CO
O 0)
cd >

3 cd
)~J p~{
cd
S  i  1
co cd
a j-j a
O -rl 0
CO ti -H
^i 3 4J
o cd
H IH C
S-I O M
T3 O)
C U 4-1
0) Ol (J
cri ^ H
s
*? p
cd w
4-J O
Cd rj 4J
rl Cd O
60 0 g
(-1 -H
0) IH rH
O -H cd
O C M
60 01
 *v !-( rj
60 >% CO 0)
CM O
rl M Cd
T3 0) ,
0 p., 5-1 4J
3 O -H
O > IH g
C 4J CO
O cd C ts
4-1 P, 3 0)
SO *rl
01 O 0 >-
300 M
^O cd oJ
CO 4-1
6^ -H CO C
O CO -rl rH
O co O
rH Cd C "-
fi -rl 4-1
O C_5 rH al
4-1 rH 01
rH H H
p^ cO PTI
3 d -
O CO CO
T3 -rl C 3
cfl cd ^->
^ hJ 1  1
4-1 x-x 0
O rH O
c -^ ,
o
o co
OJ
to 4-1
rH O 0)
cd C o
4J 4-J !-l
0 O 3
HO O
K p-t CO
3-A5

-------
                       Figure 3-19

       ESTIMATED FACTORY SHIPMENTS AND MARKET SHARE
                  SCHOOL BUS  BODIES,  1974
Thomas
Ward
Manufacturer
Bird
_er Globe (Superior)
in Head (Wayne)
is
inter

)thers
total
Shipments
6,592
6,592
5,055
4,257
3,784
2,838
443
29,561
Market Share
22.3%
22.3
17.1
14.4
12.8
9.6
1.5
100.0%
   Crown Coach and Gillig account for the majority with
   integrally constructed buses.  Also includes units
   manufactured by firms not in the bus industry such as
   recreational vehicle manufacturers.

Source:  EPA compared estimated market share information
         provided by body manufacturers with Dun & Brad-
         Street sales estimates.
                           3-46

-------
net worth annually through retained earnings.  In 1974, Crown had sales



of approximately $14 million, total assets of $18,165,223, and a tangible



net worth of $3,755,232.  In addition to intercity buses, the firm also



manufactures integrally constructed school buses and fire trucks.  Crown



is also a distributor of coaches and bodies for other manufacturers and



operates a coach maintenance division.  Crown will employ between 275



and 450 people, depending on demand and seasonal fluctuations, in one



production facility of 65,000 square feet located in Los Angeles, Califor-



nia.  The firm's integrally constructed vehicles compete primarily in



two market segments, intercity and school, and accounted for less than



1% of total sales in each market in 1974.



          2.  Eagle International, Incorporated.  This company, a sub-



sidiary of Overseas Inns, S.A., Luxembourg was founded in 1973 to manu-



facture buses primarily for Continental Trailways, the second largest



U.S. intercity carrier.  Prior to 1973, another subsidiary of Overseas



Inns manufactured such buses in Belgium.  However, with the devaluation



of the U.S. dollar, the Belgian units could no longer be competitively



priced and Eagle was formed.



     As noted above, Eagle was started to manufacture Silver Eagle



intercity buses primarily for Continental Trailways under an annual



contract.  In the second half of 1975 this annual contract expired and



had not been renewed as of August 26, 1976.  As a result, production



has been cut significantly.  The number of employees has been reduced



from 350 to 150.  Finally, on August 12, 1976, a meeting was held with





                                  3-47

-------
many of the firm's creditors in order to work out a plan for repayment


of debts.  The firm is maintaining its lease on a 157,000 square foot

plant in Brownsville, Texas.  In 1974, Eagle accounted for approximately

17.5% of total intercity bus sales.

          3.  CMC Truck & Coach.  In 1943,  General Motors Corporation

acquired the assets of Yellow Truck & Coach Manufacturing Company and


business formerly conducted by that organization is today being carried
                                                                    *
on by the GMC Truck & Coach Division.  In 1974, General Motors had net

sales of $31,549,546,126; net income of $950,069,363;  total assets of

$20,468,099,914; and employed approximately 734,000 individuals.  Speci-

fic financial information for GMC Truck & Coach Division is not available.

     General Motors is primarily an operating corporation, carrying on

activities through operating divisions.  The firm also owns stock in


many other companies.  Generally, GM is engaged in manufacture, assembly,

and distribution in the United States of various motor driven products

most of which relate to transportation equipment.  Subsidiaries and

associated companies conduct similar operations in Canada and other

foreign countries.

     Automotive products consist of passenger cars, trucks, buses,

motor homes, and their related components, as well as parts and

accessories.  The greatest portion of such components, parts and

accessories is used in the manufacture of GM automotive products.

In addition, substantial amounts of such products are sold to outside

manufacturers, and are also marketed through distributors, dealers,

and jobbers.

                                3-48

-------
     In the United States there are 29 major operating divisions, while



in Canada, GM manufacturing operations are carried on by a subsidiary.



Products are distributed to other world markets through the Overseas



Operations Division which has assembly and manufacturing operations in




21 countries.



     CMC Truck & Coach Division operates two bus manufacturing facilities



in Pontiac, Michigan; one is devoted entirely to the production of inter-



city and transit buses, while the other manufactures school bus chassis



and medium duty trucks.  The two plants jointly employ approximately 15,000



people.  An existing facility, also in Pontiac, is being refurbished to



accomodate production of CMC's new transit bus, the RTS-2.  Future plans



call for another facility for the manufacture of school bus chassis.



     In 1974, CMC's respective estimated market shares were as follows:



               Intercity                   32.1%



               Transit                     44.6%



               School Bus Chassis          18.5%



          4.  Motor Coach Industries, Limited.  This company is a wholly



owned subsidiary of Greyhound Lines of Canada, Ltd. which is both a holding



and an operating company.  Overall control rests with the Greyhound Corpora-



tion, a holding company with numerous subsidiaries whose business activities



can be categorized into six general groups:  Transportation, Leasing, Consumer



Products and Pharmaceuticals, Food, Services, and Food Services.  In 1974,






                                 3-49

-------
Greyhound Corporation had sales of approximately $3,469,281,000; net



income of approximately $57,955,000; total assets of $1,357,328,236



and employed approximately 55,000.



     Motor Coach Industries employs approximately 1,500 employees in



three plants located in Winnipeg and Fort Gary, Manitoba, Canada and



Pembima, North Dakota.  Respectively, the two facilities contain 155,000



square feet and 135,000 square feet. In 1974, MCI accounted for 45.9%



of total intercity bus sales.  Specific financial information is not



available.



          5.  Prevost Car.  This Canadian-based manufacturer was formed



in 1957.  Intercity buses account for approximately 60% of production,



motor homes account for 25% and the remaining 15% of production is



accounted for by specialty vehicles.



     1974 sales were estimated to be $4.5 million with total assets of



between $2.5 million and $3.5 million.  Two buildings with a total area



of 144,000 square feet are owned by the company and used as a manufac-



turing facility.  Employment is estimated at 125-200.



     Prevost Car is estimated to have less than a 1% share of the sales



of the total United States intercity bus market.



     (b)  Transit Bus Manufacturers



     The following firms, subsidiaries or divisions account for the





                                3-50

-------
vast majority of transit bus production:



               AM General Corporation



               The Flxible Company



               CMC Truck & Coach




               Highway Products, Incorporated



          1.  AM General Corporation.  In 1971, American Motors Corpora-



tion formed this wholly-owned subsidiary to assume the assets and  govern-



ment contracts of the former general products division.  AM General  entered



the transit bus business in 1972 and has since recorded substantial  gains.



1975 sales totaled $339.3 million which represents a 113% increase over  1974.




During this same period of time, the subsidiary went from a loss of  $9.7



million to a profit of $188,000.  Since entering the market, AM General  has



become a major factor in the transit bus industry.  During 1975, AMG was



awarded contracts valued at $83.7 million for 1,361 buses by 19 transit



authorities.  1974-5 sales accounted for 26.3% of the total market for new



transit buses.  Bus manufacturing facilities include a 350,000 square foot



plant in Mishawaka, Indiana and another plant in Marshall, Texas.



     The parent company, American Motors, is an operating corporation with



several wholly-owned operating subsidiaries.  The company is primarily



engaged in the manufacture, assembly, and distribution in the Ifruted States



and foreign countries of various motor driven products, most of which relate



to transportation equipment.  Automotive products include passenger  cars,



utility and recreational vehicles and transit buses.






                                3-51

-------
          2.  The Flxible Company.   This wholly-owned  subsidiary of



Rohr Industries, Inc. was acquired  by the parent company in  1970.



Flxible manufactures transit buses  in a new 338,000  square foot plant



located in Delaware, Ohio.  1974-5  sales accounted for 22.4% of the



total transit bus market.  Specific employment and financial informa-



tion is not available.





     Rohr is a diversified company  organized into two  systems groups:



Aerospace and Marine Systems Group, and Rail and Industrial  Systems



Group.  The company designs and manufactures the following products:



power plant assemblies; thrust reversal systems and other components;



motor sections and nozzles for large solid propellant  rocket motors;



spacecraft tracking and communications antennas; steel and aluminum



boats of various kinds; prestressed and precast concrete structural



components; automated materials handling and storage systems; rail



transit systems; personal transit systems; postal mechanization



systems; transit buses, and other aerospace, transportation, and



industrial systems.  In the year ended July 31, 1975,  Rohr had a net



loss of $7.6 million on sales of $456.3 million and assets of $313.8



million.





          3.  CMC Truck & Coach.  This General Motors  operating divi-



sion is the most significant factor in the transit bus market.  For



a profile, refer to  the Intercity Bus Manufacturers portion



of  this section.





                                3-52

-------
          4.  Highway Products Incorporated.   This subsidiary of Midwest



Management Corporation ceased operations in 1975.   Highway Products had



manufactured and marketed transit buses under the  Twin  Coach product name.



In 1974, Highway Products had a net loss of $800,000  on sales of $11.7



million with assets of $5.4 million.  The manufacturing facility,  located



in Kent, Ohio, contains 250,000 square feet.   As of July 18,  1975,  the



company had employment of 150 at the plant location.  1974-75 transit bus



market share amounted to 2.7%.



     The parent corporation is a holding company which  maintains at least



six subsidiaries.  These companies are involved in manufacturing aluminum



doors and windows, railroad hardware equipment, leasing and land develop-



ment, and travel bureau operations.  On December 31,  1973,  Midwest



Management Corporation had a tangible net worth of $756,096 with finances



unbalanced.  1973 sales were $28.2 million with a  loss  of $361,000.



     (c)  School Bus Chassis Manufacturers



     The following firms or divisions account for  the vast majority of



school bus chassis production:



               Chrysler Corporation



               Ford Motor Company



               CMC Truck & Coach



               International Harvester Company



          1.  Chrysler Corporation.  Chrysler manufactures and markets



its conventional school bus chassis under the Dodge product line.   Along





                                 3-53

-------
with school bus chassis/ the 495,000 square foot plant in Windsor,



Ontario, Canada produces medium duty trucks and motor home chassis.



In 1973, Chrysler accounted for 2.0% of the total school bus chassis



market.  Specific employment and financial information is not avail-



able.



     The parent company and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily



in the manufacture, assembly and sale of cars and trucks and related



automotive parts and accessories.  Other operations include the manu-



facture and sale of tractors, outboard motors, boats, inboard marine



engines, air conditioning, heating and cooling equipment, power metal



products, chemical products and defense-space products, including tracked



and wheeled vehicles and space boosters.  In 1974, Chrysler had a net



loss of $52,093,772 on sales of $10,971,415,723 and assets of



$6,732,755,557.  Employment numbered 25,929.



          2.  Ford Motor Company.  Ford school bus chassis production



occurs at plants located in Louisville, Kentucky and Windsor, Ontario,



Canada.  Ford's 1973 share of the school bus chassis market amounted



to 29.0%.  Specific financial, employment, manufacturing and marketing



data for Ford's school bus chassis production operation are not avail-



able.



     The corporation is primarily an operating company with several



subsidiaries.  The manufacture, assembly and sale of cars, trucks and



related parts and accessories accounted for approximately 91% of sales



in 1974.  In the United States, Ford ranks second in the industry in





                                 3-54

-------
unit factory sales of cars and trucks.  Outside the U.S., cars and


trucks are manufactured by several subsidiaries throughout the free


world.  The remaining 9% of sales in 1974 was accounted for by opera-


tions dealing with tractors and farm implements, communications and


electronic systems, automotive production component materials, the


dealer organization, land developments, and public transit "people


mover" systems.  Total sales for the year amounted to $23.6 billion


which generated net income of $360.9 million.  Assets total approxi-


mately $14.2 billion.  In 1974, Ford employed 235,256 workers in this


country and 464,731 on a worldwide basis.


          3.  CMC Truck & Coach.  This General Motors operating divi-


sion markets its school bus chassis under the Chevrolet or CMC product


line.  For a profile, refer to the Intercity Bus Manufacturers


portion of this section.


          4.  International Harvester.  International Harvester manu-


factures school bus chassis and medium duty trucks in their Springfield,


Ohio plant which employs 4,000.  In 1973, the company accounted for 45.9%


of the total school bus chassis market.  Additional specific financial


information is not available.


     The corporation is primarily an operating company with numerous


wholly-owned subsidiaries.  International Harvester's principal products
     t

are trucks, agricultural/industrial equipment and construction equipment.


The company is also a major producer of gasoline and diesel engines for



                                3-55

-------
use primarily with its products.  International Harvester owns 17 manu-
facturing plants in the United States, while its subsidiaries own 18
manufacturing plants throughout the free world.  As of October 31, 1974,
the company had approximately 73,870 U.S. employees and 110,990 total
worldwide employees.  Sales for the year amounted to $4,965,916,000 with
a net income of $124,053,000.  Total assets amounted to $3,362,962,000.
     (d)  School Bus Body Manufacturers
     The following firms, subsidiaries or divisions account for the
vast majority of school bus body production:
               Blue Bird Body Company
               Carpenter Body Works
               Superior
               Thomas Built Buses
               Ward'School Bus
               Wayne Corporation
          1.  Blue Bird Body Company, Incorporated.  A privately owned
company, Blue Bird was originally started in 1927.  The company wholly-
owns five subsidiaries, all of which are associated with the school bus
market.  Three of the subsidiaries are located in the United States, with
one in Canada and the other in Guatemala.  The main plant, which  is 500,000
square feet, is located in Fort Valley, Georgia.  Some 650 of the companys
1,000 workers are employed in the main plant.

                                 3-56

-------
     Although Blue Bird is primarily a conventional school bus body



manufacturer, it also produces forward control school bus bodies and



motor homes.  In addition, one U.S. subsidiary manufactures school bus



accessories and parts.  In 1974, Blue Bird had sales of approximately



$30 million which resulted in an estimated 22.3% share of the school



bus body market.  Additional financial information is not available.



          2.  Carpenter Body Works, Inc.  This privately owned company



was founded in 1918.  The most significant portion of Carpenter's opera-



tion is the manufacture and assembly of conventional school bus bodies;



however, the company also builds forward control and parcel delivery



school bus bodies mounted on special chassis according to customer



specifications.  The company's 375,000 square foot production facility



employs 630 workers and is the largest employer in Mitchell, Indiana.



1974 sales were reported over $20 million which resulted in approxi-



mately a 12.8% share of the total school bus body market.



          3.  Superior.  An operating division of Sheller-Globe Corpora-



tion, Superior was acquired in 1969.  In addition to conventional school



bus bodies, Superior manufactures forward control and parcel delivery



school bus bodies, ambulances, funeral hearses and military vans, most



of which are mounted on chassis furnished by automotive manufacturers.



A 698,000 square foot production facility, employing 1,800, is located



in Lima, Ohio. Another plant is located in Rasciusko, Mississippi. The



firm's estimated 1974 share of the school bus body market is 22.3%.



Additional specific divisional financial information is not available.





                                 3-57

-------
     The parent corporation, Sheller-Globe,  is a diversified  operation



with its products being classified into one  of three categories:  auto-



motive parts, assemblies, and related products; vehicles and  transportation



equipment; and office products.   1974 sales  were $286.8 million with a net



income of $7.6 million.  Assets totaled $233.7 million.



          4.  Thomas Built Buses.  This operating  company has two



subsidiaries, one in Canada and the other in Ecuador.  Conventional school



bus bodies represent the most significant portion  of the operation.  The



firm is also engaged in the manufacture and  assembly of forward control



school bus bodies and other specialized vehicles.   The firm employs 500



workers in a 42,200 square foot facility located in High Runt, North



Carolina.  Thomas also operates a plant in Woodstock, Ontario, Canada.  For



the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, Thomas reported sales  of approxi-



mately $30 million and assets of $14.6 million. During the prior  fiscal



year, net income was reported as $1.6 million. The firm's  1974 estimated



share of the market is 14.4%.



          5.  Ward School Bus Manufacturing, Inc.   This family owned



business is a subsidiary of Ward Industries, Incorporated which serves



as a holding company for three other subsidiaries.  Manufacture and assembly



of school bus bodies is the primary operation of Ward School  Bus Manufacturing.



The subsidiary employs between 500 and 600 workers in a 234,000 square  foot



plant located in Conway, Arkansas.  Ward's estimated share  of the  1974  school



bus body market is 9.6%.





                                 3-58

-------
          6.  Wayne Corporation.  A subsidiary of Indian Head, Inc.,



this corporation manufactures ambulances, hearses, postal delivery



vehicles and other speciality vehicles.  However, the most significant



part of the operation is the manufacture and assembly of school bus



bodies.  The Wayne Corporation employs 500 to 800 workers at their



main plant in Richmond, Indiana.  The 1974 estimated share of the



market is 17V1%.  Additional specific information pertaining to this



subsidiary is not available.



     The parent corporation, Indian Head, Inc., reported 1974 sales



of $615.4 million and net income of $22.5 million.  Assets totaled



$353.5 million.  Indian Head is a diversified company engaged in the



manufacture and processing of glass containers, metal and automotive



products, specialty textiles, utilities and communications products,



and micropublishing.



EXPORTS AND IMPORTS



     With regard to all types of buses, the U.S. has experienced a



favorable balance of trade situation.  In 1975, the U.S. exported a



total of 5,673 new and used buses with a value of almost $112.4 million.



During the same year, the U.S. imported a total of 881 units valued at



$20.1 million.



     (a)  Expor ts



     Figure 3-20 shows U.S. bus exports in terms of units and value for



both, new and used buses.  New buses figures are listed according to engine



type.  In 1975, the U.S. exported more buses, 5,673 units valued at



$112,360,243,





                                 3-59

-------
    CO
o  o

7  &
CO  W

 cu  en


 Is
H
fe  CO






CO
CU
CO
3
PQ
CU
CO
1  i
























CO
cu
Cfl
rj
PQ

Jj
CU
53

















































CO

a
H

W

cu
CO
cu
H
O












CO
cu
C
H
00
a
w

en
cfl
O














Q)
3
H
CO
>






CO
4-1
H
c







CU

rH

**"





CO
4J
rl
a









3
t-H
cfl









CO
4-1
rl
a



M
Cfl
CU


CO
Os
CO
A
Os
-cr
CO
*
*^J-





o
CN
VO




00
VO

v
Os
o
Os
H
CN
CO-




CM
CO







CM
00
O
rH
O
rH

VO
00
*/)





rH
CN
vO

"*


m
i-*.
Os
rH

Os
oo
vO
r,
in
^j"
in
*
H





rH
oo
CO




0
O
0
W
OS
N^-
\o
CO
rH





in
in
v^J"






P-%.
00
m
rH
OS
CO
*:
in







p^.
O
vO
\
CN


^j-
p-^
OS
rH

O
m
00
*\
in
p-^
rH
*\
rH





N^-
CM
CO




p^.
rH
OS

O
CO
oo
in






P^.
oo
CN






O

^-
*J-
rH
m
CO
*^J*
\
%^-
rH






^~
00
CO
rv
CO


rH
f^
OS
rH

VO
O
o
n
m
^~
OS







r*^
Os
CN




00
O
CO
A
f^%
CN
in
vO






OS
m
CO






p^
vO
CO
oo
r^.
OS
*
rH
rH






rH
*^-
rH
*
CO


0
r^.
O\
iH

ON
^-
in
*
+3"
o
r--







f-%
0
CO




rH
^-
m

00
oo
oo
CO






o
OS
rH






00
OS
CN
rH
o
o

rT
rH






vO
OO
vO
n
CN


Os
vO
OS
rH

rH
r--
rH
*\
P*-.
CO
o
r>
rH





VO
O
vO




CO
m
p^
s
Os
CO
rH
VD






rH
p^.
CO






rH
in
rH
vO
CO
p^.
*\
OS
rH






CN
m
OS
.
CO


oo
vO
OS
rH
,0.

t^i
4J
H
'O
o
6
S
0
o
pq"

cu
rH
3
^
n)
JC
o
C/l
o
rH
-3-

H




}_l
0
R
W


en

]  i

*\
CO
3
CO
C
cu
u

rC tC
4J OS
rH
I4_| |
o co
vO
3 os
Cfl rH
cu
M 
3 t>>

4J
 ti
en 3
 O

cu
0

3
O
en
                                                  3-60

-------
than in any year since 1968 when 4,929 units valued at $27,513,075 were

exported.

     According to statistics compiled by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers

Association, Ford is the leading exporter accounting for 43.6% of all

exports.  The following Table 3-2 presents the percentage share of total

exports by manufacturer in 1975.  It is significant to note that Chrysler's

entire bus production was exported rather than utilized domestically.

                               TABI 3-2

                    Percentage Breakdown of Total
                                                  (1)
                  U.S. Bus Exports by Manufacturer



     Manufacturer                            % of Total Exports

     Ford                                          43.6%

     Chrysler                                      29.8

     General Motors                                19.2

     International Harvester                        7.3

     Other                                          0.1
                                   Total          100.0%
            (1)
     Note:     In the case of school buses, data refers
               only to chassis manufacturers.

     Source:  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
                                 3-61

-------
     (b)  Imports



     Figure 3-21 presents U.S. bus imports in terms of units and value by



country of origin.  U.S. imports of 881 units in 1975 represent a  signifi-



cant decline of approximately 33% from the prior year's total of 1,319



units and an even larger decline of 38.5% from the peak year of 1972 when



the U.S. imported 1,433 units.  With the exception of certain Canadian



manufacturers identified in prior sections, such as Motor Coach Industries



and Prevost Car, only two foreign bus manufacturers have been the  source



of significant imports to the United States.  Mercedes Benz accounts  for



virtually all buses imported from West Germany and a subsidiary of Overseas



Inns (parent company of Eagle International)  accounts for all buses  imported



from Belgium.  As discussed in the Bus Manufacturer Profile section,  Continental



Trailways, the second largest intercity carrier, had maintained bus purchase



agreements with Overseas Inns which has a subsidiary with a plant  in  Belgium.



With the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, the manufacture of such units outside



the United States became economically unsound and Eagle International was



formed  in 1973.  According to industry sources at the National Association



of Motor Bus Owners, production of the Belgian units was gradually phased



out in  1975 with Eagle International assuming production of all Continental



^railways buses in the United States.  Subsequently, the purchase  contract



with Eagle has not been renewed by Continental.



RAW MATERIAL - COMPONENT - AFTERMARKET SUPPLIERS



     As illustrated in Figure 3-1, bus manufacturers obtain raw materials



and components from suppliers and manufacturers.  Ihe bus aftermarket is





                                 3-62

-------





01

a
si
4-1
O







>
a
rt
g
J^
3
4J
CO









g
H
rH
M






8
M
a
2
o






ctf
*t3
2
1






co
4-1
f-l
0
1
rH
cd
4-1
O
H







CU
5
"it
>





co
4J
H
a
D


fll

rH
cd
>


co
4J
rl
fj
&



3
rH
cd
>


CO
4J
H
e

^
3
nj
>



CO
4-1
H
a
D



3
rH
cd
>


CO
4-1
H
-3


(11
3
i-H
0)
^



co
4J
H
c
p
rl
CO
CU
0
CM
CM
in
-a-






VO



00
O
vO
VO
3-
in
*,
CO


rH
-a-
rH

H
m
rH
rH
CM
ON

00




O


vO
ON
rH
^j.
00
a-
M
f


in
-3-
m
CO
m
-a-
CO
r0
rH
O
CM
c/y


rH
oo
00


m
r-.
oi
O
O
O
O
r--*






CO



px_
vo
co
co
CO
o
ft
00


VO
"^

CO

rH
.3-
00
co
I
co


CM
VO
CM
O

CO
vO






a-
CM

ON
CM
O1
ON
vO

,
VO


rH
VO
m
ON
00
CM
a-
o
m
00
CM



O\
rH
CO
M
rH
^
f^
ON
VO
CM

a-







*
m
r-
CO
rH
\
r~


ON
r-.
r-.
^
p^
rH
m
m
00
CO
CM



CO
co
*a-
fv
rH
CM

ON
,










1



ON
00
CM
vO
^
iH
^
CM


sr
CO
CM

f-

rH
rH

ON
,
in


00
CM
CO
^
CM
0
vO
CM





(^
CM

00
in

CM
a-
CO

CO


0
r-.
co
^
fs.
CM
vO
m

H
CM



ON
in
ON


rH

ON
O
vO

CM







rH



CO
-3-
O
,_j
ON
-a-




CM
r~.


CO
o
H
ON
00
o
M
CO


CO

CM
m

o
^j.
vO





r-
CM

vr
-3-
-a-
rH
00
m
i
CO


-a-

co
m
CM
CM
00
CM
CM
rH



CM
m



O

ON
in
00
00
in
rH






rH



CM

CM
O

VO




00
CO


00
3-
O
.3.
ON
p^
fi
O


i-H
m
CM
m
CO
CO
o
in





CM
CM

^
ON
vO
CO
^h
CO
t
H


vO
vO
rH
^
CM
CM
a-
o>
00
CM
rH



00

3"


ON
vO

O

vO
CM







i-H



ON
ON
CM
ON
CO
00




CO


^
vO
m
m

in
ro
4J
t-i
o

i
                       01
                       u
                       01

                      I
                       0)
                       u
               ^      a
3-63

-------
served by those same firms which are classified as component suppliers.



These suppliers and manufacturers also supply the large auto and truck



manufacturing industries.



     An examination of sales figures developed by the Motor Vehicle Manu-



facturers Association presents the relative importance of the bus industry



to suppliers when compared to the much larger auto and truck industries.



In 1975, auto, truck and bus sales are estimated to be 8,985,012 units,



of which buses accounted for an estimated 40,530 units or 0.5% of the total.



Figure 3-22 lists some suppliers which have been identified during inter-



views with bus manufacturers.







BASELINE INDUSTRY FORECAST



     In order to measure the economic impact of the proposed bus noise



emission levels selected for study, a baseline forecast of industry



activity was established.  Against this forecast, estimated post-



regulation activity will be compared so as to measure the change.  This



section presents the baseline forecast and the methodology utilized in



its development.  Figures 3-23, 3-24, and 3-25 respectively portray base-



line forecasts for intercity, transit, and school buses.





     (a)  Baseline Forecasts



     The Department of Transportation's National Transportation Report



estimates that intercity passenger travel expenditures for the period



1975 to 1990 will annually increase 0.5%.  During this same period of



time, the National Association of Motor Bus Owners estimates that the
                                 3-64

-------
                           Figure 3-22
       SELECTED SUPPLIERS TO THE BUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Bendix
Borg-W,
Caterp
Cummins
Dana
Donald
Eaton
Garloc
Midlan
Modine
Manufacturer

irner
Lllar
3

son

c (Stemco)
1-Ross

: (A P Parts)
LI International
Electric
;~Murray (Schwitzer)
'house
lanufacturing
1975 Sales
(S Millions)
$2,481
1,768
4,082
833
1,070
120
1,760
151
415
128
384
4,409
236
330
5,799
36
Manufactured
Component
Engine Accessories
Radiator
Engine
Engine
Transmission
Air Cleaner, Muffler
Axle
Muffler
Engine Accessories, Frame
Radiator
Muffler
Axle , Brake
Engine Accessories, Brake
Radiator Fan
Engine Accessories
Radiator
Source:  Interviews with bus manufacturers; Dun & Bradstreet.
                               3-65

-------
                       Figure 3-23

                    BASELINE FORECAST
                     INTERCITY BUSES
                 Year             Shipments

                 1976               1,256

                 1977               1,236

                 1978               1,256

                 1979               1,256

                 1980               1,256

                 1981               1,256

                 1982               1,256

                 1983               1,257

                 1984               1,257

                 1985               1,257

                 1986               1,257

                 1987               1,257

                 1988               1,257

                 1989               1,257

                 1990               1,257


Source:  National Association of Motor Bus Owners estimate for
         growth rate added to an average annual shipments figure
         based on the years 1970-1974.
                           3^66

-------
                         Figure 3-24

                      BASELINE FORECAST
                        TRANSIT BUSES
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981-85
1986-90
Shipments
7,277
5,880
5,627
4,375
4,209
3,861
4,023
Source:  Mid-points calculated from forecast ranges developed
         by the American Public Transit Association as described
         in the publication United States Transit Industry
         Market Forecast.
                             3-67

-------
m
CM
 i
CO






















H
CU
CO
cu
r(
Q






















CU
(3
H
rH
O
CO
a
O



















CO
H 3
cB M
O rH

*"*



j^
ctf

CM
rH
Ctf
00
CU
4-1
13 i
H T)
tfj
Jgj




""O
JH
nj
3
o
Pn




I
13
1
O





rH
CU
O
id
CD



*T3
M

3
4
O
PK



t
(3
CU
5
M
o
o







CO
CU

H



CU
{3
H
00
13
W



CU
(3

'oo
C!
W



H
O
H
4-1
O
o





rH
C
H
4J



,
n
CU








0
so
oo
H





m
ON
CM





N^-
rH
m
m
CO


00
oo
ON
rH
o
o
o
CO
<"





o
ro
rH






o
ro






o
r^.
vO
rH






O
rH
rH
CM






O
rH
ON
rH





O
O
CO





m
*
C
CU
4-1

C
o

CO
'A

H
ctf
(3
ctf

O
rf
to
co
cu
14
00
0)

o

d
cu
CO
cd
a
CO
1-1

0>
3

rH
Ctf
4->
O
4J

M-l
O

4J
CO
ctf
O
cu



cu
o
M
3
O
l/l
-3- CO
rH CO
I 0
in iJ
O

0 ti
t-i cd
00
n
CU (3
00 0
Cfl -H
4->
C ctf
r) O
C-l ^3
o cu
tH
4-1 C
Ctf O
H
3 co
Cu CU
O U
Cu 3
4-1
** Trt
T3 t3
C cu
* &
to 3
c
O rH
rl Cfl
4-) O
Ctf O
^ rH
4-1
CO TJ
H C
OO Cu
cu
W CU
4J
CO Ctf
3 4J
t& CO
rH 
O 0)
o 3
J3 O
af \
W
co C
H
c
Ol rH
CU ctf
4-1 O
CU CO
*Q r<
CU
_P- Cu
' cu
CO rH
d >
O Ctf
H CO
4J O
ctf cu
rH CO
W *rH









4-1
1

g

U-I
o

CO
01
4-1
3
0
*H
W
01

c
o

T3
cu
CO
&

CO
H

3


^M
o

CD

4J
^
-Q

c
o
rH
4-J
3

H

4>J
CO
H
Q


4-1
u 
3 in
TJ r~
O ON
VJ rH
rl
rH 0
Ctf <4H
t3
O 01
H M
4-1 rt
CTj rC







                                           3-68

-------
total bus population will increase at an annual rate of 0.25%.  Con-



sequently, as shown in Figure 3-23, the annual shipments of intercity



buses will remain almost constant, either 1,256 or 1,257, during the



period 1976 tp 1990.  It is signifcant to note that these annual ship-



ment figures represent approximate mid-points for forecast ranges



provided by General Motors.



    Figure 3-24 presents a transit bus baseline forecast.  The annual



shipment figures are based on forecasts developed by the American Riblic



Transit Association in 1976.  Transit bus shipments are expected to peak



in 1976 at a level of 7,277 units.  The period 1977 to 1985 is expected



to show continual declines to an annual figure of 3,861 units during the



period 1981 to 1985.  The period 1986 to 1990 is forecast to have slight



annual increases to a level of 4,023 units.



    The baseline forecast for school buses is presented in Figure 3-25.



The annual shipment figures have been developed by a regression analysis



based on ten years of historical data.  School bus shipments are expected



to show continual annual growth during the period 1976 to 1990.



    (b)  Methodology



    The intercity bus base line forecast was developed by utilizing an



estimated growth rate for the intercity bus population of 0.25%.  This



growth rate was estimated by the National Association of Motor Bus Owners.



0.25% was converted to the actual number by which the entire intercity



bus population was expected to increase on an annual basis.  The incre-



mental number represented by 0.25% was then added on to an average





                               3-69

-------
shipments figure of 1,204 units which is based on actual shipments



during the period 1970-1974.



     Ihe transit bus baseline forecast was developed by establishing



mid-points for forecast ranges development by the American Public Transit



Association.  The APIA forecast, United States Transit Industry Market



Forecast, was published in September, 1976.



    Ihe baseline forecast for school buses was based on a regression



analysis on a ten year historical relationship between school bus regis-



trations and the following factors:  population in the age group 5-14,



disposable personal income, state and local expenditures on education,



and Gross National Product.  The distribution by type of bus is based



on market share estimates for 1975.
                                  3-70

-------
                                  REFERENCES



                                  Section 3





1.)  "A Study to Determine the Economic Impact of Noise Emission



     Standards in the Bus Manufacturing Industry," Draft Final Report



     submitted by A.T. Kearney, Inc.,  under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3512,



     prepared for the Office of Noise  Abatement and Control, September,



     1976.
                                    3-71

-------
                              SECTION 4


                    BUS NOISE EMISSIONS DATA BASE



     Noise emissions from school buses, transit buses and inter-city

buses were measured by EPA in a series of tests.  The following

discussion, describes the results of those tests.  In addition, sound

level data from existing studies and from industry submissions are

presented.

     For a discussion of the various testing procedures used for the

exterior and the interior noise measurements described in this section

refer to Section 8 (Measurement Methodologies).

(1)  Gasoline-Powered Conventional School Buses

     Current Exterior Noise Levels

     Measurements taken for EPA of in-service and newly-manufactured

gasoline-powered conventional school buses indicate a range of noise

levels between 74 dBA and 84 dBA under the SAE J366b acceleration pro-

cedure (see Section 8).  The data indicate that the noise level depends

on engine size and gross vehicle weight rating  (GVWR).  Table 4-1

presents a summary of all noise tests conducted on in-service school
     22
buses.   Measurements of noise emissions from new (1976)  gasoline engine
                                   25
school buses are shown in Table 4-2.
                                  4-1

-------


03
2 5
U "







 CQ
 . . >O

CT\SCT>!NOCTxO>oSoO O(N' I-H I-'H-;
-------





^
NO
NO
cn
M
%
a
Q
S
ACCELE







S
c_
1
c
&*i
O
0!
O
	
on
w
on

tu
O
6



^j
-U
>
"H
UJ
on
O
xi
Oi
O
2
M
H
^,




1
>
UJ
_l
UJ
2
r!
X
K
Ij
><
UJ

10
Z
<
02
|
^
TESTED/TOTAL
Btf
$
oi


w
R
i


o
K
u.

UJ
Q
t/3
Qi
O
01
U
00
5

H
c/3
(POUNDS)
NO. OF TESTS
1
Q
&
=5
w
5
S
Q
Q
cxa

uj
5
in
Q
Q

<
UJ
>
Q
Q
C/3
7^
uj
S
HJ
Q
e
t/j
z
u

OO
m
f f-^
 ON
o 
~ c-
CN O
00 00
O Of?
 , NO
 C-
P ^
en  .
00 00
O 00*
w-i un
O 
CN CN
ON r^
OO 00

ON m
CN o"
O o
00 00
00 00
r- r-
0 2-
Tf &
00 X
o
*.
m
CN
\o
^
r-
S^
o -4
CN O\
 , Ov
oo r--
o t->
 c ON
oo
q 51
CT) ^H
00 00^
00 00

00 00
NO r--
c^i en
 S
CN ON
r-~ NO'
00 00

ON r-
00 ly-i
d 
 00
 ON
00 J-^
t N?
2> Tf
c
NO O"
 < o
00 00
8
t-;
ON"
Tl-
CN
0 ^
in m
0 2-
Tf C-T
C^ CN
00 C<*l
fN in
1- t-
0 2
i- JN
ss
^ ro
 < (N
0
o o*
ON 00
00 00

ss
t o1
00 M,
ss
^^
NO q~
00 00
8
<~i
ON
NO_
* ^
CN CN
CN CN
'2
0&
* *
00 00,
* ^
2 2;
2
* ?-,
t- t~-
iri m
00 00
* J^
CN CN
CN CN
0 2
* !k
* *
00 00
00 OO

oo o1
m tn
0 2
00 i/^
CN CN
00 00
Soo~
m
 2
NO m
CS CN
00 ,
1
irT
1
i^ ^c~
,00 00
/-^
oo ^o
i
t ON"
ON r~
~ C-
cs S~
CN CN
00 00
ON ^
m en
- c
, v
\O in
^d \o
00 00
^-^

f^ o^
xq r^
^" 00
gg:
*'
O ON~
oo ON
^
-ST
CN ^
00 00,
00
5
                  II

                  3 S
4-3

-------
     While there is no clear trend as to which side of the older, conven-
tional buses is noisier, exterior measurements from the new school buses
tested indicate that the streetside of the buses is generally noisier
than the curbside (see Table 4-2).  It is believed that the difference
in standard deviations between the streetside and the curbside measure-
ments of the older buses indicates that the variation in noise levels is
probably a function of the test conditions and the age of the bus rather
than bus design itself.  These data and past vehicle tests indicate that
production buses, if tested under carefully controlled test conditions,
will all produce noise levels within four to five decibels of each other.
Therefore, an allowance of 2 to 2.5 dB appears appropriate between the
mean design noise level and a regulated "not to exceed" level.
     Figure 4-1 shows histograms of measured exterior noise levels on
each side of the gasoline powered in-service school buses along with
interior noise levels at the driver and the maximum levels from all
the buses.  Figure 4-2 presents the same data for the new 1976 buses.
Maximum levels are shown separately because not all buses had higher
noise levels on one side.
     Octave band spectra for gasoline-powered conventional school bus
noise are shown in Figure 4-3.
     None of the conventional school bus body manufacturers that were
contacted was able to provide noise level data on their current produc-
tion buses.  Chrysler Corporation did provide some noise data based on
Dodge gasoline truck chassis that have identical components to their con-
ventional school bus chassis.  These data are summarized in Table 4-3.

                                   4-4

-------
                             FIGURE  4-1
            Histograms  of In-Service Gasoline Engine
              Conventional School  Bus  Noise  Levels
                             (SAE J366b)
      DRIVER SIDE
                                        CURBSIDE
      MEAN     80.52 dB (A)
      STD. DEV.  2.94
                                        MEAN    80.40 dB (A)
                                        STD. DEV.  2.43
              dB(A)
CO
LU
CO
! 5-
o
o
z n-
_^JllllllL
70 80
dB
-------
r
4- CO
o > '
oo
1 1
< LU
UJ Q
fe d
UJ \~
s
CO
cc
a
L



ii i i i i i i
coi co in t eo CM .-
sasnadO'ON
o
*~. .
co
1 1
E
 <
LU CC f
-J o
"i K
S - |
i

r T i i i i i i
oor~coin*i-coeM-
sasnajo'ON
00
T en.
CO OO
1 1

CO < LU
LU a
< ^ 1 	
 S
_i S
ui o 	 ' 	
S _i x
< 1
3
-0 
co co
-eo
i 
f T I i i i i i
eor^coLn^t-coCM^.
 CM
en
0)
C3 C .__
C? H-!
< tn*jo
 C vo
_  wo-i
"g 0,^
-1 -H <
i o^
co  w
-co ^ d
o J PQ
0) ^H
< WO
S O 4d
_i SO
Si" cn
> LLJ
S r! o ^
Q (ti
z WC
-o i S 2
g S -H
tji C
O 0)
-co -P >
'- we
HO
ffi U

           SBSHS jo 'ON
4-6

-------
                      FIGURE  4-3

         Typical Octave Band Spectrum of

           Gasoline  Engine  Conventional

                  School Bus Noise
CO
_l
UJ
I
%
0. O

z*
=> JO
O -O
CO
a
00
UJ

I
O
O
                                     CURBSIDE	



                                    STREETSIDEA
60--
      50
       31.5
        63    125    250    500   1000   2000   4000  8000



            OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES (Hz)
                          4-7

-------
                              Table 4-3

                       Noise Data Supplied by
                        Chrysler Corporation
Model

D600
D600 &
D700
D700
Equivalent
Bus
Chassis
S600
S600 &
S700
S700
Engine
Displacement
3
(in )
318
361

413
Equivalent
School Bus
Chassis
S600
S600 &
S700
S700
Exterior Sound Level
(SAE J366b)
dBA
76.8 to 81.6
79.2 to 81.3

79.1 to 82.6
Source:  Reference 22

     Interior Noise Levels

     Tests on both in-service and 1976 conventional school buses indicate

that the noise levels are significantly higher at the front of the bus

as opposed to the rear of the bus.  During tests for new buses involving

an idling engine only, interior fan accessories only (heating and cooling

fans), and then an idling engine and interior fan accessories together,

the average noise level difference between the front and rear interior

of the buses tested was about 4 dBA (see Table 4-5).

     Tests on new buses with all accessories on under maximum accelera-

tion conditions produced a range of interior noise levels from 85 to

89 dBA for the front interior and 81 to 84 dBA in the rear interior.

Interior noise levels at the driver's seat for the in-use school buses

tested under maximum acceleration conditions with all fan accessories

on ranged from 81 to 86 dBA while levels at the rear interior of the

buses ranged from 78 to 81 dBA.  Full results on interior noise levels

are shown in Table 4-1 and 4-2 for both in-use and new conventional

gasoline-powered school buses, respectively.

                                  4-8

-------
       CO  &
    a;  G
    c  o  -P
   H -H  CO
    Cn-P  ciJ
    C -H  EH
   M 73
       GH
    0)  O  H
    G U  <
    O
       OJ
      H
       (0

       to
       (U
       CO
in
 I
w
    QJ  PQ
    C
   H  H
    tr>H

   W

    I   O
       CO
       (U
       CO
 CO
rH

 >
 0)
      ffl
          0)
          -P
          OJ
      o
   H     U
    O rH 

       G  CO
    ^  O  -P
    O -H  CO
   H -P  QJ
    M  C  EH
    QJ  OJ
    I \  K>  ^^
    G  CH  M
   H  O  (0
      U  G
          O
         -H
          -P

          -P
          CO




2
>
j
3
K
0
ta
l
to
H

Z
O
p


ENGINE
2
0
d
2
fl
o:
h
B
a
P
c.

u.
2
<
S
VEHICLE
8
ai
O
H
H
3


3
z
z



S
o
S
H



GINE ONIA

tu
S
So
u

>
C
g
!
S
RATING

S
J
T
a
$

1



u.
a!
a:
u
n
5
H
xi
IX
U.
oi
u
siaaiw
FRONT
^
z




1
2
a!
u
o
*
oq rn oq

t-- (N ^>
^f m o)
 r- O oo O

*n r-; rn en  NO r^ vo i> K

in in o oo O
m 'o ^ -H in
in 1 "n 1 in in ir>
0 O 0 m y3
in 1 "n 1 m in m
o in r^ m in
m' j K j oo 't d
m 1 m I m m \c
O 0  o O 0 0
m m 'O  /i 1^1 m

3333333
C G C C | | C
S S S S S S S

o o o o o o o
!!!!!! I
^ "O T? O O O O
o o 5 S S S S
u- u. o- O O O O
1   8 1 8 
(N CN fS l (N fN
oo ON  i CN m ^ m

\O CO
0 in

(N tN
r- r-
fN 00
vO 

o rJ

* a.


in m

\
S
S
g 1

3 3
S S

Chev/Supeno
Chev/Superior
8 8
in *n
o" cf
C-l (N


\o m

f m
m (N
00 CO
ON m

oq *

CM ON
(N CO


SO *

1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
m in
S S

a 3
a s

IHC/Superior
IHC/Superior
8 8

(N ^O

(N O

^
;s p
0 O


>X IT,

; s


oo rn

CO
K !
R i
K
-- ON
S S

3 3
S S
S S

Ford/Superior
Ford/Superioi
8 8
ON ON
r- o

m


in
p-

ON

CO
p

O
m"


^d

p
m
p
in
(N
m
i/">
m
a
3

IHC/Supenor
S
p*-
5
m

 3

o m
^ ^
n n
|X 
in ON

|X 
r- 01
IX -
CO *
|X 
in (N

|X M
oq ON
in  i
II II
|X M
m CN
n II
 ' 00
r*: oo
in -^
II II
|x <*







i

                                                              4-9

-------
Current Component Noise Levels

     Table 4-4 shows the estimated range of contributed noise levels of

conventional gasoline powered school bus major noise components.   These

estimates are based on component noise levels of medium duty trucks using
               1,2                                           3
similar engines    and estimates made during a previous study. None of

the school bus body or chassis manufacturers contacted were able  to

supply actual measured data for component noise levels of gasoline-engine

school buses or of equivalent trucks.


                              Table 4-4

             Range of Component Noise Levels for Current
              Gasoline Powered Conventional School Bus
                                            Contributed Noise Level,
         Noise Source                            dBA at 50 feet
                                             (SAE J366b Procedure)
   Engine, including air intake                     69 to 73
      and transmission

   Exhaust                                          75 to 78

   Fan                                              71 to 82.4

   Chassis at 30 mph (including         "            65 to 73
     accessories)

        Total Bus Noise                             77 to 84


Source:  References 1, 2 and 3

     Tire noise is not included in Table 4-4 as a separate noise source

since with the use of maximum acceleration noise testing procedures the

vehicle does not exceed 35 mph; the velocity at which tire noise becomes

a major contributing factor to the overall noise level.
                                  4-10

-------
(2)  Diesel-Powered Conventional School Buses



     Physical dimensions and weight rating for diesel-powered



conventional school buses are similar to those for gasoline powered



conventional school buses.



     A variety of medium duty diesel engines are used in this type of



bus including the CAT 3208, the Ford V636, and the IHC D-150, D-170,



D-190, and the DT-460.



     Current Overall Noise Levels



     Very little data are available in the form of direct measurement



of noise from conventional diesel school buses.  Since diesel powered



conventional school buses utilize medium diesel truck chassis, noise



levels from such trucks can be considered representative of thost  f



buses.  Unfortunately, very little data on noise from medium diesel



trucks are available, but noise levels from medium diesel trucks are



similar to those from heavy duty diesel trucks with similar size en-



gines.  Thus, noise characteristics of a conventional diesel school bus



are described in terms of available noise data from conventional diesel



school buses as well as from diesel trucks.



     None of the conventional diesel school bus manufacturers contacted



was able to provide noise test data for their buses.  International



Harvester (IH)  indicated that exterior noise levels measured from all of



their school buses were below 86 dBA.  Moreover, school buses sold



in California and Oregon were said to meet those states' exterior noise



level standards of 83 dBA.



     Table 4-6 gives the results of a study involving noise measurements



from diesel trucks.  For school buses, the interior noise levels with





                                  4-11

-------
closed truck windows would apply (see Section 8).   Another study of noise

levels from two conventional heavy diesel trucks showed a variation in

exterior noise levels from 82.7 dBA to 86.8 dBA, slightly higher than the

exterior noise levels for the new gasoline -engine school buses (see Table

4-2).

     Table 4-6, shown below, suggests that maximum acceleration exterior

noise levels for conventional diesel school buses range from 82.7 to 88

dBA at 50 feet.  It is not clear from the data which side of the vehicle

is noisier.  The interior noise levels at the driver's seat range from

88 to 94.5 dBA.  Production buses, as evidenced from these data and past

tests, will exhibit noise levels within 4 to 6 dB of each other, if

tested under carefully controlled conditions.  Here again, an allowance

of 2 to 2.5 dB between the mean design noise level and the regulated

level appears appropriate.


                              Table 4-6

                Overall Noise Levels From Conventional
           Heavy Diesel Trucks  (SAE J366b Test Procedures)
Truck
Number
3
4
6
13
Exterior Sound Level
[dBA]
Curbs ide
86.5
88.0
85.5
87.5
Streetside
86.0
85.0
85.5
87.0
Interior Sound Level
[dBA]
Open Window
92.5
94.5
94.5
90.5
Closed Window
91.0
94.0
94.0
88.0
    Source:  Reference 4
                                  4-12

-------
     Current Component Noise Levels

     For diesel vehicles, important noise sources are the engine, the

exhaust, and cooling fan.  The typical range of noise levels from each
                                             6
of these sources is between 75 dBA and 85 dBA.

     Another major noise source in diesel engines is the intake noise.

Typical unsilenced intake noise levels for diesel truck engines at high

idle vary between 70 dBA and 85 dBA, measured at 50 feet from the engine
     7
inlet.

(3)  Forward Engine ForwardControl School juses

     By forward control it is meant that the driver is located as far

forward and to the left as possible.  The engine which can be either

diesel or gasoline is located to the right of the driver, or under the

floor between the two axles.  This type of bus typically has a flat

front end.

      C ur r ent Overa! 1 No i se Level s

      Noise characteristics for this type of bus are similar to those

of conventional school buses.  Current noise levels from forward engine

buses made by Blue Bird for states other than California are shown in

Table 4-7.  These levels are similar to those given in Table 4-6 for

conventional diesel trucks.  The forward engine forward control school

buses sold in California are said to meet the state standard of an 83

dBA exterior level under acceleration.

     Concerning interior noise levels, the noise level at the driver

for front engine buses may be higher for these buses compared to con-

ventional school buses because of the close proximity of the engine to

the driver.
                                  4-13

-------
                             Table 4-7

           Noise Levels Fran Diesel Powered  Forward Control
                  Forward Engine Buses by Blue Bird
               (Sold in States  Other Than California)
Type of
Engine Used
CAT 3208, 320A
Cummins V504, 504A
Detroit Diesel 6V53, 6V53A
Sound
Exterior
(J366b Test)
86
89
92
Levels dBA
Interior
(BMCS Test)
90
90
95
     Source:  Reference 15

     Current Component Noise Levels

     Although no data are available for component noise levels from this

type of bus, they are expected to be similar to those for conventional

school buses.

(4)  Parcel Delivery Chassis Buses and Motor Home Chassis Buses

     Carpenter Body Works' Cadet "CV" and Sheller-Globe1s (Superior)

"Pacemaker" models are built from parcel delivery vehicle chassis and

motor home chassis.  GMC also recently introduced a motor home vehicle

that is also offered as a bus, called Transmode.

     Current Noise Levels

     GMC measured the noise level of one Transmode Bus in accordance
                                                                 14
with the SAE J366b procedure.  This level is reported as 81.7 dBA.

No interior noise level data was reported.

     Since these buses use the same engines as full size conventional

school buses, the exterior and component noise levels are expected to

be similar.  The interior noise levels at the driver's seat may be higher

for these buses as compared to conventional school buses because of the

closer proximity of the engine to the driver.

                                  4-14

-------
 (5)  Mid-Engine School Buses (Integral)

     The only mid-engine integral school buses available today are made

by Gillig Brothers and Crown Coach Corporation.

     Current Overall Noise Levels

     Although the engine location and engine types for mid-engine buses

differ from front and rear-engine school buses, their exterior noise

characteristics are not significantly different.  However, in contrast

to the noise levels inside rear engine buses, the interior noise in a

mid-engine bus would be higher in the front of the bus than in the rear

because the engine is relatively closer to the front end.

     Exterior noise levels from the Gillig buses, which were measured in
    10                                             22
1975  , and Crown buses which were measured in 1973  , are shown in Table

4-8.  These levels range from a low of 80.9 dBA on the curbside to a

high of 86.3 dBA on the streetside.


                               Table 4-8

                 Exterior Noise Levels From Diesel Powered
                    Mid-Engine school Buses at 50 Feet
                                               Exterior Sound Level, dBA
         Bus
     Manufacturer           Engine              Curbside      Streetside
Gillig
Gillig
Crown
Crown
Detroit Diesel 83.6
6-71
Cummins Diesel 80.9
NHHTC-240
Turbocharged
Detroit Diesel 82.6
6-71
Cummins Diesel 83.9
NHHTC-270
Turbocharged
86.3
82.1
84.9
85.9
Source:  References 10 and 22

                                  4-15

-------
     For exterior noise considerations, mid-engine buses may be

considered to be similar to transit buses rear-engine integral school

buses.  Interior noise, however, is expected to be higher for mid-engine

buses because of the shape and position of the engine compartment.

Crown Coach Corporation has indicated that the interior noise level

at the driver's seat in their buses is about 87 dBA when measured at

35 mph under full throttle conditions.

     Cur rent Component Noise Levels

     Data on component noise levels for mid-engine school buses are not

available.

     In order to meet the California exterior noise standard of 83 dBA,

Gillig provides sheet metal covers with noise damping insulation around
                    10
the complete engine.    The muffler is also wrapped with insulation.

Fan speeds are said to be as low as their cooling requirements will

allow.

     Crown Coach Corporation also provides sound absorbing insulation

around their engine.  Engine compartment doors are lined with 1.5 inch

thick acoustical material.  Exhaust noise from their turbocharged

Cummins engine is said to be sufficiently low.  Therefore, no special

exhaust noise treatment is provided for that engine.  However, for the

Detroit Diesel 6-71 engine a heavier gauge muffler shell is used which,

when tested, provided the same attenuation as a wrapped muffler.  Crown

also uses an acoustical floor in its buses.  The floor, used since 1964,

is made up of one-half inch "Celetex" sandwiched between two 1/4 inch

and 5/8 inch thick plywood panels.  (Celetex is a fire-resistant material

made by Georgia Pacific.)


                               4-16

-------
(6)  Rear Engine^ School Buses (Integral_)

     Gillig Bros,  is the only manufacturer of rear engine integral school

buses.  Urban transit and intercity buses, which are also integral rear-

engine buses, are discussed separately because of differences in engine

sizes, engine compartment layout, and ruggedness of construction.

     Current: Overall _No_ise_ Levels

     Although the integral rear-engine school buses and the urban transit

bus use different types of diesel engines, they have similar noise charac-

teristics.  While urban transit buses use Detroit Diesel's naturally

aspirated 6V-71 and 8V-71 engines, the rear engine school buses, produced

by Gillig use either the naturally aspirated CAT 3208 or the turbocharged

Cummins 230 engine.  Exterior noise levels for Gillig school buses are

shown in Table 4-9.


                                Table 4-9

                    Exterior Noise Levels at 50 Feet From
                  Gillig Integral Rear Engine School Buses
                              (SAE J366b Test)


                                               Sound Levels, dBA

           Type of Engine                Curbside          Streetside


       Cumnins 230
       (Turbocharged)
       -With grille on engine
       compartment doors                  83.7               82.7

       CAT 3208
       (Naturally aspirated)
       -With grille on                    84.0               83.5
        engine doors

       -With solid engine doors           81.3               82.5


     Source:   Reference 10

                                     4-17

-------
     The streetside noise levels from the top two buses in Table 4-9
are slightly lower than those on the curbside because of an additional
inner compartment wall on the streetside of the engine compartment.
When Gillig replaced the grill on the engine doors with solid panels on
the Caterpillar engine powered bus, the noise levels were reduced as
seen in the table.  Giving the same treatment to the Cummins engine
powered busxwould probably provide similar reduction.  Because of a
lack of more detailed test data/ the reason for attaining relatively
greater noise reduction on the curbside from the Caterpillar engine
powered bus with solid engine doors is not clear.
     Interior noise levels for rear engine school buses are not avail-
able but are expected to be similar to transit bus interior noise levels.
     Current Component Noise Levels
     No component noise data for rear-engine (integral) school buses
are available.
(7)  Rear Engine School Buses (Body-on-Chassis)
     There is one bus which falls into this category, the Carpenter
Corsair and Transit bus which is offered with a front-mounted engine as
well as with a rear-mounted engine.  No noise level information is pre-
sently available for this type of bus.
     Exterior, interior and component noise levels are expected to be
similar to diesel powered forward control school buses and rear engine
(integral) school buses.
                                  4-18

-------
 (7)  Urban Transit Buses

     Current Overall Noise Levels

     Noise level measurements taken for EPA of 24 in-use urban transit

buses along with mean levels and standard deviations are presented in

Table 4-10 for various measurement procedures.

     The variation in noise levels between in-use buses of identical

construction is thought to be due to the following reasons:

        o  The maximum noise occurs at transmission shift, which
           does not always occur at the same engine rpm or test
           location for each test for older buses.

        o  The rear engine compartment doors for the older buses
           tend to be ill-fitting and failed to lock on many of
           the buses tested causing some variation between test
           runs.

     The difference in noise levels between the curbside and streetside

of the buses occured because the fan and radiator are located on the

streetside of the bus causing higher levels on that side.

     Histograms of in-service transit bus exterior noise levels under

maximum acceleration, pull-away, and stationary conditions and interior

noise levels in the front and rear of the bus under maximum acceleration

test conditions are shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.  It should be noted

that in the interior tests involving the front and rear interior of the

bus, the higher noise level was measured in the rear location each time.

     Noise levels of two CMC transit buses under different operating
                                                22
conditions are given in Tables 4-11 through 4-14.   The buses are

designated as #4400 and #704.  Attention should be given to a

comparison of the noise levels on the streetside and curbside.
                                4-19

-------
                            TABLE  4-10
     Summary of Exterior  and  Interior Noise Levels
                 for  In-Service  Transit Buses
MAKE AND
MODEL NO
GM-6504
GM-6302
GM-6323
GM-6610
GM-6400
GM-6401
GM-6321
GM-6408
GM-6616
GM-6503
GM-6703
GM-6601
FLX-6808
FLX-6812
FLX-6826
FLX-6800
AM-7110
AM-7120
AM-7130
AM-7135
AM-7540
AM-7545
6M-SO/S1
FLX-6509
MEAN
STD
TRANSMISSION
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Standard
Automatic


EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (50 FT.)
(SAEJ366b)
STREET SIDE
83
(83)
82
(817)
84
(83.7)
82
(82)
82
(81.8)
84.25
(842)
86.1
(85.7)
79
(78.7)
82
(82)
( )
835
(833)
82.5
(82.2)
81
(808)
8075
(807)
80
(80)
82.25
(82.17)
7975
(797)
80
(80)
80
(80)
80
(80)
81 75
(81.2)
7775
(77.5)
7875
(787)
81
(80.7)
81 5
(813)
1.96
(1.93)
CURB SIDE
81
(807)
795
(787)
80
(79.7)
80
(80)
797
(79.1)
83 1
(82.4)
81.5
(81.5)
7925
(788)
7825
(78 25)
78.75
(785)
8325
(818)
77
(77)
80
(80)
79.5
(797)
7875
(78.5)
81 5
(81.3)
8075
(807)
80.75
(807)
81
(81)
81
(8Q8)
77.75
(77 5)
79
(783)
78.75
(78.5)"
81
(808)
800
(798)
1 53
(1.44)
PULL-AWAY
STREET SIDE
87
(865)
82
(82)
85
(85)
82.5
(82)
82
(82)
855
(85.3)
86
(858)
81
(807)
8425
(84.17)
81.75
(81.5)
89.25
(89.25)
81.5
(812)
825
(82.3)
8025
(81.25)
81.75
(817)
82
(81.7)
8375
(835)
825
(825)
835
(833)
82
(82)
80.5
(803)
79.25
(792)
81
(81)
82.5
(82.5)
829
(82.8)
2.31
(2.25)
CURB SIDE
79.5
(795)
795
(795)
77
(77)
76.25
(76.2)
75.25
(752)
80.5
(803)
8225
(82)
7625
(76.75)
79
(79)
78
(77.7)
78
(77 S)
77
(768)
785
(78.5)
7675
(76.5)
765
(763)
81
(81)
78.25
(782)
7925
(79)
77.75
(775)
77.75
(77.7)
79
(787)
75.5
(75)
77
(76.8)
79.5
(79)
78 1
(78)
1.75
(1.74)
STATIONARY IMI
STREET SIDE





(86.7)
(86)
( )
86.7
(867)
86
(86)
87
(87)
87
(87)
89
(89)
87
(87)
86
(86)
91
(91)
89
(89)
89
(89)
88
(88)
88
(88)
83
(83)
83
(83)
88
(88)
88
(88)
872
(87.1)
2.09
(1.98)
CURB SIDE





( )
( )
(~)
( )
( )
74
(74)
78
(78)
74
(74)
79
(79)
74
(74)
75
(75)
80
(80)
76
(76)
74
(74)
79
(79)
75
(75)
80
(80)
76
(76)
76
(76)
76.4
(76.4)
2.31
(2.31)
(SAEJ366b)
INTERIOR NOISE
REAR
83
(82.5)
87.2
(86.6)
89.5
(88.8)
86.75
(86.4)
83.5
(83.2)
84
(83.7) ,
82
(81.3)
83
(82.3)
90
(88.4)
87
(85.8)
8575
(84.8)
83
(82.8)
86
(85.8)
85
(85)
86.75
(85.8)
85
(84.8)
81
(80.6)
82.75
(82.2)
8025
(80)
81.25
(793)
80.25
(79.6)
83.5
(80.5)
82.75
(79.4)
85
(81.9)
84.3
(83.4)
2.67
(2.82)
NOTE Numbers in parentheses are computed from all data, while numbers not in parentheses are computed from the two highest noise levels.
                                  4-20

-------
                                FIGURE 4-4
       Histograms  of  In-Service  Transit Bus Noise  Levels
       SAE J366b  (Acceleration)  and  Pull-Away  Test Levels
CO
LU
CO
      ORIVERSIDE

      MEAN    83.79 dB (A)
      STD. DEV.   2.4
                      SAE J3666
   10-
     70
                Jllll.1.
  80
dB(A)
90
                             CURBSIDE

                             MEAN     79.92 dB (A)
                             STD. DEV.  1.57
                                                       70
                            PULL-AWAY TEST LEVELS (50 FT.)
3
CO
o
o
      DRIVERSIDE. FRONT DOOR

      MEAN    81.37dB(A)
      STD. DEV.   1.94
   10-
    5-
     70
  80
 dB(A)
90
                                    S3
                                    V)
                                    o
                                    o
                                          CURBSIDE, FRONTDOOR

                                          MEAN    78.77 dB (A)
                                          STD. DEV.  2.00
                                    4-21

-------
                                FIGURE  4-5
      Histograms  of  In-Service  Transit Bus Noise Level  Tests
                   Stationary Runup Levels  (50  ft.)
CO
LU
fO
u.
O
     DRIVERSIDE, FRONTDOOR

     MEAN     83.82 dB (A)
     STD. DEV.   2.45
   10-
     70
                I
               80
              dB(A)
90
                                                  CO
                                                  LU
                                                  co
                                                        DRIVERSIDE, REAR DOOR

                                                        MEAN    84 dB (A)
                                                        STD. DEV.  2.87
iu
5-




1
70 80
dB(A)

Ih,

91

CO
LU
CO
O
O
      CURBSIDE, FRONTDOOR

      MEAN     79 dB (A)
      STD. DEV.  3.0
... ml .
i
0 80
dB(A)

9
                                                        INTERIOR, ACCELERATION

                                                   FRONT            REAR
MEAN 75.82 MEAN 84.2;
STD. DEV. 2.08 STD. DEV. 2.4!
CO
LU
CO
=3
CO r
u. ~
O
O
z
REAR
FRONT -I
II .Illlllll..
70 80 9
dB(A)
                                     4-22

-------
                              Table 4-11



                   Exterior Noise Levels, Bus #440D
                                                  Sound Level, dBA
Test Description

Accessories

Acceleration, J366b Test
Acceleration, J366b Test
Deceleration from
(no brakes)
Deceleration from
(no brakes)
Coast-by 30 mph
Coast-by 30 mph (
Coast-by 30 mph (
Coast-by 55 mph
Cruise 30 mph
30 mph
30 mph
fan off)
fan off)



OFF
ON
OFF
ON
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
Curbside
25 ft
81.5
81
70.5
73
72
70.5
80
75
50 ft
77.5
77
67
70
70
71
68
77
72
Streetside
25 ft
87.0
86
74
72
74
75
75
83
80
50 ft
84.0
81.5
66
71
71
71
70
80
76
Source:  Reference 22





Tables 4-12 and 4-13 indicate that carpeting will lower very slightly



the noise level in the interior.  Inside the non-carpeted buses, no



difference in noise level appears evident from a change in the height



of the microphone for noise levels taken at any one measurement location.



This indicates that a sitting or standing passenger in the same general



area of the bus receives the same noise exposure.
                                 4-23

-------
                             Table  4-12



                   Exterior Noise  Levels, Bus #705
Test Description

Curb Idle
0-5 mph, Wide Open
Throttle, Rear Corner
0-5 mph, Wide Open
Throttle, Rear Door
10 mph Drive By
30 mph Drive By
55 mph Drive By
25 mph Acceleration
50 mph Acceleration
30 mph Deceleration
55 mph Deceleration
55 mph Coast By

- 5 ft
- 5 ft
- 5 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
- 50 ft
Sound Level,
Curbside
77
88
90
66
72
78
75
78
71
77
77
dBA
Streetside
-
-
-
73
78
87
81
86
77
84
84
Source:  Reference 22
                                  4-24

-------
                                 Table 4-13



                Interior Noise Levels (Empty Bus), Bus #4400
Sound Level, dBA
Test Description

10 mph


30 mph


55 mph




- Front
Middle
Rear
- Front
Middle
Rear
- Driver'
Front
Middle
Rear
0-55 Acceleration






55-0 Deceleration


Standing
Standing
10 mph -
30 mph -
55 mph'-









's Ear



- Front
Middle
Rear

- Front
Middle
Rear
Without
Standing
68
70
74
73
75
80

79
79
84

-
81
82
78
78
80
Idle - Accessories Off, Middle -
Idle - Accessories On, Middle -
Accessories Off, Middle -
Accessories Off, Middle
Accessories Off, Middle
Carpet
Seated
67
71
74
72
76
81
77
79
79
83

79
81
84
76
77
81
63
69
67
72
78
With Carpet
Standing
68
70
-
72
73
78

77
77
84

77
79
84
75
77
81
-
-
-
-
~
Seated
67
70
75
71
72
78
77
75
77
83

76
79
84
74
77
83
61
68
63
69
76
Source:  Reference 22
                                     4-25

-------
                              Table 4-14



             Interior Noise Levels (Empty Bus),  Bus #705
                                             Sound Level/ dBA
Test Description

10 mph - Front
Middle
Rear
30 mph - Front
Middle
Rear
55 mph - Front
Middle
Rear
0-55 Acceleration - Front
Middle
Rear
55-0 Deceleration - Front
Middle
Rear
Standing

74
75
79
75
77
85
77
79
85
78
82
89
77
77
86
Seated

73
75
78
74
77
84
78
80
85
78
81
86
76
79
85
Source:  Reference 22
                                 4-26

-------
                   11
     The Flxible Co.  has performed an extensive series of noise

measurements on their buses under controlled test conditions.  Their

measurements are summarized in Table 4-15.


                              Table 4-15

         Summary of Measured Transit Exterior Bus Sound Levels
                          The Flxible Company
Coach
40'
40'
35'
35'
Engine
6V-71
8V-71
6V-71
8V-71
NO.
Tested
7
9
3
1
Sound Level at 50
J366b Procedure,
Curbside
Mean
80.46
80.92
82.16
80.50
Std. Dev.
.55
.87
1.26

Feet,
dBA

Streetside
Mean
82.25
82.05
83.17
82.00
Std. Dev.
.69
.73
.76

Source:   Reference 11

     The mean interior noise level measured 24 inches from the rear

window under maximum acceleration conditions was 83.5 dBA with a stan-

dard deviation of 0.75.  Flxible Co. also reports that interior noise
                                                   12
levels of some coaches can be 87 dBA at shift point.

     AM General reports their exterior bus noise levels to be "in the

range of 80 to 86 dBA" when measured according to the existing SAE
                    13
J366b test procedure.

     Based on the above data for new and in-use buses concerning

variation in noise level data, the medium design level of new buses

should be 2 to 2.5 dBA below a not to exceed standard.

     General Motors Corporation has recently initiated a "Quiet Bus
       21
Program".   For a CMC new-look bus before it was "quieted", Model No.

                             4-27

-------
T8H5307A, CMC reports a mean noise level of 80.5 dBA using a modified SAE

J366b test procedure with the fan off, and 83.7 dBA with the fan on.

This model is a 40 ft, 53 passenger urban transit bus powered by an 8V-71

diesel engine.  CMC also reports that for 15 identical transit coaches, of

this model (T8H 5307A) using a modified SAE J366b maximum acceleration

procedure a mean noise level of 81.2 dBA with the fan off (standard

deviation of 0.43) was measured while a mean level of 83.9 dBA was
                                                  9
measured with the fan on (standard deviation 0.75).

     In four trials, while using a special dual muffler configuration,

CMC was able to lower the noise level of the "quieted coach" to just over

75 dBA under acceleration on the left side of the test coach and less

than 71 dBA on the right.  GMC indicates this developmental coach would

meet a regulated level of 78 dBA.  Exact results are shown in Table

4-16.  The test used is a modified SAE J366b test with the starting point

adjusted so that the transmission shift, and therefore maximum noise, is

achieved in the end zone.  All cooling fans were running during the test.


Run
1
2
3
4
Table 4-16
CMC Quiet Bus Program Exterior
Sound Levels SAE J366b
Left Side (dBA) Right
75.3
74.9
75.8
75.1


Side (dBA)
71.5
70.0
71.4
70.6
           Source:  Reference 21
                               4-28

-------
     CMC also reported a reduction of interior noise levels for its "Quiet

Bus".  Measurements were made at ear level in various coach seat positions

during a wide open throttle acceleration and maximum sound levels were

recorded.  Observed data are shown in Table 4-17.


                                 Table 4-17

                    CMC Quiet Bus Program Interior Sound
                 Level Data at Wide Open Throttle Conditions
Interior
Seat Location
Rear
Center
Driver
Unmodified Coach
SAE J366b
81 dBA
79 dBA
73 dBA
Modified Coach
SAE J366b
76 dBA
72 dBA
70 dBA
Source: Reference 21
Current Component
Noise Levels

     For diesel powered urban transit buses of current configurations,

the important noise sources are the engine exhaust, engine, cooling fan,

air intake system, chassis, and tires.  (Tire noise becomes important at

high speeds and may become the dominant noise source at highway speeds

when all the other sources have been quieted.)  Data on relative

contributions of these sources (minus tire noise) were obtained for a
                                             22
CMC transit bus during tests conducted by EPA.   Additional data were

obtained from tests conducted for the U.S. Department of Transportation
                                            15, 16
(DOT)  by two major transit bus manufacturers.       This data is summa-

rized in Table 4-18.  All buses were 40 feet long and had Detroit Diesel

8V-71 engines except for the Rohr (Flxible) bus which was a 35 foot bus

with a 6V-71 engine.  The CMC and Rohr buses demonstrated the potential
                                4-29

-------
of feasible retrofit techniques to lower bus noise.  The manufacturers'

contracts with DOT required them to make these retrofit parts available

to transit bus users.  (It should be noted that the CMC data in Table

4-18 was not obtained during their "Quiet Bus Program" but rather under
                          15
the retrofit study for DOT. )

     An independent estimation of transit bus component noise levels con-
                           3
ducted by Wyle Laboratories  is also included in Table 4-18.


                               Table 4-18

                   Urban Transit Bus Component Exterior
                       Noise Levels, dBA at 50 Feet

Engine
Mechanical
Exhaust
Cooling Fan
Intake
All Other
Sources
Overall
Sound Level
EPA
Tests
75
80
81
70

70

84.5
CMC
Standard
Bus
73
76
84


76

85.5
Quieted
Bus
71
74
73


76

80
Rohr
Standard
Bus
79
79
77


65

83.5
Quieted
Bus
75
65
73


65

78
Wyle
Estimate
79-80
80
78-85
60-75

68-73

84-87.5
SouKce:  References 3, 15, 16 and 22
                                     4-30

-------
     The main contributor to interior noise for transit buses is the



engine.  Engine noise is transmitted through the panels by vibration



and by flanking paths.  The latter two transmission mechanisms are



very difficult to control and are thought to be the limiting factor



to interior noise reduction.  Air conditioning ventilation noise is



also a contributing source to interior noise levels.  Since all major



component noise sources are located in the rear of the bus, it is dif-



ficult to diagnose the relative contributions of component sources to



interior noise and as such no data is presently available.



(9)  Intercity Buses



     Exterior and interior noise level data gathered on intercity



buses for the three major U. S. intercity bus manufacturers (Eagle



International, General Motors Corporation and Motor Coach Industries)



are presented below.



     Current Exterior Noise Levels



     Exterior sound level data, measured by EPA, of 12 newly manufactured



intercity buses under various test procedures may be found in Table 4-19.



The buses tested emitted average exterior noise levels ranging between 82



and 87 dBA under maximum acceleration conditions (SAEJ366b) with a mean



level of 85.5 dBA.  In addition, SAE J366b deceleration tests were run on



two intercity coaches with engine brakes fully engaged.  The buses emitted



average maximum noise levels of 89.4 dBA under the SAE J366b deceleration



procedure as compared to average maximum noise levels of 87 dBA under the



SAE J366b acceleration procedure.  The standard deviations exhibited in the



data indicate that a  2-2.5 dBA difference between an engineering design



level and a "not to exceed" regulatory level appears adequate for intercity



buses.





                                 4-31

-------
                                TABLE  4-19
   Summary of  Exterior Noise Levels for  Intercity  Buses
BUS
SERIAL NO
S 12327
S 12337
S 12361
S 12239
S 12359
S 12322
S 12323
19699
19704
9678
9677

Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std Dev
Mean
Std Dev
Mean
Std Dev
Mean
Std Dev
MODEL
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-5B
MC-5B
05
05
05
05
17
All
All
MC-8
MC-8
MC-5B
MC-5B
05
05
17
17
TRANSMISSION
Standard
Standard
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Automatic
All
All
All
All
Standard '
Standard
Standard
Standard
Automatic
Automatic
A-WEICHTED SOUND LEVELS, dB(A) AT 50 FEET
(SAEJ366b)
MAXIMUM
ACCELERATION
STREET SIDE
86
(85 1)
86
(852)
865
(857)
86
(855)
845
(84 25)
8725
(852)
87
(856)
85
(845)
855
(843)
853
(84)
84
(838)
82.5
(814)
855
(846)
133
(1 18)
858
(851)
76
( 48)
871
(854)
18
( 29)
85
(842)
67
( 31)
825
(81 4)
0
( 78)
CURB SIDE
825
(806)
8325
(813)
8325
(824)
8425
(829)
81
(79 75)
81
(796)
81
(795)
855
(845)
865
(848)
853
(84)
858
(838)
81
(79.9)
834
(819)
209
(205)
829
(814)
1 21
(130)
81
(795)
0
( 06)
858
(843)
53
C 46)
81
(799)
a
( 74)
PULL-AWAY
STREET SIDE


86
(85 63)
8475
(845)
84
(83 88)
9025*
(89 33)
89*
(88 25)





849
(849)
1 01
( 89)
849
(847)
1 01
( 89)
896*
(888)
88*
( 76)




CURB SIDE



8275
(82 63)
81
(80 75)
83*
(82 17)
8225*
(810)





819
(817)
1 24
(133)
819
(81 7)
1 24
(133)
826*
(816)
53*
( 83)




STATIONARY 1MI
STREET SIDE
865
(85 25)
875
(855)
88
(85 75)
8625
(846)
8675
(854)
86
(855)
855
(85 25)
848
(829)
84
(821)
84
(824)
848
(82.4)
80
(794)
853
(839)
2 11
(20)
87
(853)
73
( 42)
858
(85.4)
35
( 18)
84
(825)
46
( 33)
80
(794)
0
( 58)
CURB SIDE
85
(81 50)
8275
(79 80)
7725
(77 25)
8375
(806)
(.850)
81
(79 25)
8025
(789)
858
(823)
858
(851)
845
(821)
84.5
(80.4)
793
(77.6)
826
(803)
2.78
(223)
82
(796)
301
(170)
806
(79.1)
53
( 26)
852
(825)
75
(195)
793
(776)
35
(141)
STATIONARY MAXIMUM
GOVERNED SPEED
STREET SIDE
79.5
(775)
80
(78 25)
80.5
(78 75)
81
(78.5)
81 5
(79 25)
79
(78 75)
80
(78 75)
823
(81 1)
825
(806)
83
(805)
83
(82.9)
758
(75.4)
807
(792)
206
(191)
805
(785)
79
( 65)
95.5
(788)
71
(0)
827
(813)
36
(1 11)
758
(754)
.35
( 32)
CURB SIDE
79.5
(770)
78
(76)
75
(74)
78
(75)
78
(75 75)
77
(76)
77
(755)
845
(813)
845
(836)
82.5
(80.3)
82.5
(80.6)
785
(773)
79.6
(777)
3.14
(3.0)
777
(75.6)
1 64
(1 12)
77
(75.8)
0
( 35)
835
(815)
1 15
(1.49)
78.5
(773)
0
(1 16)
*Deceleration tests with engine brake
NOTE Numbers in parentheses are computed from all data, while numbers not in parentheses are computed from the two highest noise levels
                                     4-32

-------
     Data measured by using the SAE J366b procedure for a CMC manual
                                                      14
transmission production intercity coach Model P8M4905A   is shown in

Table 4-20.
                               Table 4-20

                            CMC Intercity Bus
                          J366b Test Procedure
            Cooling Fan On

      Streetside       Curbside
                         Cooling Fan Off

                    Streetside        Curbside
       84.2 dBA
81.4 dBA
80.6 dBA
79.1 dBA
Source:  Reference 14

     In addition, during a demonstration at the CMC noise test track  in

Pontiac, Michigan, on December 16, 1975, maximum acceleration (SAE J366b)

noise levels at 50 feet of 83.4 and 84.1 dBA were measured on the street-

side of a CMC intercity coach while 82.8 and 83.2 dBA were measured on
            22
the curbside.   The test was performed with the transmission in second

shift.

     Motor Coach Industries (MCI) reports a curbside noise level of

82.5 dBA and a Streetside noise level of 85 dBA using the SAE J366b pro-

cedure.  At 70 mph cruise conditions, the same bus was said to produce
                                                       17
80.5 dBA on the curbside and 82.5 dBA on the Streetside.
                                 4-33

-------
                  3
     Wyle Research  estimated SAE J366b noise levels for intercity

coaches at 84 to 86 dBA, which is about the same as their estimate

of 85.5 dBA for urban transit buses with 8V-71 engines.

     Under high speed cruise conditions, tire noise levels at 50 feet

may reach 75 dBA at 55 mph for rib-type tires used for intercity
       16
coaches.   This estimate is based on measurements conducted by DOT and

the National Bureau of Standards at Wallops Island, Virginia, on a

loaded International Harvester Truck (Model No. 1890) of 25,640 pounds

GVWR.

     Current Interior Noise Levels

     Table 4-21 presents interior noise level data for 12 intercity

coaches recorded during various testing procedures.  It is interesting

to note that in certain cases up to a 10 dB difference in noise level

is present from the front of the vehicle to the rear of the vehicle.

     Besides the data reported in Table 4-22 Eagle International reports
                                                 19
levels of 72 to 73 dBA at the rear seat at 50 mph  , after noise

treatment had been added around the engine compartment.

     MCI reports levels of 70 to 71 dBA at an unspecified seat
                                    17
location in their MC-5 35-foot coach.   MCI also conducted measurements

under stationary and cruise conditions at various locations in the

coach with and without approximately 90 square feet of sound insulation

(Baryfoil #10.25) between the engine compartment and passenger compart-

ment.  This insulation was found to have no consistent effect on interior

sound levels, which are summarized in Table 4-22.
                                    4-34

-------
                      TABLE 4-21
Summary of Interior Noise Levels for Intercity Buses
BUS
SERIAL NO.
S 12327
S 12337
S 12239
S 12239
S 12359
S 12322
S 12323
19699
19704
9678
9677

Mean
Std Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
MODEL
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-8
MC-5B
MC-5B
05
05
05
05
17
All
All
MC-8
MC-8
MC-5B
MC-5B
05
05
17
17
TRANSMISSION
Standard
Standard
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Automatic
All
All
All
All
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Automatic
Automatic
MEASUREMENT
LOCATION
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Front
Mid
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
Rear
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL, dB(A) AT 50 FT.
(SAE J366b)
MAXIMUM
ACCELERATION
74.5
73.25
79.25
73.75
72
78.25
73
72
77.5
73.5
74
80.25
73
71
77
74.6
78
7975
7725
7675
81
71 25
765
81.75
695
74.75
81
6775
73
82
70.75
77
82
74
7925
84
80.3
2.06
78.5
1.37
80.4
88
81.7
.47
84
0
PULL-AWAY


73
72
77.5
73.75
74.25
79
73
71
755
77.25
76.5
79.25
75.25
74.5
79.5





77.3
1.76
773
1 76
794
.18


STATIONARY
IMI
74.25
73
77.3
73.5
72
77
72.5
71 7
76.6
73.2
72.5
77.5
73
70.75 
74.7
75.5
78.75
78.5
74.5
77.75
80.15
71.5
75.75
82
72.25
72.75
82
70
77.25
72
76
82.5
75.8
80.5
84
79.1
2.91
76.6
1.13
79.3
1 17
82.2
29
84
0
STATIONARY
MAXIMUM
GOVERNED
SPEED
74.3
75.7
74.6
74
73
76.75
79
70
81
69
70
81
66
748
80
69.5
72.5
80
72
77
83
77.7
3.36
74.3
.98
77.9
1.59
80.5
.58
83
0
                           4-35

-------
                             Table 4-22

                      Interior Sound Levels in
                     Rear of MCI MC8 Coach, dBA


Standard
Coach
Insulated
Coach
Normal
Idle

64

63
High
Idle

65

65
Maximum
rpm

69

72
60 mph
Cruise

73

72
Source: Reference 17

         18
     Bray   reports average front seat levels for intercity coaches

of 74 to 78 dBA and rear seat levels of 70 to 84 dBA.

     Levels under normal street acceleration conditions at the rear

seat of a new CMC intercity bus ranged from 80 to 84 dBA, compared to
                                            22
77 dBA at cruise (30 mph) and 72 dBA at idle.

     For intercity buses, interior noise levels at pass-bys of 55 mph

are more representative of actual driving conditions than the interior

noise levels measured under maximum acceleration.  However, maximum noise

levels are most likely to occur under maximum acceleration conditions.

     Current Component Noise Levels

     Data on component levels of intercity buses are presently not

available but are believed to be closely aligned with Urban Transit Bus

component noise levels.  This is believed to be true since many of the

same noise generating sources (engine, transmission, cooling system)

are similar or identical to Urban Transit Buses.  Thus, refer to the

Urban Transit Bus discussion on component noise levels for intercity

bus component levels.

                                  4-36

-------
                       REFERENCES - SECTION 4

1.   "The Technology and Costing of Quieting Medium and Heavy Trucks,
     BBN Report No. 2719, prepared for the EPA Office  of Noise Abatement
     and Control, October 1974.

2.   Burroughs, C. B., "Costs of Compliance for Regulations on New Medium
     and Heavy Truck Noise Regulations,"  BBN Technical Memorandum, pre-
     pared for EPA Office of Noise Abatement,  January  1976.

3.   Warnix, J. L. and Sharp, Ben H.,  "Cost Effectiveness Study of Major
     Sources of Noise, Volume IV - Buses," Wyle Research Report
     WR-73-10, prepared for the  EPA Office of  Noise Abatement and Control,
     April 1974.

4.   "Interior/Exterior Noise Levels of Over-the-Road  Trucks:  Report of
     Tests," NBS Technical Note  737, National  Bureau of Standards,
     September 1972.

5.   "Noise Control Retrofit of  Pre-1970  General Motors Trucks and
     Coaches," Final Report, U.S. Department  of Transportation, Office
     of Noise Abatement, October 1975.

6.   "Background Document for Proposed Medium  and Heavy Trucks Noise
     Regulations," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1974.

7.   Kevala, R. J., Manning, J.  E., et al, "Noise Control Handbook for
     Diesel-Powered Vehicles," Interim Report, Report  No. DOT-TSC-OST-74-5,
     U.S. Department of Transportation,  Office of  Noise Abatement and
     Control, April 1975 (Reprint).

8.   Correspondence, Bluebird Body Company to  Booz,  Allen Applied Research,
     January 21, 1976.

9.   General Motors Corporation  Conference on  Bus Noise Regulation,
     December 16-17, 1975.   CMC  Summary Report (USG 350-76-1) submitted
     to the EPA on January 15, 1976.

10.  Correspondence with Gillig  Brothers  to Booz, Allen Applied Research,
     January 19, 1976.

11.  Correspondence, Flxible Co. to Booz, Allen Applied Research, dated
     November 26, 1975.

12.  Correspondence, Flxible Co. to Booz, Allen Applied Research, dated
     October 8, 1975.

13.  Correspondence, AM General  Corp.  to  Booz, Allen Applied Research,
     dated January 23, 1976.
                                  4-37

-------
14.  Comments of General Motors Corporation With Respect To Booz-Allen
     and Hamiltan,  Inc.  Technology Study on Bus Noise Regulation
     Performed Under Contract To The Office of Noise Abatement and
     Control, Environmental Protection Agency, CMC report USG-350-76-5
     submitted on January  23, 1976.

15.   "Noise Control Retrofit of Pre-1970 General Motors Trucks and
     Coaches," Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office
     of Noise Abatement, October 1975.

16.  "Sound Attenuation Kit for Diesel Powered Buses," Report Rll-SAK-
     402-0101, by Rohr Industries  (unpublished).

17.  Correspondence, Motor Coach Industries to Booz, Allen Applied
     Research, dated January 21, 1976.

18   Leasure, William A.,  et al, "Truck Noise -1, Peak A-weighted
     Sound Levels Due to Truck Tires," Report No. OST/TST-72-1, U.S.
     Department of  Transportation, July 1972.

19.  Private communication with Mr. Harry L. Cuthbert of Eagle
     International.

20.  Bray, Don E.,  "Noise  Environments in Public Transportation," ASME
     Meeting Reprint 1469, Joint ASCE-ASME Transportation Engineering
     Meeting, July  26-39,  1971, Seattle, Washington.

21.  Comments of General Motors Corporation With Respect To "The
     Technology and Costs  of Reduced Noise Level Urban Transit Buses,
     (USG 350-76-52) submitted to  the EPA - Office of Noise Abatement
     and Control, November 18, 1976.

22.  "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement", Draft
      Final Report  submitted by Booz, Allen Applied Research under EPA
      Contract No.  68-01-3509 prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement
      and Control,  June 22, 1976.

23.   "Noise Levels of New MCI Buses," Booz-Allen & Hamilton Report sub-
      mitted under  EPA Contract No. 68-01-3509 to the U.S. EPA Office of
      Noise Abatement and  Control, October 7, 1976.

24.   "Noise Levels of New Eagle Buses," Booz-Allen & Hamilton Report
      submitted under EPA  Contract No. 68-01-3509 to the U.S. EPA Office
      of Noise Abatement and Control, November 16, 1976.

25.   "Lima School  Bus Test Report," Environmental Protection Agency,
      Noise Enforcement Facility  (Sandusky, Ohio), June 1976.
                                  4-38

-------
                             Section 5


                    NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY



     For buses of current configurations, the important noise sources


are the engine, exhaust, cooling fan, intake, and chassis.  The relative


contributions of these sources vary depending on the type of bus and on


the type of bus operation.


Engine


     Engine noise is the mechanically radiated noise associated with


the combustion process and the mechanical components of the engine.


This noise is a result of vibration of the engine structure, covers,


and accessories.  In general, noise from the transmission, turbocharger

                  
(if so equipped), and the blower are included in the noise source


comprising engine noise.  In the case of diesel engines, the air intake


is treated as a separate noise source from engine noise.  For gasoline


engines the air intake noise component is included as part of the engine


noise.


Exhaust


     Exhaust noise includes the noise produced by the exhaust gases at


the tail pipe exit,  the noise generated by the vibration of the muffler


shell and piping, and the noise caused by leakage of the exhaust system


components (muffler, exhaust manifold, exhaust pipe, and tail pipe).



                                5-1

-------
Fan
     Fan noise includes the various noise sources of the cooling system.
Although the predominant noise source is the fan, the shrouds, radiators,
shutters, and grills affect the noise produced by the cooling system.
Intake
     In the case of diesel engines, intake noise includes the noise from
the air inlet, the air cleaner shell and ducting, and the leakage of the
air intake system components.
Chassis
     Chassis noise refers to that noise generated by a bus when it is
coasting by at approximately 30 m.p.h. with the engine idling and the
transmission in neutral.  This noise includes any wind or turbulent
noise caused by the passage of the bus.  It is considered to be the
lowest level of noise attainable for a vehicle.
               Component Noise Abatement Technologies
     (1)  Engine Noise
          a.  Gasoline Engines
     In the case of gasoline engines, it is customary to lump engine,
air intake, and transmission noise together.  This is done because the
air intake filter is mounted directly on the engine carburetor, in close
proximity to the engine.  Transmission noise becomes an important noise
contributor on gasoline engine vehicles only after the noise from the
engine and the intake have been lowered below 70 dBA.

                                 5-2

-------
     Intake noise is relatively low in gasoline engines.  This is true

because of the presence of the carburetor and the inherently quieter

air intake process.  As a comparison, current intake noise levels for

diesel engines, which are considered noisier than gasoline engines,
                       1
range from 56 to 75 dBA.

     Current gasoline bus engine noise levels under acceleration range
                 2
from 69 to 73 dBA.  Chrysler Corporation estimates the combined

engine and air cleaner noise levels for their 1976 model school bus

chassis at 76 to 79 dBA.  The EPA Background Document for Medium and
                       3
Heavy Truck Regulations  estimates that engine noise levels range from

75.7 to 77 dBA for gasoline engines with ratings of 160 to 230 net

horsepower.

     Several methods are available for lowering the contribution of

engine noise to overall bus noise levels.  All of these techniques

have been successfully tested in the laboratory and, for some,
                                   4,5
put into practice on diesel engines.    These techniques, and their

expected noise reductions, are summarized below:

                                               Noise Reduction at 3 Ft.
Covers and panels attached to the engine               3 to 5 dB
Close fitting engine covers                            5 to 8 dB
Partial engine enclosures                             5 to 10 dB
Complete engine enclosures                           Up to 15 dB
Major structural engine modifications                  4 to 7 dB
                                5-3

-------
     Noise reductions at other distances are expected to be somewhat

lower.

     Turbocharging of diesel engines results in some engine noise

reduction because of its smoothing effect on the rate of combustion

pressure rise in the cylinder.  This is not expected to be of signi-

ficant benefit to gasoline engines.

     Conventional school bus cowls provide an inherent barrier to

some engine noise radiation.  Improvements in the cowl design, addi-

tion of acoustic materials in the engine compartment, and provision

of belly underpans all are beneficial to the overall reduction of

engine noise.

     Because interior noise levels are mostly controlled by engine

noise, both radiated and structurally transmitted, care in the place-

ment of fire-wall acoustical insulation and engine mounting is indicated

to reduce interior noise levels.

         b.  Diesel Engines

     Diesel engine noise is the result of forces generated by combustion
                                        6
and the mechanical aspects of the engine.  Diesel engine combustion

forces are of sufficient magnitude to distort or vibrate the engine block,

crankcase and attachments.  Primary combustion forces are at engine funda-

mental firing frequencies.  These frequencies are relatively low, but the

structure responds to all harmonics of the basic firing frequency.  The

steep pressure rise inherent in dlesel cycle combustion results  in the


                                5-4

-------
introduction of high-frequency components into the engine structure

which are readily radiated by the sides of the block and rocker arm

covers.  Changes in the character of or reduction of combustion forces

have been under investigation by researchers for a number of years.

     Precombustion chambers or indirect injection (IDI) can be used
                                                         7
effectively to lower combustion rate related noise levels.  IDI

is commonly used in diesel engines powering light-duty vans and

passenger cars.  For heavy diesels of the type used in diesel school

buses and transit coaches, noise control by retardation of injection

timing and turbocharging has proved to be effective.  Retardation

has been shown to have advantages in terms of power, fuel economy,
             6
and emissions, but it also increases exhaust smoke.


     Turbocharging also increases the horsepower output for a given

size engine and has advantages from the emissions viewpoint.  Turbo-

charging is not as advantageous for transit buses as it is for trucks.

Current transit buses use naturally aspirated engines of adequate power.

Additional power would not be very useful because passenger capacities

cannot be increased without exceeding overall size and axle weight

regulations.  The dynamic lag of turbochargers results in little in-

crease in engine power levels until the engine reaches maximum speed.

There is, therefore, no gain in dynamic torque and hence no improvement

in bus performance in city traffic conditions.  However, a tailored

combination giving the desired characteristics can be developed.


                                5-5

-------
     Another method to lower engine-radiated noise would be to alter



the stiffness or increase damping of all structures sufficiently to



prevent their response to input forces.  The cast iron diesel engine



block is inherently damped and added damping has been found to offer



little improvement.



     Thin walled components such as oil pan, rocker arm covers, and



manifolds can be isolated from the cylinder head casting by means of



soft gaskets, rubber washers at mounting bolts or, in severe cases, by



splitting the cover immediately above its mounting surface and joining



together by a bonded, rubber section.  This is conceptually shown in



Figure 5-1.



     A common method of reducing engine radiated noise is by noise



barrier panels attached to the engine exterior surfaces.  These covers



or panels are made of a high-density barrier material lined with an



absorbent material, usually sheet metal lined with glass fiber or mineral



wool.  These shields must be designed specifically for each engine model



since proper covering and edge sealing is quite important.  Panels



generally are attached to and cover each side of the engine block and



oil sump.  They must be contoured to the engine shape and be attached



through isolation mountings.  Experience has shown they are more effec-



tive on in-line engines than Vee engines because of the greater, flat,



radiation area on in line engines.  Current practice for urban transit



buses is to use Detroit Diesel V-6 or V-8 engines, which makes this



method less effective.





                                5-6

-------
      Figure 5-1
Isolated Rocker Arm Cover
         Cover

                 Isolator
                               c^r
         \\
      Engine Block
         5-7

-------
     Engine covers have definite disadvantages and advantages.  They

restrict engine service operations.  The possibility of undetected oil

leaks being absorbed by the panel-lining material creates a potential

fire hazard as well as destroys the noise absorption characteristics.

The engine physical dimensions are increased, making installation in

a vehicle more difficult.  Heat radiation from engine surfaces is
                                                             6
reduced, but experience has shown that this effect is minimal.

Quality control must be maintained to assure seal of all panel edges

and joints.  On the plus side, panels can be applied without redesign or

modification of the engine itself.  They can be applied to present new

engines or even to engines in service as a retrofit package.  This is

much easier than making changes to the basic engine structure.  Reduc-

tions of 3 to 8 dBA at 3 ft. in engine noise radiation are possible by

means of close-fitting covers.  However, from a practical standpoint,

a set of panels giving 8 dBA reduction would cover virtually all engine

and engine mounted accessory surfaces by many separate complex shaped

panels.  In general, a 4 dBA reduction in overall engine sound levels at

50 ft. is close to the practical limit for engine-mounted barrier panels.
                                5-8

-------
     Sound level reduction due to modified engine structure, reduced

piston slap, damping, and isolation can be used in conjunction with

barriers to produce overall reductions greater than 4 dBA, although

each additional decibel reduction is more difficult to achieve than

the preceding one.  When the panels are combined with a partial en-

closure, the resultant reduction is often less than the sum of the

separate reductions due to each method.

     The urban transit bus engine compartment already provides some

shielding from engine noise, at least on the curb side of the bus.

The large opening on the left side for admitting cooling air through

the radiator allows much engine and fan noise to escape on that side.

Rohr Corporation has experimented with a forward-facing air scoop in-

stalled over the radiator and by covering the standard grills with an
                                     8
inverted Vee non-1ine-of-sight louver.  A line-of-sight barrier

between the engine and the radiator opening was found to be effective.

General improvement of the engine compartment door seals and sound

isolation of the existing engine compartment walls can result in

additional engine radiated noise reduction.  The design of radiator

grills to eliminate line-of-sight sound propagation and also to

provide sound absorption without excessive increase in cooling system

flow resistance is attainable, but will require some developmental

work.


                                5-9

-------
     Shielding under the engine can be effective if the entire area under



the engine is treated.  Engine noise reaches the receiver by two routes,



via straight line from the engine area and by reflection from the road



beneath the vehicle.  Belly pans are effective in blocking the reflective



path and are currently available for all transit buses.  In general,



however, belly pans are not specified or used extensively due to the added



engine servicing problems, restriction of cooling air exit, and problems



associated with sealing.  A 2 dB reduction in the engine contributed noise



level can be expected by sealed belly pans in the case of buses.  This will



be especially effective in reducing bystander and pedestrian ear level



noise since the reflective sound path from the engine off the road surface



toward the side of the bus will be virtually eliminated.



     Full engine enclosures are in use for certain European buses.



Saab-Scania buses have a completely encapsulated engine, with remotely



placed dual radiators and electrically operated fans.  The engine



enclosure is ventilated by a third fan, with air being admitted through



an opening in the roof.  European bus technology is discussed in greater



detail in Appendix A.



     Disadvantages of engine enclosures include reduced accessibility



to the engine compartment, added weight, some reduced passenger and freight



capacity due to increased engine compartment size, and a greater



potential fire hazard.





                                5-10

-------
     Transmission noise for diesel buses can be lowered by the applica-

tion of damping material to reduce resonant amplification at troublesome

frequencies, by stiffening or by weakening housing areas to shift resonance

frequency components, by decoupling housing areas by slotting or adding
                                               9
mass dampers, and by altering panel geometries.   Engine shields can be

extended to include the transmission housing in the case of buses.

     Engine mountings are important since engine vibrations can be

transmitted to the body framework and to the body panels through the

mounts.  Engine mount design technology is sufficiently advanced to

provide good isolation at high frequencies between the engine and body

frame or chassis while allowing the large torque forces to be trans-

mitted to the transmission.  Vibration isolation is important because

current bus interior noise levels are dominated by floor and body side

panel radiated noise which appears to be the result of engine vibration.

     (2)  Exhaust Noise

          a.  Gasoline Engines

     Gasoline engine school buses, without exception, require the tail

pipe outlet to be at the rear of the bus, extending at least five inches

beyond the body wall.  This results in ample exhaust pipe lengths for

adequate engine exhaust noise quieting.  Moreover, gasoline engines can

tolerate higher back pressures to allow mufflers of greater restriction

to be used compared to diesel engines.  The average back pressures of
                                                           11
current passenger-car mufflers range from 6 to 16 inches Hg.   The


                                5-11

-------
exhaust systems for gasoline-powered medium trucks are designed for a

3-inch Hg back pressure allowance.   Wide open throttle (WOT)  operation

is common in the case of trucks and high back pressures and ensuing high

exhaust valve area temperatures can affect engine durability.  However,

school bus applications seldom require WOT operation, and if they do,

it is limited to a few hours only per day.  Thus, higher back pressures

may be allowable on bus chassis rather than on comparable truck chassis.

     There are a few problems associated with school bus exhaust systems.

Even when the exhaust pipe outlet noise is lowered, the long exhaust and

tail pipe can still generate noise  from the muffler shell and pipe walls.

Horizontal muffler and tail pipe systems are inherently noisier than

comparable vertical systems because of ground-reflected acoustical energy.

The large bus floor undersurface also reflects the sound which escapes

from the sides resulting in higher  sound levels on both sides of the bus.

     The positioning of the muffler in the exhaust system is also criti-
   11, 12, 13
cal,          and some improvement in exhaust noise levels can be

obtained by experimenting with this.  Since school bus exhaust systems

are optimized for engine cruise conditions, the exhaust noise has a

characteristic tinniness during brief periods of high and low engine

rpm.

     No quantitative information is available for gasoline truck, bus,

or automobile exhaust noise levels for the various engine and muffler

combinations employed.  The EE& Background Document for Medium and


                               5-12

-------
and Heavy Truck Regulations reports that exhaust noise levels of current

gasoline trucks under acceleration are around 80 dBA at 50 feet.  Chrysler

Corporation has estimated the current production school bus exhaust noise

levels at 50 feet to be from 75 to 78 dBA under acceleration conditions.

         b.  Diesel Engines

     Naturally aspirated diesel engine exhaust noise levels with currently
                                                1
available mufflers range from about 70 to 82 dBA.  Turbocharging results

in reduced exhaust noise levels but the selection of a muffler to take

advantage of this noise reduction requires care because allowable back

pressures are generally lower.

     Data is available from manufacturers on the acoustic performance

of a given muffler on a given diesel engine.  However, changes in pipe

routing, installation, etc., can have significant effects.  Because of

packaging problems, transit bus exhaust pipe often take winding routes

between the two manifolds and the horizontal muffler.  Newer model buses

have a vertical tail pipe routed through the left side of the bus.  Older

buses have a short horizontal tail pipe exiting at the rear under the

engine.

     The location of a muffler between the bus floor and pavement worsens

the effect of muffler shell radiated noise.

     (3)  Cooling System Noise

          a.  Conventional School Buses

     The cooling system fan is a major component source of noise for trucks

and buses.  Sound levels of fan noise at 50 feet vary from near 70 dBA


                                5-13

-------
to 85 dBA depending predominantly on fan blade tip speed and the

position of radiator shutters.  Other components of the cooling system

generate noise, but are of secondary importance.  Noise from the water

pump, belts and pullies, and air flow through the radiator contribute

very little to the overall noise level.

     Because they are part of the fan environment, the engine, radiator,

shroud, cab, and other components all affect the cooling ability of the

vehicle.  They also affect the noise generated by the fan because of the

effect which each component has on the air flow or the flow resistance

against which the fan must operate.  Studies conducted by two major

heavy truck manufacturers under the DOT Quiet Truck Program have indicated

that modifications to improve the fan environment are very effective

in reducing the fan noise levels by allowing lower fan tip speeds without
                            14, 15
reduction in cooling ability.

     The potential for reducing fan noise hinges on the possibilities for

maximizing the cooling rate at a given fan speed, thereby minimizing fan

speeds and/or fan-on time.  Several approaches to such an optimization

have been suggested:

     o   Fan redesign
     o   Improved fan shrouds
     o   Increased cooling system pressures
     o   Optimized radiator to fan and fan to engine clearance
     o   Radiator redesign
     o   Fan clutches
     o   Ducts and flow deflectors
     o   Ring shrouds to prevent tip recirculation.
                                 5-14

-------
     A combination of these techniques has resulted in lowering fan

noise levels from 81.5 dBA to 66 dBA on the left, and from 80 dBA

to 68 dBA on the right side of an IHC model CF-4070A diesel cab-over
                                           14
truck without reducing the cooling capacity*   Similarly, the fan

noise level was lowered from 80 dBA to 64 dBA by using a different

combination of techniques for a Freight-liner cab-over truck using a
                      15
Cummins NTC-350 engine.

     The following noise reductions have been demonstrated in the

laboratory for a 20-inch 5-bladed truck fan:

                                                      Reduction
                                                         dBA

Sealed shrouds and optimized fan coverage                4.5
Optimum fan-to-radiator distance                          .5
Engine mounted air deflector                             4.0
Contoured shroud with 1/4-inch tip clearance             7.5
Optimized radiator heat transfer                         2.0

These reductions are not always cumulative.

     Generally about one-third of the total energy of the fuel used

in a gas engine is released as heat to the cooling system.  Another

one-third is released as heat to the exhaust or radiated away, and the

remaining one-third generates useful power.  This ratio varies with engine

configuration, compression ratio, spark timing, valve timing, engine load,

and speed.  At idle, for instance, no useful power is developed and all

the fuel energy is released as heat.  The heat released to the cooling

system is released to the atmosphere through the radiator.  The fan

draws air through the radiator to improve heat transfer.
                                5-15

-------
     The noise generated by an engine cooling fan can be decreased



by changing the fan drive ratio to reduce the maximum speed.  This



change will also reduce the speed of the water pump and the fan speed



at idle.  Both of these changes could cause cooling performance problems.



The water pump capacity may be recovered by increasing the diameter of



the water pump impeller, which may necessitate redesigning the entire



water pump on some engine models.  Reducing fan capacity requires a



larger radiator to maintain the same cooling performance.  Configura-



tion of the front end sheet metal on a bus limits the radiator size,



but the sheet metal can be raised on the frame to accommodate a



larger radiator.  This change impacts bus body mounting, tooling,



and driver visibility.



     Fortunately, the cooling problem is not critical for conventional



school buses.  School buses use the same sheet metal as medium-duty



trucks, but are seldom fitted with the largest engine that is available



in trucks of the same load capacity.  This would indicate that larger



radiators are available than currently fitted to most school buses.  Also,



since the majority of school buses do not operate during the hot summer



months, the design temperature can be lower for a school bus than for a



truck.  On the other hand, cooling performance at idle cannot be com-



promised on a school bus.



     Air emission control requirements for gasoline engines also need



to be taken into account.  Current engine designs require highly retarded





                                5-16

-------
ignition timing which increases the exhaust temperatures and heat rejec-



tion to the cooling system.  The reduced compression ratios and changes



in camshaft to delay exhaust valve opening and increase valve overlap



also increase the heat rejection.  On the other hand, the use of higher



temperature thermostats gives some relief.



     The chief differences between the diesel truck application and



conventional gasoline bus application are summarized in Table 5-1.



     It should be noted that the cooling systems of forward control



buses require special attention.  The technology in the DOT Quiet



Truck Program is not directly applicable for such buses.



          b.  Transit and Intercity Buses



     Urban transit buses of current design employ a radiator and fan



for engine cooling on the left side of the engine compartment.  The



arrangement results in uneven flow speeds through the radiator, and



thus little or no ram air is obtained from the forward motion of the



bus.  CMC intercity buses also employ the same arrangement.



     MCI intercity buses employ twin radiators with thermostatically



controlled centrifugal fans at the top of the engine compartment directly



above the engine.  The fans are connected to the radiators by ducts.



This arrangement results in a quiet cooling system with evenly distrib-



uted sound levels on the two sides.



     The three DOT Transbus prototypes use different cooling system



arrangements.  (For a discussion of the DOT Transbus Program see



Appendix B.)  None of the Transbuses use Detroit Diesel engines.





                               5-17

-------
                       Table  5-1
 Comparison of Cooling Fan Parameters for Gasoline
                and Diesel Engines
                         Diesel Engine
                             Truck
                   Conventional
                  Gasoline  Engine
                    School Bus
Maximum engine rpm

Heat rejection at idle

Heat rejection at
     maximum throttle

Load factor
Fan-on time (when on-off
     clutches are used)

Coolant pressure

Shutters


Air conditioners
2100

 2 Btu/hp/min


24 Btu/hp/min

Sustained opera-
tion at maximum
engine speed


Under 5%

Atmospheric

Employed


Available
3600-4000

 7 Btu/hp/min


27.5 Btu/hp/min

Under 20% of
time at maximum
engine speed


23-40%

14-16 psig

Generally not
employed

Rarely employed
                             5-18

-------
The AM General Transbus uses a Caterpillar 3406 TAPC turbocharged and

aftercooled 6-cylinder in-line diesel for propulsion.  The engine cooling

radiator and the air conditioning condenser are mounted in series

directly above the engine across the rear of the coach.  The cooling

fan is hydraulically driven, with no speed modulation.  The CM Transbus

used a gas turbine and hence does not require a water cooling radiator.

The oil coolers were on the right side of the engine compartment with a

squirrel cage type fan directly driven off the accessory drive system.

The evaporators, including the two-speed circulation fans, are mounted

in the air conditioning compartment above the engine.  The Rohr Indus-

tries Transbus uses a Cummins VT-903, V8 turbocharged diesel engine for
                         2
propulsion.  The 1300 in   cooling radiator with the transmission

oil cooler was located between the left side of the bus and the front

of the engine, the conventional location for current design buses.  The

fan was hydraulically driven with the speed modulated to meet cooling

demands by a sensor in the bottom tank of the radiator.

     Although it is not certain where the future transit bus cooling

systems will be located, for this discussion, it shall be assumed that the

radiator and fan will be located in the left hand side rear portion

until space considerations dictate relocation.

     The advantage of locating the side-facing radiator close to the

rear end of the bus is that the radiator air inlet is in the only high

pressure area at the rear of the bus.  The disadvantage of the rear

side-facing placement of the fan is that the air near this section of the

bus is relatively dirty.  As a result the fan draws this dirt through


                                5-19

-------
the radiator and usually deposits it in the engine compartment.



MCI reports that on their intercity buses with compromised radiator



positioning, during actual operating conditions on the highway, the



cooling fan air flow is only 50 percent of the air flow measured



during static bus tests.



     Current transit bus cooling fan noise levels range from 77 to 85



dBA under acceleration conditions.  The fan-on time with viscous fan



clutches is on the average higher than for trucks.  It depends on the



operation cycle of the bus which may range from intermittent city opera-



tion to an occasional continuous highway cruise.  The GM and Rohr quieted



buses used a fan clutch to lower noise levels on the left side of the bus



to 73 dBA.  Even when the fan is engaged, it does not reach full engine



speed under normal operation.



     (3)  Air Intake Noise



     Air intake noise of gasoline engines is included in the engine noise



for reasons discussed earlier.  The following discussion will be limited



mainly to diesel engine intake systems.



     Intake noise is produced by the opening and the closing of the



inlet valve.  When the valve opens, the pressure in the cylinder is usually



above atmospheric and a sharp positive pressure pulse sets the air in the



inlet passage into oscillation at the natural frequency of the air column.



This oscillation is rapidly damped by the changing volume caused by the



piston's downward motion. When the inlet valve closes it produces similar



pressure oscillations, which are relatively undamped.  In the diesel engine,





                               5-20

-------
air inlet noise is generally observed in the low to middle frequencies (up

to 1000 Hz).  (On gasoline engine, this inlet noise may be inportant at

higher octave bands due to the flow noise produced in the carburetor.)

     Typical unsilenced intake noise levels for truck diesel engines at

high idle vary between 70 dBA and 85 dBA, measured at 50 feet from

the engine inlet.  Production air filters used on most trucks provide a

noise reduction (Insertion Loss) of from 9 to 22 dBA.  In the case of

eleven trucks with Detroit Diesel Engines and production model intake
       17
filters,  intake noise exceeded the noise levels from the remaining

components in only one case.  Six trucks had sufficiently quiet air

intake such that further reduction of the intake noise would not be of

any benefit to overall vehicle noise levels.  The remaining trucks

showed overall noise reductions of 0.5 to 3 dBA for a 6 dBA reduction

of intake noise.  If the noise from remaining components were lowered,

intake noise would assume greater importance for a great proportion

of trucks.

     Intake filters act as silencers because of the sound absorption

properties of the filter element and because of the area changes.

Additional silencing may be provided by designing flow passages to

restrict line-of-sight transmission.

     Heavy duty oil bath cleaners used in transit buses are good

noise suppressors.  Cleaners that have large flat sections of sheet

metal can radiate significant amounts of noise from mechanical vibra-

tions.  Use of rubber sections such as elbows, tubes or connectors

in the air intake piping should be avoided as much as possible.  Most


                                5-21

-------
rubber sections are not good acoustic barriers and radiate excessive
amounts of noise because of their pulsating walls.
     For maximum quieting, an additional intake silencer can be in-
stalled between the air cleaner and the engine inlet.   These devices
are not particularly expensive, are easy to install, and will do a good
job of absorbing higher frequency noises.  The silencer should be
installed as close to the engine inlet as possible. The additional
space requirement may be a problem in transit and forward control
school buses.
     With the precautions outlined above, the attainment of intake
noise levels under 65 dBA is practicable with available intake
filters for diesel engines.
     (5)  Chassis and Accessory Noise
     In the category of chassis noise, the coasting noise of the vehicle
with no propulsive power being applied to the vehicle  and the noise from
the remaining minor sources such as air conditioning and air brake
compressors are included.
                                                18
     Motor Industries Research Association (MIRA)  has collected
data on coasting noise levels for a broad range of vehicles.  Coasting
rtoise depends on size or weight of vehicle, conditions of road surface,
and road speed.  Variations might also be expected due to tire tread
pattern and construction, number of axles and tires, axle loadings,
and bus body surface area.  A useful general relationship for the

                               5-22

-------
coasting noise of a vehicle at 30 mph  (44 fps) on a smooth, dry surface

is given by the equation:

     dBA = 65 + 7 log    W
                     10

where:

     W    = gross vehicle weight in tons

     dBA  = sound level 7-1/2 meters from vehicle centerline.

A typical school bus of 23,000 Ib GVWR according to this formula will

produce 66 dBA at 50 feet while coasting at 30 mph.  A vehicle of

10,000 Ibs GVWR will produce 64 dBA under the same conditions.

     EPA conducted tests on the coasting levels of several school buses
                                           25
of 17,400 Ib to 23,000 Ib GVW rating chassis.  A 23,000 Ib GVWR bus

measured 65 dBA on the curbside and 69 dBA on the streetside while

coasting at 30 mph.  A 17,400 Ib GVWR bus equipped with snow tires

measured 73 dBA on the curbside and 74 dBA on the streetside while

coasting at 30 mph.  Both tests were conducted with the engine idling,

the transmission in neutral, and all accessories on.  Hence the measured

levels reflect the total chassis noise levels to be expected rather than

the coast-by noise alone.

     Current school bus chassis noise levels appear to be in the 65 to

74 dBA range at 30 mph with the engine shut off.  Coast-by noise levels

for conventional school buses (without accessory noise) without snow tires

are approximately 64 to 68 dBA.  Chassis noise levels can approach these

coast-by levels by lowering the contributions from accessories and body

vibrations.
                              5-23

-------
     Chassis noise levels of current transit buses range  from  65  to
                                  16
76 dBA for 35 ft. and 40 ft coaches.  It is felt that chassis  noise

levels of 70 dBA are achievable on today's 40-foot transit coach.

     In the case of integral design transit buses, the  outer skin

panels are load-carrying members.   Hence any road or  engine vibrations

transmitted through the suspension or engine mounts will  be transmitted

to the skin as stress and result in vibrations of the panels.  These

panels are acoustically efficient radiators of sound  at audible fre-

quencies.  The mounting of accessories will need special  care  to  avoid

excitation of the body panels into resonance.  Ihe windows of  the bus

should also receive attention.   Apart from rattles, loose window  panes

also result in large vibrating  surfaces and hence chassis noise.
                                 5-24

-------
                     Overall Noise Abatement

     The abatement of bus noise is a systems problem.  In the following

discussion, the classification of buses according to their noise com-

ponent configurations attempts to make the total universe of buses

into a manageable number of systems that are similar from the noise

abatement viewpoint.  Total bus noise abatement is further broken down

into a number of steps or target noise levels.  Each targeted noise

level may be achieved by combining component noise control measures

in a specific way.  System compatibility is implicit in the selection

of such combinations.

     In general, noise control strategy is determined by the source

levels of the noisiest and/or most difficult-to-control components.  The

successive steps in noise reduction invariably require increasingly more

complex, and in most cases increasingly expensive, technologies.

(1)  Conventional Gasoline-Powered School Buses

     Five study levels have been identified for conventional gasoline-pow-

ered school buses.  Component levels to achieve each study level are indic-

ated in Table 5-2.  The production bus noise design levels should be 2 to

3 dBA under the targeted not to exceed noise levels, as shown.

                                 Table 5-2

 Component Noise Level Matrix for Gasoline-Powered Conventional School Buses

                                    Sound Level, SAE J366b Test, dBA

Bus exterior study level               83    80    77    75    73
(Not to exceed level)

Bus design level                       80.0  77.5  74.5  72.0  70.5
Engine and intake                      77    74    71    68    65
Exhaust                                73    69    65    65    64
Cooling fan                            73    70    64    64    64
Chassis and accessories                70    70    70    65    65
Interior Study Level (at driver)        83    80    80    75    75
                               5-25

-------
83 dBA Exterior and Interior Study Levels



     Engine



     No special engine, intake or transmission treatments will be needed.



     Exhaust System



     The use of best available mufflers will be sufficient to obtain 73



dBA exhaust noise levels.  The muffler will be located in an optimum



position for the school bus exhaust system after the tail pipe length



has been adjusted for the body length.



     Cooling Fan



     To obtain the 73 dBA fan noise level, careful sealing of the



shroud to the radiator along with optimization of fan coverage by the



shroud will be needed to maximize the air flow.  In tests conducted by



International Harvester Company, the air flow rate was increased by



this method from 10.66 Ib/sec to 11.5 Ib/sec (see Figure 5-2).  Optimum



fan coverage for the sealed shroud was obtained at 90 to 100 percent



coverage, while the original unsealed shroud gave maximum air flow rates



at 65 percent coverage.  The increased air flow rate allowed a reduction



of fan speed to reduce overall noise level by as much as 5 dBA.  Opti-



mization will help only to the extent of the actual departure in the



present system.  The reduction in fan maximum speed can be obtained by



providing a viscous type fan clutch.  The latter approach is recommended



because it has the advantage of minimizing the fan power requirements when



cooling loads are less than maximum.  Because there is always some slippage



at fan speeds approaching maximum shift speed, the maximum fan speed will



be automatically lowered with the usage of a fan clutch.





                                5-26

-------
                          Figure 5-2
              Effect of Fan  Coverage on Air Flow

                With Shroud  Sealed to Radiator
                          pw
         12 -
  u
  O
        10 -
                   50
100
                     Fan coverage (    ) percent
                                     p w
Fan Speed 2520 rpm.
Source:  International  Harvester Company
                              5-27

-------
     An on-off type clutch is not considered to be a feasible solution
because it will not lower the maximum fan speed, unless the engine to
fan pulley ratio is changed appropriately.
     In those cases where the sealing of the shroud and optimizing fan
coverage does not result in sufficient noise reductions, flow rates may
be increased further by choosing a fan that will allow reduction in
shaft speed.  This again is dependent on the present fan on the vehicle.
In most cases, increasing the number of blades and/or blade twist will
result in achieving the air flow at reduced speeds.  A shaft speed reduc-
tion of ten percent will be sufficient.
     Chassis
     The required 70 dBA level for chassis and accessories is already
attained by most gasoline school buses on the road today.
     With the above exterior technologies interior noise should be
reduced to the 83 dBA level.
80 dBA Exterior and Interior Study Levels
     Engine
     Some engines may require the inclusion of acoustic treatment of engine
hood.  For this, acoustic barrier-cum-absorption material of the type
currently used for automobile hood insulation may be added.
     To reach the interior noise level of 80 dBA at the driver's location,
                                                              2
one layer of barrier-type acoustic insulation weighing 1 Ib/ft  should be
employed at the cowl face and under the floor extending about 5 feet as
shown in Figure 5-3.  All holes in the firewall for pedal linkages, steering
column, etc., should be carefully sealed with heavy rubber boots.

                                5-28

-------
               Figure 5-3
         Engine Noise Abatement
             by Shielding
        Barrier Material
Attached to Firewall
  Approximate Area of Barrier = 25 ft"
                  5-29

-------
     Exhaust

     To reduce exhaust noise to 69 dBA, larger, more advanced mufflers

will be needed.  Careful design of the exhaust system to place the muffler

in the optimum position will be necessary.  It will also be necessary for

the exhaust system designer to specify that the tail pipe length not be

altered by anyone adapting the chassis to school bus application.
                               19
     In April 1973, CMC reported  that by using a larger muffler, with

the pipes rerouted where possible to lie within the confines of any engine

compartment shielding and to avoid conflict with a belly pan installation,

the exhaust noise level of a CE 6500 gasoline engine truck was successfully

lowered from 83 dBA to 70 dBA.

     Automotive mufflers are designed empirically by the muffler manufac-

turers who work with the engine manufacturers to achieve acceptable noise
                                     11
reduction without loss in performance.   For a simple expansion chamber

muffler, the transmission loss increases by a maximum of 7 dBA for a doubling
                  20
of expansion ratio.   Increased expansion ratios can be obtained without

increasing the thickness of the mufflers by using elliptical cross sections.

It is estimated that almost a doubling of muffler volume will be needed to

achieve exhaust noise levels of under 69 dBA, which are 4 to 5 dBA below

those of currently available mufflers.

     Special attention must be given to the support system for the exhaust

pipes and muffler under the bus floor to prevent the transmission of vibra-

tions to the chassis.  Airborne noise could also excite the floor to radi-

ate noise to the bus interior.  Current plywood floor designs appear

adequate in reducing floor transmitted exhaust noise to the bus interior.


                                5-30

-------
     Cooling Fan

     Two alternate approaches are possible for achieving fan noise

levels of under 70 dBA.

          1.  Contoured Shroud with 1/4-Inch Tip Clearance

     This type of shroud is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5-4.

Tests by the International Harvester Company have shown that the use of this

shroud resulted in allowing fan speed to be reduced by 6 percent while

3 to 6 dBA noise reduction was obtained in comparison to the noise level

of the carefully sealed shroud.  The shroud will need to be mounted in

such a way as to maintain the 1/4-inch clearance even when the engine

moves relative to the radiator.  This can be achieved by mounting part

of the shroud to the engine and part to the radiator with the two sections

connected together by a flexible rubber boot.  Recent road tests completed

on a truck equipped with such a shroud have demonstrated the practicality
              21
of this design.

     Total noise reduction expected from using the low tip clearance

shroud with careful seals, a viscous clutch and a seven-blade fan will

be between 10 and 13 dBA.  The maximum fan speed has now been lowered to

79 percent of the original fan speed without sacrificing air flow and hence

cooling system performance.  The radiator has not been altered in any way.

          2.  Increased Radiator and Fan Size

     Increasing the radiator area can result in significant reduction in
                 1
fan rpm and noise.  Estimates show that by using simple fan laws show

that increasing the radiator area by 20 percent and the fan diameter by

10 percent,  fan rpm can be lowered by 37 percent without sacrificing


                                  5-31

-------
                              Figure 5-4
                       Engine-Mounted 1/4 Inch Tip
                           Clearance Shroud
Radiator
                                                    D
  Flexible
  Rubber Seal
Mounting Strut
(one of three)
                                  5-32

-------
cooling capacity.  This would in turn result in lowering the fan noise



level by 8 <3BA.  Additional noise reduction can be obtained by careful



fan and radiator sealing and increasing fan diameter  (the larger radiator



will allow this).





     Chassis and Accessories



     Current chassis noise levels are sufficiently low and no treatment



will be required.





77 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior Study Levels



     Engine



     To reach the 71 dBA required engine noise level/ additional en-



gine side shields will be required.  These may be located as sketched in



Figure 5-5.  The shield may be made from 20 gauge steel sheets lined on



the inside with a 2-inch layer of acoustical glass fiber.  To keep the



glass fiber from losing its effectiveness from saturation with oil, gaso-



line, or water, a 2-mil nonflammable plastic barrier should be provided.



Finally, a perforated thin (22 gauge)  metal cover should be added on the



inside to minimize mechanical wear and tear.  This is sketched in Figure



5-6.  Glass fiber materials are relatively inexpensive.  The study of



currently available cowl and engine sizes for school buses indicates that



sufficient space is available for such shields and no alteration in cowl



design will be necessary.



     The reduction in open area around the engine may result in some loss of



cooling air flow.  Thus, in all probability/ cooling fan redesign would be



needed to achieve the 77 dBA bus regulated level.





                                5-33

-------
             Figure 5-5
Engine Side Shields in Position For
  77 dBA Overall Bus Noise Levels
             Steel-Glass Fiber Side  Shields
                   Details  in Fig.  5_6
                                   Chassis Rail
                5-34

-------
                              Figure 5-6
                     Detail of Side Shield Construction
      2-Inch Glass Fiber
      Filling
20 Gauge
Steel Sheet
Fender
Side
                                           Perforated 22-Gauge Steel
                                           Sheet Over 2 mil Thick
                                           Non-Flammable Plastic
                                          Engine
                                          Side
                                Approximate Dimensions:

                                      30" x 22" x 2"
                                  5-35

-------
     The transmission noise at this level is expected to be sufficiently



below engine noise so as not to warrant any attention.



     Engine accessibility will be somewhat reduced by the incorporation of
                                                  


side shields.



     Exhaust System



     To reach exhaust noise levels of 65 dBA will require a carefully



designed advanced dual horizontal exhaust system with double walled



mufflers and premufflers or resonators to optimize the system under cruise



as well as high rpm conditions.



     The use of a dual system allows greater expansion volume for the



exhaust gases and hence greater reduction of the pulsations which are



responsible for exhaust noise,  The larger flow areas allowed by dual



pipes will also reduce the existing velocity of gases which is responsible



for the characteristic hiss of well-silenced exhaust systems of some of



the current luxury automobiles.



     Heavier gauge exhaust and tail pipes with gastight exhaust joints will



be needed to minimize shell radiation and leaks.



     The use of premufflers or resonators may not be necessary for all



engines.  Since insertion loss data for mufflers and resonators designed



for the gasoline engines is not available, it is not possible to make any



judgments at this time as to which engines may need less treatment.



     Double wall mufflers are currently being made available for diesel



truck applications by several manufacturers:  Donaldson Co., Riker and





                                5-36

-------
Stemco.  Donaldson markets the "Silent Partner" muffler wrap which

consists of an asbestos blanket held in place by a stainless steel

wrap together cover.  Although current designs are for diesel truck

vertical stack mufflers, little development is expected to be

necessary to adapt these techniques to horizontal mufflers for school

bus applications.


     Cooling Fan

     For achieving overall bus noise levels of under 78 dBA, fan

design noise levels will need to be lowered to 64 dBA and under.

This is 13 to 18 dBA under current gasoline engine bus fan noise

levels.  These levels have already been demonstrated by International

Harvester and Freightliner quiet trucks.  International Harvester

Company was able to achieve a 66 dBA fan noise level by employing a

1/4-inch tip clearance fan shroud along with an engine enclosure which

reduces fan noise level by 2 dB and by replacing the original 4 row,
                     
11 fin-per-inch, plate fin radiator by a 4 row, 14 fin-per-inch, serpen-

tine fin radiator.  Freightliner Corporation achieved a 64 dBA estimated

fan noise level by replacing the standard 28 inch six-bladed fan with a

specially made 31 inch seven-bladed fan featuring staggered blade spacing

manufactured by Schwitzer Corporation.  The fan speed was lowered from
                                              2
2100 rpm to 1280 rpm and the standard 1200 in   six-row radiator was
                      2
replaced by a 2000 in   four-row radiator.

          For current application to gasoline powered school buses, the

suggested method of achieving the 64 dBA level is to increase radiator
                                5-37

-------
frontal area by 20 percent and fan diameter by approximately 10 percent.



An engine-mounted close-fitting shroud should be used along with an



advanced serpentine-fin radiator with approximately 30 percent greater



heat transfer area than a  comparable plate-fin type radiator.  The



increased core thickness of the serpentine fin radiator will result in a



slightly greater pressure drop across the radiator resulting in somewhat



greater fan speed.  However, the overall effect of all the improvements



will allow fan rpm to be lowered to almost 50 percent of the original



fan speed.



     With this low fan speed, the fan shaft, pulley, and belt system



will need to be redesigned.  The water pump could be mounted on a



separate shaft independent of the fan shaft so as to make its redesign



unnecessary.



     Chassis and Accessories



     No treatment is anticipated.



75 dBA Exterior and Interior Study Levels



     Engine and Intake



     To reach the 68 dBA source level, gasoline engines will require



the side shields shown in Figure 5-5 and an underpan between the radiator



and bell housing.  Since gasoline engines require servicing from underneath



for regular oil changes, an underpan with small removable panels such as



that sketched in Figure 5-7 will be suitable.  Some innovative provision





                                5-38

-------
                               Figure 5-7
                     Possible Underpan Configuration for
                           Achieving 75 dBA
                          Overall Noise Level
                                               Barrier

n
i (
i
1
i
_, \



\
t=
\
<;
1

I
Underpan
Cross-Section
Under Engine
                      Rubber
                      Isolation
                      Material
Drainhole
                                                                        Flange
                                                                    Mounted to
                                                                    Chassis Rails
                                                   Hinged Cover
                                     5-39

-------
is necessary to ensure that the removable panels are always replaced after
the routine maintenance or servicing; otherwise, the benefit of the
underpan may be greatly reduced.  One method to accomplish this would be
to hinge the panel so that it cannot be completely removed and discarded.
Warning labels could be attached to the panels to make maintenance personnel
aware of the purpose of these panels.
     Hazards due bo fuel or oil collection in the underpan can be
minimized by careful design so that the liquid flows to a small drain
hole under all operating conditions.  Again, the cooling capacity may
need to be increased to provide adequate ventilation and air flow rates.
This is not expected to increase fan noise since the side shields and
underpan will provide sound attenuation to fan noise also.  This treat-
ment is expected to lower engine and air intake contribution from 2 to
5 dBA.
     To achieve the interior noise levels, engine vibrations trans-
mitted through the chassis will need to be lowered by isolating the
engine or by isolating the body from the chassis.
     Exhaust
     The exhaust system will not need any alteration beyond that re-
quired for the previous study level.
 
     Cooling Fan
     The cooling system will need readjustment because of the presence
of the engine belly pan.  The increased flow restriction will require

                                5-40

-------
the maximum fan speed to be increased.  To maintain the fan source



level at 64 dBA, the engine side shield should be redesigned to give



some shielding to fan noise escaping from the sides of the cowl.



     Chassis and Accessories



     To meet the bus noise levels of 75 dBA, the chassis exterior



noise design levels will need to be at 65 dBA and under.  To approach



this noise on buses over 23,000 GVWR will require careful body design



to minimize noise radiation from body panels.  Some critical body panels



may need damping treatment or stiffening to make them inefficient radia-



tors of sound energy at the troublesome frequencies peculiar to the body-



chassis combination.



     The isolation between the body and chassis will need improvement.



School buses employ truck chassis with stiffer suspensions than those



employed for automobiles.  The number of isolation pads between the



chassis and the body should be kept at a minimum since each pad provides



a path for some of the chassis vibrations to the body.  Doubling the



thickness and halving the stiffness of the rubber pads, for example,



will lower the critical frequency by a factor of 1.4 and improve the



isolation over a greater range of frequencies.  Floor insulation in



the form of double flooring with isolation material in between has been



in use by Crown Coach for reducing road noise inside their diesel buses.



This technique will be very helpful in lowering engine contributed interior



levels also if the floor and body are carefully isolated from the chassis.
                                5-41

-------
     Interior carpeting, fabric covering of roof, and safety padding



of seats and bus walls can reduce interior noise levels further if



necessary.



73 dBA Exterior and 75 dBA Interior Study Levels



     Engine



     To reach the 65 dBA engine noise level, side shields will need



to be extended to include the rerouted exhaust pipes which should be lagged



with thermal insulation.  The cowl lid will need additional acoustical



treatment that will lock into the side shields.  The engine will be virtually



encapsulated.  This is conceptually shown in Figure 5-8.



     Enclosure design technology has been demonstrated through experience



with the Quiet Truck Program.  It should be noted that the enclosure will



provide shielding also to the fan noise.  The greater heat buildup in the



engine compartment and increased restriction to the air-flow will require



cooling fan speeds to be increased, which will nullify some of the acousti-



cal benefits of shields.  It is anticipated that in spite of this, the



enclosure will provide reductions of 5 to 8 dBA to the engine noise and



about 2 dBA to the fan noise.



     The air intake noise will need further suppression by adding an



intake silencer between the carburetor and air filter.



     The lowered engine and other component noise levels will require



some attention to the transmission casing, which may need to be redesigned.





                                5-42

-------
          Figure 5-8
Engine Enclosure for Achieving
73 dBA Overall Bus Noise Level
       Underhood
       Insulation
                           Extended
                           Side Shield
                                Sealing
                                Arrangement
 Underpan
            5-43

-------
Approaches to reduce airborne noise radiation by the transmission

housing include the application of damping material to reduce resonant

amplification, the stiffening, or the weakening of housing areas to

shift resonance frequency components out of the range of excitation

forces; the decoupling housing areas by slotting or by adding mass
                                             22
dampers, and the altering of panel geometries.  Transmission manu-

facturers are already aware of these techniques and are anticipating

future noise reduction needs.

     Exhaust System

     The achievement of 73 dBA overall bus noise levels will require

the reduction of exhaust noise levels to 64 dBA or below.  This is

only one decibel below the levels for the previous case and will not

require any major improvements in exhaust systems.  It may be necessary

to lag some lengths of the exhaust pipes between the engine and the

mufflers to reduce pipe wall radiated noise and to minimize tempera-

tures in the engine enclosure.  This section of the exhaust system

generally carries the largest pulsations from the engine exhaust.

Currently one of the bus exhaust system manufacturers, AP Parts Co.,

is working on the development of double walled exhaust pipes, and re-

ports promising results.

     Cooling Fan System

     The cooling system will need readjustment to maintain adequate

cooling in the presence of the sealed engine enclosure.


                                5-44

-------
 (2)  Conventional Diesel Powered School Buses

     Based on data from diesel trucks, the attainable exterior noise

levels from conventional diesel school buses range from 83 dBA to

75 dBA, which is the lowest study level.

     Allowing 2-3 dBA for variation among production buses, the design

levels would range from 80.5 dBA to 72.5 dBA.  Table 5-3 shows the

targeted study "not to exceed" levels and design exterior noise levels

along with a set of possible combinations of component levels to achieve

the overall noise levels.  Other component noise level combinations may

be used to achieve the same overall noise levels, but those shown in

Table 5-3 appear to be the most logical.

     Interior levels ranging from 86 dBA to 75 dBA can be met using

similar techiques as discussed for conventional gasoline-powered

school buses.

     The noise control packages are summarized below:

                                Table 5-3

   Component Noise Level Matrix for Diesel-Powered Conventional School Buses
                                       Sound Level, SAE J366b Test, dBA
Bus Exterior Study Level
(Not to exceed level)
Exterior Design Level
Engine
Exhaust
Fan
Intake
Chassis and Accessories
Interior Level at Driver
83
80.5
77
73
73
72
70
86
80
77.5
74
69
70
69
70
83
77
74.5
71
68
64
65
65
80
75
72.5
68
65
64
65
65
75
                                 5-45

-------
83 dBA Exterior and 86 dBA Interior Study Levels
     Engine
     Diesel engine noise can be reduced to a source level of 77 dBA
by using engine quieting kits.  Such kits include covers for the sides
of the engine block and oil pan, vibration isolation of the valve covers
or air intake manifolds, and cross-overs and possible damping treatment
on sheet metal covers.
     The engine hood should be lined with acoustical material such as
non-flammable felt or glass wool.
     No special treatment will be needed to reach the 86 dBA interior
level beyond the application of the exterior technology.
     Exhaust System
     Exhaust noise levels of 73 dBA will need available advanced double-
wrapped mufflers.  A premuffler may be needed to obtain maximum attenua-
tion over the broad range of frequencies characteristic of engine opera-
tion over a wide speed range.
     Cooling System
     Cooling system design will be similar to that used to achieve 73
dBA source noise levels for gasoline engine buses.
     Intake
     Air intake noise from most current diesel engines is below 72 dBA
with available intake filters.
     Chassis
     No treatment will be necessary.
80 dBA Exterior and 83 dBA Interior Study Levels
     Engine
     In order to attain this level/ engine noise shields and an underpan
would be required.  A sketch of side shields is shown in Figure 5-5,
                                5-46

-------
whereas a possible underpan configuration is shown in Figure 5-7.  The
side shields and underpan have been described in detail for gasoline engine
buses.  The dimensions of the shield will be somewhat larger than those
shown in Figure 5-5.
     For the interior level technology refer to the 80 dBA interior tech-
nology of gasoline-powered conventional school buses.
     Exhaust System
     Mufflers with exhaust design levels of 70 dBA or lower are currently
not available.  One way or reducing the exhaust noise is to use a turbo-
charged engine instead of a naturally aspirated engine.  Because of addi-
tional expansion of exhaust gases through the turbocharger, the exhaust
noise levels should be significantly reduced.  Alternately, diesel truck muffler
manufacturers currently have several experimental mufflers that could be
modified for bus applications to give source levels under 69 dBA.
     Cooling System
     The cooling system design will be similar to that for attaining 70
dBA source levels for gasoline engine buses described earlier.
     Intake
     In order to attain the design level of 69 dBA, some noise treat-
ment would be required.  On the International Harvester Quiet Truck,
the intake noise was reduced from 72 dBA to 69 dBA by replacing
                                                 10
the intake rain cap with one with a better design.  Thus, it is
possible to achieve the intake design level of 69 dBA by using better
designed parts for the intake system.
     Chassis and Accessories
     No treatment will be necessary.

                                5-47

-------
77 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior Study Levels



     Engine



     Most medium duty truck engines can be quieted to a 71 dBA source



level by using side shields and an underpan as mentioned in the control



pcakage for 74 dBA.  The noisiest engines may require a flow-through



engine enclosure with special engine mounts.  Figure 5-8 shows such an



enclosed engine.



     If a turbocharged engine has been substituted for meeting air emission



and exhaust noise levels a larger engine cab will be required.



     For attaining the interior level refer to the technology for the



75 dBA interior level of conventional gasoline-powered school buses.



     Exhaust System



     In addition to the exhaust system modifications described for achiev-



ing the previous study level, exhaust pipes may need to be wrapped with



thermal/acoustical material.



     Cooling System



     The cooling system design will be the same as that for gasoline



engine buses for attaining the same source level.



     Intake



     An air intake silencer will be required.



     Chassis and accessories



     The same considerations for gasoline powered buses will be applicable



for attaining the 65 dBA chassis and accessory source level.





                               5-48

-------
75 dBA Exterior and Interior Study Levels


     Engine


     Attainment of 68 dBA source level for diesel engines will be


difficult.  Engines will be turbocharged and a sealed tunnel type flow-


through enclosure will be mandatory.  Major redesigns of engine cowl


and cooling system will be required.


     For attaining the interior 75 dBA level, refer to the technology


for the 75 dBA interior level of conventional gasoline powered school


buses.


     Exhaust System


     In order to achieve this level, manifold mufflers or advanced


double-walled dual mufflers, double-wall exhaust piping, and pipe joint


seals would be required.  Exhaust design levels of 65 dBA or lower have


been demonstrated on the Freightliner Quiet Truck and the Flxible quieted


bus.  Quieting exhaust noise to this level would require additional lead


time beyond the normal development to productio.n lead times.
                  *

     Cooling System


     The system will be similar to that for gasoline engine buses.  However,


due to the greater space limitations in engine cab, a redesign from the pre-


vious level cooling system will be required.


     Chassis and Accessories


     No additional treatment beyond the previous level will be required.





(3)  Front-Engine Forward Control School Buses, Parcel Delivery Chassis


     SchooX Buses and Motor Home Chassis Buses


     The progression of noise levels and corresponding source levels


of these vehicles will be the same as those levels for school buses with



                               5-49

-------
conventional chassis powered by gasoline and diesel engines except for



the 73 dBA level for gasoline engine vehicles, which is not felt to be



applicable to the forward control school buses.  The 73 dBA level and



its attendant technology is applicable, however, to parcel delivery



chassis and motor home chassis buses.



     The methods for achieving these levels in forward control, parcel



delivery chassis and motor home chassis buses will be identical to



conventional school buses using similar engines, except that space



constraints will be more severe.  Interior noise levels will be more



difficult to achieve, while the contribution of the engine to exterior



noise levels will be of a lesser extent.







(4)  Mid-Engine School Buses



     Exterior noise level reduction and component noise levels to achieve



the overall noise level reduction for mid-engine school buses are shown



in Table 5-4.



     It is assumed that the bus will need to be designed to produce a



noise level on the average 2 to 3 dBA below the not to exceed



level because of the expected spread in production vehicle noise levels.



     The noise control packages are summarized below.



86 dBA Exterior and 88 dBA Interior (Over Engine) Study Levels



     Existing noise levels generated by this type of bus under



acceleration are expected to meet a 83.5 dBA design level without any



additional applied technology.
                               5-50

-------
                                Table 5-4

          Component Noise Level Matrix for Mid-Engine School Buses
                                           Sound Level, SAE J366b, dBA

Bus Exterior Study Level                    86    83    80    77    75
(Not to exceed)
Exterior Design Level
Engine
Exhaust
Cooling Fan
Intake
Chassis
Interior (Over Engine)
83.5
79
79
77
65
70
88
80.5
75
75
76
65
70
86
77.5
71
70
73
65
70
83
75.0
71
65
70
65
65
80
72.5
67
65
65
65
65
78
83 dBA Exterior and 86 dBA Interior (Over Engine) Study Levels

     To achieve this study noise level, damped engine covers and oil pan

will need to be incorporated and engine compartment treated to minimize

transmission of engine airborne noises.

     Advanced double wall mufflers and premuffler compartments will be

needed. (These mufflers have been used in the DOT quiet truck program.)

     All leaks between radiator, bus sidewall, and shroud should be

sealed and a thermostatically controlled fan clutch incorporated.

     These treatments should result in lowering interior noise level

above the engine to 86 dBA.


                                5-51

-------
80 dBA Exterior and  83 dBA Interior (Over Engine)  Study Levels



     To achieve this study noise level, the engine compartment will



need belly pans.



     The exhaust system will need improvement to achieve 70 dBA for



non-turbocharged engines.  This can be obtained by adding a large



resonator in series with the main muffler.  Leaks in exhaust system



become very important at this level and consequently must be sealed.



     The engine mounts will need improvements to reduce transmission



of vibration to floor and body members.



77 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior (Over Engine) Study Levels



     To achieve this study level, the exhaust and cooling system will



need further improvement.  The non-turbocharged engine would have to



be replaced with a turbocharged engine and a large resonator would be



needed.



     Providing a 10 percent greater radiator area and engine mounted



contoured shroud with 1/4-inch tip clearance can be expected to reduce



the cooling fan noise to 70 dBA.  To increase the radiator area, a



larger radiator would be required.  To reduce the chassis noise to 65



dBA, the body panel design should consider the resonant modes of all



body panels.  Damping treatment on the inside or outside of the panels



may be required. A floating slab floor may also need to be employed to



achieve the interior noise level.



75 dBA Exterior and 78 dBA Interior (Over Engine) Study Levels



     The achievement of the 75 dBA level has been demonstrated for the



rear engine Scania CR HIM bus  (see Appendix A).





                                5-52

-------
     Total engine encapsulation would be required.  To provide adequate

engine cooling, two radiators located on either side of the engine might

be necessary along with thermostatically controlled fans or blowers.



(5)  Rear-Engine School Buses (Integral and Body-on-Chassis)

     Exterior noise level reduction and component noise levels to

achieve the overall noise level reduction from rear-engine school buses

are shown in Table 5-5.  Because of variation in noise levels among

production buses, the design noise levels are 2-3 dBA below the "not

to exceed" levels.

                                Table 5-5

               Component Noise Level Matrix for Rear-Engine
                School Buses (Integral and Body-on-Chassis)
J366b Sound Level, dBA
Bus Exterior Study Level
(Not to exceed level)
Bus Exterior 'Design Level
Engine and Transmission
Exhaust System
Cooling Fan
Intake
Chassis
Interior Level (Rear)
86 dBA Exterior and 84 dBA Interior
86

83.5
79
79
77
65
70
84
(Rear)
83

80.5
75
75
76
65
70
83
Study
81

78.5
75
70
73
65
70
83
Levels
80

77.5
71
70
73
65
70
80

77

75.0
71
65
68
65
68
80

75

72.5
65
65
65
65
68
78

     Existing noise levels generated by this type of bus under acceleration

are expected to meet the proposed 83.5 dBA design level without any

additional applied technology.
                                 5-53

-------
83 dBA Exterior and 83 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels
     Damped engine covers and an oil pan should be incorporated.  Engine
compartment should be treated to minimize transmission of engine and fan
airborne noises.
     Double wall or wrapped body mufflers will be needed to produce
75 dBA exhaust noise levels.  These mufflers are currently under develop-
ment by muffler manufacturers.
     All leaks between the radiator, the bus sidewall and the fan shroud
should be sealed and a thermostatic control fan clutch incorporated.
81 dBA Exterior and 83 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels
     The engine and transmission treatment remains the same as for previous
levels.  The exhaust system will need improvement to achieve 70 dBA.  This
can be obtained either by substituting a turbocharged engine or by adding
a large resonator in series with the main muffler.  Leaks in the exhaust system
become iinportant.
     Rectangular cooling fan shrouds should be replaced by contoured shrouds
and fan coverage reoptimized.  This may need adjustment of fan to radiator
distance.  Sealing and thermostatic fan speed control will be needed.
80 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels
     The exhaust system remains identical to the previous step.  Engine
contributed level will be lowered to 71 dBA by providing a sealed belly
pan, an acoustically treated exit duct, and a line-of-sight shield between
the engine and the fan.
     The fan will have to be replaced with one capable of delivering
the same airflow as before against a greater total head.

                                5-54

-------
     Engine mounts will need improvement.  Body panel vibrations  in  rear



area will need to be minimized by damping or isolation or by means of



barrier material.  Interior reverberations should be minimized with  acous-



tical material.



77 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels



     The exhaust and cooling systems will need further improvement.  A



turbocharged engine with manifold mufflers or turbocharged engine with



improved resonators and a muffler with stack silencers will be needed.



Contoured or venturi shroud with 1/4-inch tip clearance will be required



along with 10 percent increase in radiator frontal area.



75 dBA Exterior and 78 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels



     This level will need either total engine encapsulation or an improved



flow-through engine enclosure.  Both concepts need development and extensive



testing. Some passenger seats will most probably be lost.  Detailed  discus-



sion given for urban transit buses will be applicable.  A floating slab floor



may be required for attainment of the interior noise level.







(6)  Urban Transit Buses



     The lowest exterior noise level of integral transit buses studied was



75 dBA at 50 feet, measured according to the Section 8 (recommended)



procedure.  Current transit bus noise levels with the cooling fan engaged



can be under 86 dBA with little difficulty.  Step-by-step reduction  of



noise levels of major contributors can result in four intermediate levels



as shown in Table 5-6.





                               5-55

-------
                               Table 5-6

                Component Noise Level Matrix for Diesel
                     Powered Integral Transit Buses
J366b Sound
Bus Exterior Study Level
(Not to exceed level)
Bus Exterior Design Level
Engine and Transmission
Exhaust System
Cooling Fan
Intake
Chassis
Interior (Rear)
86

83.5
79
79
77
65
70
84
83

80.5
75
75
76
65
70
83
81

78.5
75
70
73
65
70
83
Level ,
80

77.5
71
70
73
65
70
80
dBA
77

74.5
71
65
68
65
68
80

75

72.5
65
65
65
65
68
78
     With the application of the exterior noise abatement technologies

for transit buses outlined in the following discussion, the interior

noise levels at the rear of transit buses should be met.  However, in

some cases additional treatment may be necessary.  Refer to the discus-

sion of interior noise abatement technology for intercity buses for a

description of additional interior noise abatement technology which will

be applicable to transit buses.

86 dBA Exterior Study and 84 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels

   Engine

     No treatment to the engine or engine compartment is considered

necessary for achieving exterior engine source level of 79 dBA.  The

blocking of all airborne engine noise from the passenger compartment will

be essential to achieve the interior level of 84 dBA at the rear seat

location.


                                5-56

-------
     Exhaust System



     No modification to current exhaust systems will be required.  When



a vertical tail pipe is present, it should be resiliently mounted to



prevent transmitting vibrations to the bus body.



     Cooling System



     These levels will be achievable by installing a viscous clutch



between the engine and the fan without any modification to the cooling



system.  All leaks between the engine compartment sidewall and radiator



and between the radiator and the shroud should be carefully sealed to



minimize fan-on time.  An on-off type fan clutch will also be suitable



if the radiator grill is redesigned to minimize line-of-sight transmission



of sound.



     Intake



     Best available air cleaner with careful sealing of all leaks will be



adequate.



     Chassis and Accessories



     The mounting of accessories will need special care to avoid excita-



tion of the body panels into resonance.  Air conditioner compressor area



may need some acoustical treatment.



83 dBA Exterior and Interior (Rear) Study Levels



     Engine



     For diesel transit buses, the attainment of 75 dBA engine contri-



buted noise levels will not require any major changes in the engine





                               5-57

-------
compartment.  Rohr Corporation demonstrated a reduction of 3 dBA

on Detroit Diesel 6V-71 engine noise for a 35-foot transit bus by

using damped rocker arm covers and acoustical material on existing

parts of the hood, engine compartment sidewall, and forward bulkhead.

     Detroit Diesel has developed such damped covers for retrofit
        17
purposes.  It is possible that such covers or similar improved covers

would be offered as standard equipment for future bus engines to comply

with 83 dBA exterior levels.

     It is expected that sealed underpans will not be necessary to

reach this level.

     The engine contributed level on the street side of the bus is

generally higher because of the radiator opening.  Design of the

radiator grill to prevent line-of-sight sound transmission while

maintaining adequate cooling is one method of curbing streetside radi-

ated noise.

     All other engine compartment holes should be carefully sealed,

and the entire compartment lined with sound absorbent material.  Thin

metal panels such as hood and sidewalls will require sound barrier

type material, such as 1 Ib/sq foot lead-lined vinyl.  Alternatively,

mylar-faced acoustical foam with lead septum and an insulation layer

between the septum and panel can be used for the entire area.  This

treatment is illustrated in Figure 5-9.

     Exhaust System

     This level can be achieved by substituting single wall mufflers

with advanced double-wrapped body mufflers.  These mufflers are


                                5-58

-------
         Figure 5-9
Acoustic Treatment of Engine
Hood on a Flexible Busrd Bus
              5-59

-------
already available for both 6V-71 and 8V-71 engines.*   The design  noise


level of this muffler with an MAM09104  Wye connection  is  75 dBA for

    t
5-inch systems on the 8V-71 engine, giving a back pressure  of only 3.4-


inch Hg.  Transit bus applications permit higher  back pressures (up to


6-inch Hg.).  The larger number of bends  in the exhaust  pipes will not


cause any penalty for naturally aspirated engines.


     CMC achieved exhaust noise levels of under 75 dBA without  exceed-


ing the back pressure limitation on their T8H5305 coach  by  replacing


the standard Nelson muffler with a Nelson T13680  muffler.


     Exhaust noise should not present any difficulty  for turbocharged


engines.


     Cooling System, Intake, Chassis, and Accessories


     The same treatments as for the previous level will  be  sufficient.



81 dBA Exterior Study and 83 dBA Interior (Rear)  Study Levels


     Engine


     No treatment beyond the previous level is indicated, unless  the


option of turbocharged engine is adopted  for achieving lower exhaust


noise levels.

     Exhaust System


     70 dBA exhaust source noise level will be necessary to achieve


overall bus median noise levels of 78.5 and 77.5  dBA. It appears


that at present mufflers with exhaust design levels of 70 dBA are


not available for naturally aspirated two-stroke  Detroit Diesel engines.
*  Donaldson Co. Rart No. MCM 12-0189.



                                5-60

-------
There are two alternatives available to achieve 70 dBA exhaust noise



levels.



     (1)  Turbocharged Engine  - A turbocharged six cylinder engine



          may be substituted in place of a naturally aspirated eight



          cylinder engine to obtain the same amount of power.  Because



          of the inherently low exhaust noise levels of turbocharged



          engines, currently available mufflers or modifications



          thereof to allow for the greater air flow rates can be em-



          ployed to obtain the 70 dBA exhaust noise levels.



          Stemco Mfg. Co. has currently available dual horizontal



          mufflers, part No. 9428, producing 73.5 dBA which can



          be treated to yield 70 dBA noise levels on the 8V-71T



          engine.



     (2)  Adding a Resonator  - Optimum exhaust system design to pro-



          vide adequate muffling under low as well as high engine rpm



          conditions requires the whole system to be designed with



          a resonator (or premuffler) in series with the main muffler.



          This allows a smaller size muffler than if the entire silenc-



          ing were to be achieved from a single muffler.



          Because of the allowable 6-inch Hg. back pressure at full



          load for naturally aspirated engines, a single resonator and



          muffler, with a vertical stack, should be sufficient.  The



          absence of any leaks in this type of exhaust system become



          a necessity at the 70 dBA exhaust noise level.





                                5-61

-------
          Gas-tight exhaust joints are available and should be used.

          The muffler, if outside the engine enclosure, should be of

          the double-walled type to minimize the noise entering the

          passenger compartment.
                                                         8
          Rohr Plxible bus retrofit noise reduction study  resulted

          in the development of such a resonator/muffler system in

          cooperation with Donaldson Co. for which the estimated con-

          tribution was only 65 dBA.  This system may be used as a

          guideline for a future 70 dBA exhaust system.

     Cooling System

     Noise levels of 73 dBA were reported by CMC and Rohr for their

quieted buses with optimized shrouds and thermostatic clutches.  The

rectangular shrouds should be replaced by contoured shrouds with as

low a clearance as practical.  The fan coverage should be optimized

after the new shroud is installed.  The fan to radiator distance may

also have to be changed to ensure optimum air flow distribution across

the radiator.

     An experimental fan with a U-shaped circular ring attached to the
                                                23
blade tips has been tried by H. L. Blatchford Co.  and QIC for the

RTS-2.  This fan is designed to prevent tip recirculation without un-

usually small tip clearances.  However, this is an experimental design

and to date no apparent advantage from the noise viewpoint has been

demonstrated.
                                5-62

-------
     Intake, Chassis, and Accessories
     No modifications will be required.
80 dBA Exterior and Interior (Rear) Study Levels
     Engine
     To reach engine contributed levels of 71 dBA, complete engine
belly pans and line-of-sight shielding between engine and radiator open-
ing will be required.  The layout for this arrangement is shown in Figure
5-10.
     It is important to provide an adequate outlet area for engine com-
partment ventilation and cooling air.  Such an outlet can be provided
forward of the engine compartment between the floor and engine support
rails.  The outlet opening should be designed to minimize the radiated
sound energy.  This may be done by lining the inside of this duct with
two inches of glass fiber or open-cell foam and providing louvers at
the exit to minimize line-of-sight between the interior and the pavement.
The drive-shaft opening will need careful design to minimize sound
escape.  It is not admissible to allow any other opening in the belly
pans, because that would render the belly pans ineffective.  Refrigerant
and other fluid lines should be routed through holes sealed with asphalt
or rubber grommets.
     The design of the outlet ahead of the belly pan, as shown in
Figure 5-10, is critical.  Rroper aerodynamic shaping of the exit and
the louvers may be able to provide some suction when the bus is in motion.
The redesign of the cooling system will be a major undertaking.

                               5-63

-------
            Figure 5-10
Engine Noise Reduction Package for
        71 dBA Source Level
               5-64

-------
     The belly pans may be provided in two or three removable sections

for maintenance.  Belly pans are currently available as optional items.

Suitable warning labels will be necessary to caution maintenance personnel

against discarding the belly pans.

     The line-of-sight shield between engine and cooling fan can be

aerodynamically shaped to minimize restrictions.  The shield should be

carefully matched with the cooling system to maximize the air flow through

the radiator.  International Harvester Company used such shields to lower

the pressure head against which the fan must operate, allowing lower
         14
fan speeds  and lower fan noise levels.

     Space limitations and added heat buildup in the engine compartment

for turbocharged engines will require auxiliary engine compartment ventila-

tion systems.

     Exhaust System

     The same two options as for the previous study level are applicable.

     Cooling System

     With the sealed engine belly pans, the cooling air will experience

some restriction, thereby affecting the cooling ability of the system.

This increased restriction has to be overcome by increasing the pressure

rise across the fan without decreasing the volumetric air flow rate.

Alternatively, the radiator and fan area may be increased to permit ade-

quate cooling at the reduced air flow velocity, again impacting the bus


                                5-65

-------
capacity.  Since the latter approach requires increased engine compart-



ment space, the modification of fan design to produce greater pressure



rise across the fan appears more attractive.



     Intake, Chassis, and Accessories



     No modification will be required from the previous level.



77 dBA Exterior and 80 dBA Interior (Rear) Levels



     Engine



     The engine noise abatement methods for the previous level will be



sufficient.  Turbocharged engines will be required.



     Exhaust System



     The achievement of 65 dBA exhaust source levels on production



model buses will be a major undertaking, although these levels have



been demonstrated on the Flxible quieted bus and the Freightliner



quiet truck.



     The exhaust system for the previous study level, with some added



volume can be used.



     The Freightliner quiet truck employed a manifold muffler along with



dual current production Donaldson mufflers and stack silencers.  The



engine was a turbocharged Cummins NTC-350, which is an in-line six



cylinder engine.  The experimental exhaust manifold muffler had a volume



4-1/2 times the volume of the standard manifold.  For the V-form engines



used in transit buses, two manifold mufflers would be required.





                               5-66

-------
     A turbocharged engine with large resonators as close to the mani-



folds as possible, followed by the exhaust pipe and muffler wrapped with



asbestos or mineral wool to provide acoustic as well as thermal insul-



ation will be needed.



     Cooling System



     To achieve fan noise levels of 68 dBA with the engine compart-



ment belly pan and line-of-sight shield in position, extremely low fan



tip to contoured shroud clearances and some increase in radiator



Erontal area will be required.



     The incorporation of an engine-mounted contoured or venturi shroud



with 1/4-inch tip clearance can be expected to allow fan top speed



reductions oC approximately 6 percent, and noise reductions of 3 to 6



dBA.  The mounting of such a shroud was explained for gasoline engine



school buses.  The engine compartment area will probably need to be



increased slightly to accommodate a 10 percent larger radiator to assure



the achievement of 68 dBA noise levels in the case of high horsepower



turbocharged engines for air-conditioned buses operating on highways.



The increased radiator area will allow a further reduction in fan top



speed by 20 percent, resulting in an average noise reduction of 8 dBA.



     Because of the lack of ram air and side-facing fan position in transit



bus applications, the achievement of 68 dBA will be somewhat more diffi-



cult than the achievement of 68 dBA levels for heavy duty diesel truck



applications.  Increased engine compartment sizes suggested for the



previous level may become mandatory now.
                               5-67

-------
     Intake/ Chassis and Accessories



     Chassis and accessory noise will need to be lowered by about 2 dBA



by changes in basic body design such as acrylic panels bonded to the skin.



Improved accessory and engine isolation will be required.



75 dBA Exterior and 78 dBA Interior (Rear) Study Levels



     Engine



     Engine contributed levels of 65 dBA will require the engine to



be further enclosed and isolated from the bus framework.  Itoo types



of enclosures are possible.  Neither type of enclosure has been demon-



strated on a bus meeting the performance specifications of U.S. urban



transit buses.



     In the first, the enclosure covers the cooling fan as well as the



engine.  Openings for cooling air inlet and exit greatly reduce the



effectiveness of the enclosure.  On the other hand, the enclosure provides



some shielding to fan noise.  The cooling system generally has to be



adjusted to prevent overheating.



     A flow-through type of enclosure may be incorporated.  The square



radiator can be replaced by a rectangular radiator or twice the frontal



area.  Two centrifugal blowers in the suction mode would draw air in.



Centrifugal blowers allow better isolation of engine noise.  The radiator



and blowers will be enclosed in a duct.  The seal between bus body sidewall



and radiator is particularly important.



     The air from the engine compartment should be allowed to exit through



an acoustically treated opening on the curbside, at a height above normal



pedestrian head level.  The flow-through concept is sketched in Figure 5-11.





                                5-68

-------
           Figure 5-11
Flew Through Engine Compartment
 Concept for Achieving 65 dBA
       Engine Noise Level
                 5-69

-------
     It is estimated that the bulkhead will have to be moved forward
approximately one foot, resulting in loss of passenger capacity.  However,
the space above the engine need not be as large and probably the wall
can be shaped to provide some interior space.  Another possibility is
that the floor can be inclined to provide more underfloor space in the
rear of the bus.
     Such an enclosure will result in source levels of 65 dBA if the
future diesel engines are at least 4 dBA quieter than current engines
without any treatment.
     The second type of enclosure places the cooling fan outside the
enclosure.  This allows greater reduction of engine noise.  The radiator
and fan will generally require relocation because of the restriction
presented by the engine enclosure.  This type of enclosure is used on
production buses in Europe, such as the Scania CR111M.
     In the Scania buses, the engine compartment is completely sealed
on all sides and is provided with a fan for ventilating of the engine
compartment.  The air intake for ventilation is located on the roof
of the bus.  The single radiator on the left side is replaced by two
radiators, one on each side of the bus located ahead of the closed
engine compartment.  Cooling air is drawn in by individual electrically
operated fans at each radiator.  The cooling system of the CR111M is
                                                o
designed'for an air-to-boil temperature of 85-90 F.  This would not
be acceptable for most climates in the United States.

                                5-70

-------
     Air conditioning is not offered on the Scania bus, even as an



option.  Exclusion of air conditioning reduces horsepower requirement



and engine cooling requirement significantly.  Almost all transit coaches



in this country are air conditioned and noise reduction, at the expense



of eliminating air conditioning, would not be acceptable in our climate.



     Further details of the Scania bus are given in Appendix A.



     Exhaust System



     Treatment remains the same as for the previous level, with the addi-



tion of water-cooled manifolds.



     Cooling System



     Cooling system design will have to be coupled with the achievement



of 65 dBA for all the major noise producing components of the bus.  The



limiting factors at this stage will be the chassis and tire noises.  The



engine will be either completely encapsulated, or a flow-through enclosure



provided with opening on both sides of the engine compartment.



     (1)  Totally Encapsulated Engine.  - In this case, two radiators



          will be remotely placed, forward of the engine enclosure,



          with hydraulically or electrically driven thermostatically



          controlled fans or blowers.  This technique is currently



          used in the Swedish Scania CR111M bus and its limitations



          have been discussed earlier.   New innovations to improve



          the volumetric air flow rates without increasing fan speeds



          will be required.  These may include air scoops or larger



          radiators.  Another possibility would be to relocate the





                                5-71

-------
     radiators on the roof of  the bus to reduce sideline noise,

     though this may result in excessive noise levels at second

     story apartment levels.

     The noise of the auxiliary fan to ventilate the engine

     compartment has to be considered separately.

(2)   Flow-Through Engine Enclosure  - The principals of such flow-

     through enclosures have been studied earlier for quiet trucks.

     If the engine compartment area is increased to accommodate

     the flow, and blowers substituted in place of fans, 65 dBA

     cooling system noise levels appear achievable.  By flowing

     the cooling air through the enclosure, any heat radiated from
                                                14
     the engine and transmission is carried away.  With proper

     placement of acoustical material, much of the sound is

     absorbed before it escapes from the inlet or outlet.

     Multi-speed thermostatic speed controls will be required

     to maintain optimized operation.

     The substitution of the axial flow fan by multiple centri-

     fugal blowers may be beneficial in minimizinng sound and

     distributing the flow evenly over a rectangular radiator.

     MCI buses have been using a dual radiator and centrifugal

     fan system for engine cooling for the past twenty years.
                           5-72

-------
     For transit bus application, the long rectangular radiator



     may be located on the left side of the engine compartment



     with the larger side parallel to the ground.  Two blowers



     in parallel would draw the air in, which would be directed



     over the engine casing.  The engine compartment ventilation



     will be aided by another blower directing the air out on



     the curbside through louvers located sufficiently high as



     to direct air flow above by-stander head level.  The design



     of the louvers will be important to prevent leakage of engine



     noise to the outside.  Such a system is shown conceptually



     in Figure 5-11.



     This type of enclosure has not been demonstrated for transit



     bus application.  Current evaluation of feasibility is based



     on experience with the IH quiet truck and on the assumption



     that engine compartment temperatures can be maintained by



     providing unrestricted cooling air flow rates.



Intake/ Chassis and Accessories



The comments for the previous level are applicable.
                          5-73

-------
(7)  Intercity Buses

     In view of the many similarities in construction and source levels

between urban transit and intercity buses, the progression of component

and overall noise reduction will be the same as that for urban transit

buses.  However, due to the different mechanical layouts of intercity

buses, some details of noise reduction packages, will vary from one design

to another.  These differences are analyzed during the discussion of the

various noise abatement study levels.  The component and overall noise levels

are shown in Table 5-7.


                                 Table 5-7

                    Component Noise Level Matrix for
                Diesel Powered Integral Intercity Buses
J366b Sound Level, dBA
Bus Exterior Study Level
(Not to exceed level)
Bus Exterior Design Level
Engine and Transmission
Exhaust System
Cooling Fan
Intake
Chassis
Interior Level (Rear)
86

83.5
79
79
77
65
70
84
83

80.5
75
75
76
65
70
83
80

77.5
71
70
73
65
70
80
77

75.0
71
65
68
65
68
80
75

72.5
65
65
65
65
68
78
     The three major manufacturers of intercity buses used in the United

States offer buses that look very similar from the outside with roughly

the same performance and ride qualities.
                               5-74

-------
     Power Train Arrangements
     The General Motors Corporation (CMC) intercity bus is identical in
many respects to their urban transit bus.  The transverse rear engine
           o
drives a 60   Vee-drive transmission.  Motor Coach Industries (MCI)  which
furnishes buses to Greyhound Lines, uses a T-drive arrangement,  which
offers maximum utilization of truck components but results in a long rear
overhang and higher drive axle weight.  Thus a third axle is needed  aft
of the drive axle.  The Eagle International design* circumvents this
problem by means of a drop back axle drive which allows the drive axle
to be under the transmission giving a larger wheelbase than the conven-
tional T-drive arrangement.  Continental Trailways uses Eagle and Bus &
Car Co. buses. These three power train arrangements are shown in Figure
5-12.
     The accepted power source is the Detroit Diesel 8V-71 engine.
Four-speed manual as well as automatic transmissions are available.
     Engine Cooling Systems
     The CMC bus uses an axial flow fan driven directly by the engine
crankshaft.  The radiator is located in the left rear as in the case
of transit buses.
     MCI buses use centrifugal fans located in ducts above the
engine.  There are two radiators with shutters, one on each side of
the bus, and two fans drawing air in through the radiator and discharg-
ing it over the engine.  The fans are driven from a gear-box located
between them and driven by a belt from the engine crankshaft.  The
*0riginal design by Bus & Car Co., Belgium.

                                5-75

-------
                   Figure 5-12
              Drive Train Arrangements
                for Intercity Buses
60 V Drive
 T Drive
(Standard)
 T Drive With
Drop-Back Gear
                            5-76

-------
duct between the fan housing and the radiator is sealed off from the

engine compartment to maximize flow through the radiator.  The engine

air cleaner intake is located in the left side radiator opening.  The

relative locations of the system components are shown in Figure 5-13.

     Eagle buses also utilize a longitudinal engine arrangement.  A

standard 8-bladed 28-inch diameter axial flow fan located on the left

side of the bus is used for engine cooling.  The fan is driven off a
  o
90  gearbox located in the rear center of the engine compartment.  A

6-bladed fan/ located on the right side of the engine compartment,

provides air flow through the air conditioning system condenser.  There

is no thermostatic clutch arrangement for the fans.  The layout is shown

in Figure 5-14.

     Exhaust Systems

     The exhaust system arrangement for the CMC intercity bus is similar

to CMC's transit bus.  MCI uses an elliptical horizontal muffler with a

short tail-pipe located in the left rear corner.  The two exhaust pipes

are connected together with a Wye before entering the muffler, as seen in

Figure 5-13.

     Eagle uses a dual horizontal exhaust system with Donaldson MTM-08-5080

mufflers.  These are standard truck-type mufflers.  There are two

tail pipes located symmetrically in the rear, as seen in Figure 5-14.


                                5-77

-------
     Figure 5-13
Layout for MCI Engine
     Compartment
           5-78

-------
        Figure 5-14
Layout of Eagle  (Bus & Car)
      Engine Conpartment
           5-79

-------
     Noise Control Packages

     The noise control study levels and technologies will be similar  to

those for transit buses except in certain cases for MCI coaches.   Moreover,

in the case of intercity buses, turbocharging of the engine appears more

justifiable than was the case with transit buses because of longer

sustained high-speed maximum power operation periods.  The joint DOT-EE&
                                                              24
"Study of Potential for Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement"   has

shown that the following fuel economy improvements may be obtained by

engine improvements in integral intercity buses.

                                   Fuel Economy Improvement
     Turbocharge Diesel                      0-8%
     Derate Horsepower                       2-5%
     Derate rpm                              7-10%

All of the improvements are expected to lower engine noise levels.

     To attain the engine source levels of under 71 dBA, Eagle buses

will need an additional shield between the engine and air-conditioner

condenser opening on the curbside.  Since MCI buses use centrifugal

fans instead of axial flow fans, engine and fan noise will not escape

to the same extent as the transit buses through the radiator opening.

     For the 65 dBA engine source level, the enclosure for MCI buses

will need an outlet near the axle.  The enclosure will cover the  entire

transmission casing.  Additional suction fans may be needed at the en-

closure exit to minimize restriction to air flow through the radiators.

     Exhaust noise reduction packages will be identical to the transit

bus exhaust noise packages.  Differences in the exhaust systems of (MC,
                                5-80

-------
MCI, and Eagle buses were described earlier.  Since all use the Detroit
Diesel 8V-71 engine, the treatments will be similar.  A dual system,
already used by Eagle, will probably offer the most advantages.  The
tail pipes will need to be rerouted to exit at the roof line for all
cases except the 79 dBA level.
     The packages for cooling system noise abatement will be identical
to transit buses except for MCI buses.
     Centrifugal fans which MCI buses already utilize, are inherently
quieter for the same mass flow delivered.  Also, the ducts are amenable
to acoustic treatment to minimize the noise escaping through the radiator
opening.  The air flow velocity is higher, and hence flow noise may
become audible if other sources are quieted.
     Intercity bus radiators are larger than transit bus radiators
because of continous engine operation at high power factors, and heavier
bus loads due to baggage.  However, the percentage changes in radiator
and fan sizes to achieve equivalent noise reductions for intercity and
transit buses will be similar.
     For interior noise abatement, MCI has experimented with treatments
with no conclusive result.  Eagle uses "Sorba-glass" which is a quilted
material with lead sheet between layers of glass fiber and aluminum foil.
In addition, the use of undercoating compounds to damp bulkhead panels
near the engine has been found to be effective.
     Road noise is a problem for highway operations.  To this end, the
baggage compartment under the passenger compartment offers a partial
barrier to tire noise transmitted to the interior.

                                5-81

-------
     Air conditioning system noise, and especially evaporator noise,
may require attention.
     For the achievement of 80 dBA interior rear section noise levels,
redesign of engine mounts and a careful analysis of the vibration trans-
mission paths from the engine to body panels and floor boards will be
required.  If resonant vibrations are present in the panels, damping
treatment will be beneficial.  Otherwise, sound radiation to interior
can be minimized by covering the interior surfaces with a limp heavy
acoustic material such as lead/vinyl sheeting.  This will impose a
weight penalty which may be critical if legal restrictions on axle
loading exist.  The floor boards may need sandwich construction with
an isolating layer of soft rubber between two boards.
     Another approach to interior noise reduction would be to isolate
the rear section body panels from the main integral body framework.
This would mean a major redesign of the entire structure if these
panels were initially designed as load-bearing members.
     The addition of sound absorbing linings in the interior, such as
pile carpeting and acoustic  (and thermal) insulation on the roof, will
minimize reverberation and ensure low front seat noise levels.
     The 78 dBA interior noise level at the rear seat for the 75 dBA
exterior noise level bus will be attained since the engine will be more
carefully isolated and completely encapsulated.

                                5-82

-------
             DEGRADATION OF NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY



     The noise abatement methods described in Section 5 are based on



existing noise control techniques for the lowering of noise emitted



by currently designed buses.  Many of these methods have been demon-



strated on prototype trucks and transit buses, while some of the



technology discussed (fan clutches, improved slower turning fans) has



been incorporated into production model vehicles.  The durability of



these noise control technologies are of particular interest to the EPA.



If individual noise control components are not durable, total vehicle



noise emission characteristics may degrade (increase in measured vehicle



sound level) early after introduction into service.  Such an increase in



noise level could significantly reduce the benefits expected as a result



of noise emission standards applicable at time of vehicle manufacture..



Thus, the Agency has considered in its technology assessment studies of



acoustical degradation potential of the total vehicle and its noise



control components.  The following is a general discussion of EPA's



findings on acoustical degradation as it applies to bus noise control



technology.



     (1)  Engine Noise Control Degradation



     Engine-mounted shields have been thoroughly tested by several diesel



engine manufacturers, such as Cummins Engine, General Motors, Detroit



Diesel Allison, and Catepillar.  Degradation normally only occurs if



the panels are worked loose by vibration or if the acoustical materials



become saturated with oil.



     Based on the above experience, engine side shields on conventional



school buses, which have been integrated into the engine cowl, can



                                   5-83

-------
reduce the accessibility of the engine to servicing.  As a result;



during servicing, care should be taken to avoid damage to the panels



from mechanic's tools, oil contamination and excessive vibration which



may loosen the shields themselves or the panels upon which they are



attached.



     The use of belly pans on various types of heavy vehicles has



been unpopular with maintenance personnel because the pans can



collect oil, reduce engine accessibility from under the vehicle, and



are easily damaged by road hazards.  However, rapid detachment systems



have been developed which have improved accessability for maintenance.



     The removal of belly pans, when they have been designed specifically



for constant use on a vehicle, can cause certain vehicle systems not to



operate efficiently.  For example, a cooling system designed for efficient



operation with belly pans in place may suffer if the pan is permanently



removed, since the air flow route through the engine compartment will be



changed.  Increased air flow rates through the radiator, brought about



by the permanent removal of the pan, may not be advisable, especially



for diesel engines which are used in colder climates without radiator



shutters.



     Degradation of noise levels from vehicles with totally encapsuated



engine compartments is unlikely if the shielding around the engine is



properly assembled.



     (2)  Exhaust Noise Control Degradation



     If manufactured with comparable materials, the improved types of



mufflers, discussed in this section, should not deteriorate faster than



those mufflers being presently produced.



                                 5-84

-------
     (3)  Cooling System Noise Degradation

     Fans clutches and on/off fan devices are somewhat complicated

devices which can malfunction due to mechanical failure or failure of

the heat sensing elements.  Any malfunction which causes the fan to be

on when not needed will result in higher average fan noise levels across

a vehicle's work cycle.



     In conclusion, degradation appears to be a potential problem only

in the case of engine noise abatement measures.  However, with proper

component design and maintenance procedures which incorporate checks on

critical noise abatement devices, degradation if any, should be kept to

a minimum.  In support of this contention, the maxmium change in the

noise levels of four International Harvester (DOT) Quiet Trucks during

an average mileage of 157,000 miles was 2 dBA, with the final level of
                                                21
all the trucks within 1 dBA of the initial level.   This fact implies

that with the technology applied to these vehicles there were no signi-

ficant noise level changes in the noise emissions from the various

components during that mileage period.
                                 5-85

-------
                       REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1.  Kevala, R. J., Manning,  J.  E.  and Lyon,  R.  H.,  "Noise Control
    Handbook for Diesel Powered Vehicles," prepared for  the U.S.
    Department of Transportation,  1975.   NTIS No. PB 2 6-382/AS.
2.  Warnix, J. L. and Sharp,  Ben H.,  "Cost Effectiveness Study of
    Major Sources of Noise, Volume IV - Buses," Wyle Research  Report
    WR-73-10, prepared for the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and
    Control, April 1974.
3.  "Background Document for Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Regulations,"
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  March 1976.
4.  Jenkins, S. H. and Kuehner,  H.K.,  "Diesel Engine Noise Reduction
    Hardware for Vehicle Noise Control,"  SAE Paper No  73-681,  Combined
    Vehicle Engineering and Operations and Powerplant  Meetings,  Chicago
    Illinois, June 1973.
5.  Priede, T., "Noise Due to Combustion in Reciprocating Internal
    Combustion Engines," The Institute of Sound and Vibration Research,
    Southampton University.
6.  Staadt, Richard L., "Truck Noise Control,"  SAE Special Publication
    386.
7.  "Diesel Engine Noise," SAE Special Publication SP-397,  November  1975.
8.  "Sound Attenuation Kit for Diesel Powered Buses,"  submitted by Rohr
    Industries to the U.S. Department of Transportation,  Report RII-SAK-
    402-0101, February 1975.
9.  Dunlap, T. A. and Halvorsen,  W.  G.,  "Transmission Noise Reduction,"
    SAE Paper No. 720735, 1972.
                               5-86

-------
10.  "Noise Control Retrofit of Pre-1970 General Motors Trucks and
     Coaches," Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-75, U.S.  Department of Trans-
     portation, Office of the Secretary, Washington,  B.C., October 1975.


11.  Correspondence, Flxible Co. to Booz Allen Applied Research, dated
     November 26, 1975.


12.  Hunt, R. E., Kirkland, K. C. and Ryele,  S.P.,  "Diesel Engine
     Exhaust and Air Intake Noise," Truck Noise IVA,  Report No. DOT-
     TSC-OST-12, prepared for the U.S. Department of  Transportation,
     July 1973.


13.  Ratering, E.G., written response to questions  submitted by Booz,
     Allen & Hamilton, dated January 23, 1976.


14.  Shrader, J.T. and Page, W.H., "The Reduction of  Cooling System
     Noise on Heavy Duty Trucks," Truck Noise IV-C, Report No. DOT-
     TST-74-22, prepared for the U.S Department of  Transportation, 1974.


15.  Bender, E. K. and Kaye, M. C., "Field Test of  Freightliner Quieted
     Truck," Truck Noise III-G, Report No. DOT-TST-76-29, prepared for
     the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1975.


16.  "Noise Control Retrofit of Pre-1970 General Motors Trucks and Coaches,"
     Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Noise
     Abatement, October 1975.


17.  Law, R. M., "Diesel Engine and Highway Truck Noise Reduction,"
     SAE Paper No. 730240, 1973.


18.  Mills, C. H. G., "Noise Emitted by Coasting Vehicles," MIRA
     Bulletin No. 3, May/June 1970.


19.  Johnston, Laird E., "Technical Capabilities Relative to Truck
     Noise Reduction," Proceedings of the Conference  on Motor Vehicle
     Noise, GM Desert Proving Ground, April 3-4, 1973.
                               5-87

-------
20.  Noise and Vibration Control,  edited by L.  L.  Beranek,  McGraw Hill,
     1971.
21.  Shrader, J.  T.,  "Truck Noise-IV G-Field Test Results on a Heavy
     Duty, Diesel Truck Having Reduced Noise Emissions,"  prepared for
     the U.S. Department of Transportation,  Office of Noise Abatement,
     December 1975.
22.  Dunlap, T.A. and Halvorsen,  W.G.,  "Transmission Noise Reduction,"
     SAE Paper No. 720735,  National Combined Farm,  Construction &
     Industrial Machinery and Powerplant Meetings,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,
     September 11-14, 1972.
23.  Baker, R.N., "Development of Noise Reduction Kits for the U.S.
     Army 10,000 Ib. Rough Terrain Forklift Truck,"  prepared for U.S.
     Army MERDC, June 1974.
24.  "Study of Potential for Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement,"
     Truck and Bus Panel Report,  prepared by the U.S Department of
     Transportation and the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Jcxnuary 10, 1975.
25.  "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement," Draft
     Final Report submitted by Booz-Allen Applied Research under EPA
     Contract No. 68-01-3509, prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement
     and Control, June 22, 1976.
                                5-88

-------
                               SECTION 6
              POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF BUS NOISE REGULATION
                     SCHEDULES ON THE ENVIRONMENT
6.0     INTRODUCTION
        Pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA) has proposed noise emission regulations on newly
manufactured buses (EE).  The proposed regulations specify levels not to
be exceeded as measured according to a modified SAE J366b test procedure,
and are intended to control all contributing components of bus noise.
In the analysis of this section, predictions of the potential health and
welfare benefits for a range of possible regulatory schedules of new bus
noise emissions are presented.
        Because of inherent differences in individual responses to noise,
the wide range of traffic situations and environments encountered, and
the complexity of the associated noise fields, it is not possible to
examine all traffic situations precisely.  Hence, in this predictive
analysis, certain stated assumptions have been made to approximate typical
or average situations.  The approach taken to determine the benefits
associated with the noise regulation is, therefore, statistical in that
an effort is made to determine the order of magnitude of the population
that may be affected for each regulatory option.  Some uncertainties
with respect to individual cases or situations may remain.
                                 6-1

-------
6.1     HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS OF BUS NOISE REGULATION



6.1.1   Measures of Benefits to Public Health and Welfare



        The phrase "public health and welfare," as used here, includes



personal comfort and well-being as well as the absence of clinical



symptoms such as hearing damage.  People are exposed to bus noise in a



variety of situations.  Some examples are:



        1.   Inside a home or office



        2.   Around the home (outside)



        3.   As a pedestrian



        4.   As a bus operator



        5.   As a bus passenger



Reducing exterior noise emitted by buses should produce the following



benefits:



        1.   Reduction in average traffic noise levels and associated



             cumulative long-term impact upon the exposed population.



        2.   Fewer activities disrupted by individual  (single-event)



             passby noise.



        Furthermore, the reduction of noise levels inside buses should



result in reduced annoyance in terms of less interference with speech



communication, and reduced potential hearing damage risk to bus operators



and passengers in combination with non-bus noise exposures.



        Predictions of vehicle noise levels under various regulatory



schedules are presented in terms of the noise levels associated with



typical vehicle passbys.  These noise levels are weighted according to



traffic populations or mixes before averaging to determine traffic noise



levels.  Reductions in average traffic noise levels from current condi-



tions  (i.e., with no noise emission regulations) are presented for 15





                                   6-2

-------
regulatory options on new buses both with and without noise emission



regulations on other traffic noise sources.  Projections of the popula-



tion impacted as well as the relative reductions in impact from current



conditions are determined from reductions in average traffic noise levels.



        The average noise level for traffic does not adequately describe



the annoyance produced by a single bus passby for all situations since



annoyance frequently depends on the activity and location of the indi-



vidual.  In addition, the average noise level tends to average out the



disruptive and annoying peak noise level produced by a single bus passby.



As an additional measure of benefits, therefore, the undesirable effects



of intruding bus passby noise levels are evaluated in terms of sleep



disturbance, sleep awakening and speech interference.



6.1.2   Regulatory Schedules



        This analysis predicts the impact of the reduction of bus noise



based upon the exterior and interior regulatory schedules shown in Tables



6-1 and 6-2.  For predictions of health and welfare benefits with concur-



rent reductions in future emissions from new automobiles and motorcycles,



an effective date for the regulations of January 1979 is assumed.  For



predictions of benefits concurrent with the regulation of new medium and



heavy duty trucks, effective dates of January 1978 for the limit of 83 dBA,



and January 1980 for the limit of 80 dBA are used.  It should be noted



that regulatory schedule 15 for both exterior and interior bus noise were



examined in order to determine the maximum benefits achievable with the



virtual elimination of bus noise.  Both schedule 15's are not under con-



sideration as a noise limit for newly manufactured buses.
                                  6-3

-------
                             Table 6-1
Exter ior
Regulatory
Schedule

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Regulatory Schedules Considered
in the Health and Welfare Analysis of
Exterior Bus Noise

Not To Exceed Regulatory Level for All
Bus Types Unless Noted, (dBA)
Calendar Year
1979
-
83
-
-
-
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
55
1981
-
-
83
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
55
1983
-
-
-
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
55
1984
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
-
-
-
78
55
1985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
78
77
77
-
-
-
55
1986
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75
7h>
75
55
(1)
   Gasoline Powered School buses 73 dBA
                                 6-4

-------
                               Table 6-2


Interior
Regulatory
Schedule




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Regulatory Schedules Considered
in the Health and Welfare Analysis of
Interior Bus Noise



Not To Exceed Regulatory Level for All
Bus Types Unless Noted, (dBA) '
Calendar Year
1979
-
86
84
-
86
86
86
84
86
86
86
86
84
86
55
1981
-
-
-
83
83
83
83
-
-
-
-
83
-
83
55
1983
-
-
-
-
-
80
-
80
84
83
80
-
80
-
55
1984
-
-
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
-
-
80
~ (1)
80
55
1985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80
80
-
-
-
-
55
1986
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
78
78
78(D
78
55
(1)
   Gasoline Powered School buses 75 dBA
                                     6-5

-------
6.1.3   Outline of the Health and Welfare Analysis

        The predictions of the  reduction of the population impacted

within various land use categories due  to the reduction of average

traffic noise levels by regulating buses are contained in Part 6.2.  In

Part 6.3, predictions of relative potential changes in sleep disturbances,

sleep awakenings and speech  interferences,  due to single bus passbys are

estimated for different land uses for each  of the regulatory schedules

under consideration.  Related reductions in interior noise levels and the

resulting potential reduction in hearing damage risk and speech interfer-

ence to bus operators and passengers are presented and discussed in Part

6.4.
               tn
               z.
               0
1UU



 90


 60



 70
ED
s
               i  ^

               O
               !<  %O
                  20
                  10
                      93.4
                                  I"""] URBAN TRAFFIC NOISL

                                  %?/\ FHEC.WAY inAFFIC NOISE
                              59.0
                          4.9
                                      24.3
                                              G.9
                                                     JL^L
60
65
                                               70
                                      75
      Figure 6-1.  Estimated Number  of People in Residential Areas
                   Currently Subjected to Traffic Noise Above L   =55 dB.
                                                                dn
                                     6-6

-------
6,2      REDUCTIONS IN THE IMPACT FROM TRAFFIC NOISE

         Projections of reductions in average traffic passby noise levels

are presented for scenarios of both urban street traffic, where the aver-

age vehicle speed is assumed to be 30 mph} and highway traffic, where the

average vehicle speed is assumed to be 55 mph.  Note that the benefits

accrued from the regulatory schedules considered for new buses will be

less for highway traffic than for urban street traffic for the following

reasons:

        o    The number of people exposed to highway traffic noise is

             less than the number of people exposed to urban street

             traffic noise.

        o    The reductions in traffic noise levels resulting from the

             regulations on new buses will be less in freeway traffic

             than in urban street traffic.

         As depicted in Figure 6-1, the number of people currently

exposed to outdoor noise levels that are greater than L   = 55 dB domi-
                                                       dn
nated by urban street traffic noise is significantly higher than the

number exposed to highway and freeway traffic noise (93.4 million as

opposed to 4.9 million). Thus, reducing urban street traffic noise will

benefit significantly more people than will similar reductions in high-

way traffic noise.

      The bus regulation schedules considered in this analysis are based

on bus noise emission levels measured in accordance with a modified SAE

J366b test procedure.  In the test procedure, bus noise emissions are

measured under maximum acceleration conditions with the bus traveling

at a speed less than 35 mph.  Because, in general, engine-related noise


                                  6-7

-------
emissions increase with engine speed and load, and noise generated by



tires increases with vehicle speed, the test procedure is designed so



that maximum engine-related noise emissions are the dominant noise



sources.  The noise generated by tires under the proposed test conditions



is not expected to be significant.



      At freeway speeds, bus tires contribute significantly to overall



bus passby noise levels.  Therefore, the reduction of engine-related



noise brought about by bus noise regulation will be partially masked



by tire noise in freeway traffic.  Because vehicle speeds are lower



in urban street traffic, tire noise contributes less to overall noise



emissions in urban areas.  Thus, reductions in overall bus noise levels



by lowering engine-related noise emissions will be less affected by



tire noise in urban street areas.



6.2.1   Description of Traffic Noise Impact



        In examining the reduction of traffic noise by regulating



buses, three steps must be followed (Figure 6-2).  First, the average



noise level produced by each type of vehicle is determined.  This



level is the average of the levels produced in each operational mode -



acceleration, deceleration, cruise, and idle which are weighted



according to the proportional time spent in each mode.  In effect, it



is an energy average of the passby levels produced by all vehicles of



a given type during a typical operating cycle.  From the point of view



of the observer, it is an average of the passby levels that would be



measured at random points along the vehicle's route of travel.



        The average passby levels for each vehicle are combined in the



next step to form the average traffic noise level.  This level is





                                6-8

-------
Vehicle
Levels
4-
1*

Present Levels

Regulated Levels
       1 raffle
       Levels
OoeraHonal Data
       Impact
                                Population Data
                                Impact Criteria
   Figure 6-2.   Information Flow Involved  in the
Calculation of the  Impact of Bus Noise  in  Traffic
                         6-9

-------
computed by weighting the average passby level produced by each type

of vehicle by its relative frequency in typical traffic mixes.  Composite

passby levels are determined for operation on both streets and free-

ways based on the different passby levels and proportions of vehicles

involved in each case.

        The final step in determining traffic noise impact of which

buses are a component, utilizes a measure that condenses the infor-

mation contained in the noise environment into a simple indicator of

quantity and quality of noise which correlates well with the overall
                                                           34
long-term effects of noise on the public health and welfare.   This

measure was adopted as a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, which

required that EPA present information on noise levels that are "requisite

to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin

of safety".  EPA has chosen the equivalent level in decibels L   as its
                                        8                     ^
general measure for environmental noise;  its basic definition is:
                     	      	                          (1)
    -eq   ""  XIJM"
where  (^2 - t-j_) is the interval of time over which the levels are

evaluated, P(t) is the time-varying magnitude of the sound pressure, and

P  is a reference pressure standardized at 20 micropascals.

        When expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level, LA,  the

equivalent A-weighted sound level, L__, is defined as:
   Leq =  10
                                6-10

-------
        In describing the impact of noise on people, a measure called

the day-night average sound level (L^) is used.  This is a 24-hour measure

with a weighting applied to nighttime noise levels to account for the

increased sensitivity of people to intruding noise associated with the

decrease in background noise levels at night.  The L^ is defined as

the equivalent noise level during a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB

weighting applied to the equivalent noise level during the nighttime

hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.  This may be expressed by the following

equation:
    Ldn = 10
15
             J+9
10(Ln+10)/10
(3)
where Ld is the "daytime" equivalent level obtained between 7 a.m.

and 10 p.m. , and L^ is the "nighttime" equivalent level obtained

between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

        In order to assess the impact of traffic noise, a relation

between the changes in traffic noise and the responses of the people

exposed to the noise is needed.  The responses may vary depending upon

previous exposure, age, socio-economic status, political cohesiveness,

and other social variables.  In the aggregate, however, for residen-

tial locations, the average response of groups of people is related

to cumulative noise exposure as expressed in a measure such as L^.

For example, the different forms of response to noise such as hearing

damage, speech or other activity interference, and annoyance were
                                                8
related to I   or L^ in the EPA Levels Document.  For the purposes
of this part of the study, criteria based on L-,  presented in the
                                6-11

-------
EPA Levels Document are used.  Furthermore, it is assumed that if the

outdoor level meets L^  55 dB, which is identified in the EPA Levels

Document as requisite to protect the public health and welfare, no adverse

impact in terms of general  annoyance and community response exists.

        The community reaction data presented in Appendix D of the
                   8
EPA Levels Document  show that the expected reaction to an identifiable

source of intruding noise changes from "none" to "vigorous" when the day-

night average sound level increases from 5 dB below the level existing

without the presence of the intruding noise to 19.5 dB above the level

before intrusion.  For this reason, a level which is 20 dB above L   =

55 dB is considered to result in a maximum impact on the people exposed.

Such a change in level would increase the percentage of the population
                                                                     8
which is highly annoyed to 40 percent of the total exposed population.

Furthermore, the data in the Levels Document suggest that for environ-

mental noise levels which are intermediate between 0 and 20 dB above

L   = 55 dB the impact varies linearly, that is, a 5 dB excess (L^ =

60 dB) constitutes a 25 percent impact, and a 10 dB (L,  = 65 dB)

constitutes a 50 percent impact.

        For convenience of calculation, percentages of impact may

be expressed as fractional impact (FI).  An FI of 1.0 represents an

impact of 100 percent, in accordance with the following formula:
             FI = <
                     0.5(L-55) for L > 55
                               for L < 55
(4)
                                6-12

-------
where L is the observed or measured L,  for the environmental noise.
                                     on


Note that FI can exceed unity for exposures greater than L,  =75.



        The impact of traffic noise may be described in terms of exten-



siveness (the number of people impacted) and intensiveness (the severity



of impact).  The fractional impact method accounts for both the extent



and severity of impact.



        The Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI) associated with a given level



of traffic noise (L-,1) may be assessed by multiplying the number of



people exposed to that level of traffic noise by the fractional impact



associated with this level as follows:
             ENI1 = (FI.) P.                                         (5)
where ENI1 is the magnitude of the impact on the population exposed to



traffic noise L x and is numerically equal to the number of people who



would all have a fractional impact equal to unity (100 percent impacted).



FI. is the fractional impact associated with an equivalent traffic noise



level of L-,   and P. is the population exposed to that level of traffic



noise.  To illustrate this concept, if there are 1,000 people living in



an area where the noise level exceeds the criterion level by 5 dB (and



thus are considered to be 25 percent impacted, FI = 0.25), the environ-



mental noise impact for this group is the same as the impact on 250 people



who are 100 percent impacted, FI = 1.0 (1000 x 0.25 = 250 x 1.0).



        When assessing the total impact associated with traffic noise, the



observed levels of noise decrease as the distance between the source and



receiver increases.  The magnitude of the total impact may be computed by



determining the partial impact at each level and summing over each of the
                                6-13

-------
levels.  The total impact is given in terms of the equivalent number of



people impacted by the following formula:



             ENI  = I   P    '  FI                                  (6)

                      i  i       i



                                                     i
where FI. is the fractional impact associated with L^ and P^ is the



population associated with L^.  In this analysis, the mid-level of each

                                                      i
5 dB sector of levels above L^ = 55 dB is used for L^ in computing ENI.
        The change in impact associated with regulations on the noise



emissions from traffic vehicles may be assessed by comparing the magni-



tude of the impacts with and without regulations.  One useful measure



is the percent reduction in impact ( A) , which is calculated from the



following expression:





            A = 100 ENI (before) - ENI (after)                      (7)


                           ENI (before)



        The population figures  (P.) in Eq  (5) for urban street traffic



are based on a survey in which the total population exposed to outdoor



noise of L ,  above 55 dB was estimated from measurements taken at 100
          dn                      12


sites throughout the United States.   The  sites were selected far enough



from freeway traffic and airports so that  these sources of noise were



not significant contributors to the measured outdoor noise levels.  Thus,



urban street traffic was a dominant source of noise for each of the survey



sites.  The results from this study are given in Table 6-3.



        Using the data contained in Table  6-3, an ENI for existing



traffic conditions (without noise regulation of medium and heavy trucks)



of 34.6 million is calculated as shown in  Table 6-4.
                                   6-14

-------
                           Table  6-3
Distribution of Urban Population at or Greater Than a Specified L ,
12
Ldn
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
t
Cumulative
Number of People
(Millions)
134.09
133.94
133.76
133.46v
132.99
132.34
131.46
130.37
129.04
127.53
125.87
124.09
122.19
120.15
117.98
115.64.
113.01
110,12
106.80
102.98
98.544
93.427
87.665
81.237
74.222

Ldn
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Cumulative
Number of People
(Millions)
66.738
58.997
51.234
43.668
36.542
30.061
24.320
19.352
15.200
11.791
9.046
6.853
5.155
3.826
2.776
1.963
K347
0.889
0.559
.332
.187
.093
..039
.012
.002
.0
                            6-15

-------
i
Si
 0>

!
10
           c
           IP
                  Q)
                        t.
                        W

                        I
                        rH
                        3
*c
 IO
                          O
                   .-i
                   
O
I
ID
r~
o
oo
                     6-16

-------
     The ENI values associated with reductions in the average urban


street traffic noise levels are predicted by shifting (reducing) the


values of L   in Table 6-3 by the traffic noise reduction of interest
           dn

and performing computations similar to those shown in Table 6-4.  In


following this procedure for estimating ENI, it is assumed that:  (1)


reductions in urban street traffic noise levels produce equal reductions


in the L^ for the outdoor noise, and (2) the population in urban areas


will remain constant until the year 2000.  The latter assumption is made


for convenience only.  It does not affect the relative effectiveness


of the study regulation schedules.  If population increases are somewhat


homogeneous within urban land use areas, only the absolute number of


people impacted will be different from the estimates.  Furthermore, the


actual numbers can be approximated by multiplying the ENI estimated for a


given year by the fractional increase of population expected to occur in


that year.


     While the exact value of present or future ENI's may not be known


precisely, the relative reduction of the ENI due to noise regulationsof


primary interest hereare known with much greater accuracy than the


absolute value of the ENI since the changes in the theoretical components


of ENI can be well defined.  For instance, it may not be possible to


determine whether the present estimated ENI due to urban street traffic


noise, an absolute value, is actually 0.1 million too high.  However, it


is possible to determine, for example, that the regulation of diesel-


powered school buses will not reduce the ENI by more than 0.1 million


(see Part 6.2.3 below).  Extensive investigation of such small changes may


seem innocuous if it is not kept in mind that, although buses represent



                                6-17

-------
only a small part of traffic in the United States, their impacts may be
considerable when measured by metrics other than ENI.  Thus, the changes
found to occur in ENI may help indicate what equivalent changes would
occur in impact measures which are not used in this analysis but whose
absolute values may reflect more accurately the effects of bus noise on
people.
        As discussed above, the concept of fractional impact, expressed
in units of ENl, is most useful for describing relative changes in
impact from a specified baseline for the purpose of comparing benefits
of alternative regulatory schedules.  In order to assess the absolute
impact or benefits correspnding to any regulatory schedule, information
on the distribution of population as a function of noise environment
is required.  This information is included in this section and in
Appendix F in the form of graphs showing the number of people exposed
to different levels of traffic and/or bus noise.  The anticipated
absolute impact of noise upon those individuals exposed to any given
noise level may be traced by referring to the various noise effects
                                         8
criteria presented in the Levels Document  as well as in this analysis
(see Figures 6-16, 6-17, 6-18 and 6-19).
6.2.2   Urban Street and Highway Traffic Noise
        Two steps are employed to predict average noise levels from both
urban street and highway traffic.  First, an energy average is taken of
the noise emissions from several passbys of each type of noise source.
Next, the average traffic noise level is then computed by energy averaging
the derived passby levels for each vehicular source, after appropriate
weighting for the proportion of each type of vehicle in the traffic flow.

                                  6-18

-------
6.2.3   Vehicle Noise Levels in Urban Street and Highway Traffic



        The following noise sources are considered  in modeling urban  street



and highway traffic noise:



        o    Automobile and motorcycle noise emissions  that are unregu-



             lated and regulated  (assumed).



        o    Medium and heavy truck noise emissions that are unregulated



             and regulated.



        For a sample of instantaneous noise levels  observed at equally



spaced time intervals that has a normal (Gaussian)  distribution, the


                                                                         58

energy-average of the noise levels over time (see equation 1) is given by:




                            Leq = L50 + 0.115 ^T2                    (8)




where LCQ is the median noise level and o~T is the standard deviation.


It is assumed that the distribution of roadside passby  noise levels for



each type of vehicle is approximated by a. normal  (Gaussian) distribution



and that there is a steady stream of closely spaced passbys.  This assump-



tion permits calculation of the energy-average of the passby noise levels



from median passby noise levels in a manner similar to  the computation of



L   in Equation 8; that is




                           La = L5Q + O.llScr2                       (9)




where L  is the energy-average of the passby levels, LKn is the median
       3                                              DU

level and cr  is the standard deviation of vehicle passby noise levels.  As



Equation 9 demonstrates, vehicle passby noise depends on both median  level



and the variability of these levels.  The average passby noise levels



assumed to be produced by trucks, automobiles and motorcycles are shown



in Table 6-5 along with the references from which they  were derived.





                                    6-19

-------
                Table 6-5



Passby Noise Levels for Non Bus Vehicles
Type of Vehicle
9
Medium and Heavy Trucks
(a) Unregulated
(b) EPA New Truck
Regulations
9
Automobiles
(a) Unregulated
(b) Assumed Regulation
Motorcycles
(a) Unregulated
- (b) Assumed Regulation
Urban Street
dBA
L50

85.0
74.6

65.0
61.0

76.0
72.0
cr

3.7
2.0

3.7
2.0

2.9
2.9
La

86.6
75.1

66.6
61.5

77.0
73.0
Highway
dBA
L50

85.5
81.7

75.0
71.0

80.6
76.5
or

3.5
2.0

3.5
2.0

2.8
2.8
La

86.9
82.2

76.4
71.5

81.5
77.5
                    6-20

-------
6.2.4    Bus Noise Levels



6.2.4.1  Levels for Unregulated jBuses



         Bus passby noise levels are presented in Table 6-6.  Bus



interior noise levels as measured near the driver and the rear seat are



presented in Tables 6-7 and 6-8.



         Most of the bus noise research conducted to date has dealt with



only one bus type; transit buses.  Thus, measurements have been made under



many operational conditionsacceleration, deceleration, cruise, passby,



etc.  These measurements, when combined with the estimated percent of



time spent in each mode (Table 6-9), allow the computation of an energy



average noise level over a typical drive cycle.  Where similar data was



found to be unavailable for particular operational modes of school and



intercity buses, levels were estimated as follows:  The arithmetic dif-



ference between the acceleration level and each other operational mode



level was computed for transit buses.  This difference was then applied to



the acceleration levels of the other bus types to derive their remaining



operational levels.  The method was used in both the exterior and interior



cases.  The measurement procedure used for obtaining most of the available



acceleration test level data is similar to one developed by the Society of



Automotive Engineers (SAE).  The EPA proposed measurement procedures for



interior and exterior bus noise emissions are described in Section 8.



6.2.4.2  Levels for Regulated Buses



         Vehicles which initially do not meet regulatory limits may be



modified in a variety of ways in order to do so.  It is expected that



in order to comply with a given regulation, manufacturers will design



new vehicles to produce noise levels about 2.5 to 3 dB lower than the





                                    6-21

-------








flj
EH
CO
3
(Q
"8 f
CU O
rO S3
 CO
CO
rH 0)
ll
4J m
CO rH
VO C"^ r^
1 CU
VO >i Ui
CQ 0)
CU MH
rH U) CU
s -a*
PH ^ 
as

8U
H 4J
O fl3
2* Q
N 
i
CQ
l-i
.3
CU

X
w










CU -K
en CQ
a! -
> rH
^
>i CU
V-l
CU ^i
C JQ
m
CM





8
CO
i-H
CU

a
(JQ
w
nj
OM

es
'9
m
s
g
Q
&4
o
m






^
p
o>
H
rc




$
ii
en

CU
rH
rH


8
H
3
l-i
U

C
-S
i^
CU
rH
CU
fl^
Q



t
m
m





<"]
&
o
m







rH
"M
CU
CU
CJ

<


a>
ft
E^

CO
3



m
m





m
r~



VD VO
VO ^3



00 00
r~ r-






CN
1 CN
o r~







ro
To
VO 00
r-




cu

s cu
4->
H
CO

k-4
E-"

n
in
t-





m
r>


vo
VO VO


in ^^
CO 00
AC:
****


K
*
*
00 *-
r- CN
1 r^^
CN *-*
^.^




m
m

T
J*ii




cu
fc
CQ
g
K
i^ 'MH
O *
B i*
O *o
C/i *^

iH
CD
00





m
pi


5;
vo vo
^D VO

^
m
(N
OO CO
p*fc


m

CN
r~ ir>
1 r^
oo







VO
Ss
00




0)
fc
fu
s
H
o
U

c
M

IB
w
3
S
u
&
(0
(L)
^^ _ 1
Mtl
8 CU
C r~^
O 'ro
r*t
 ^
0) Cu
H 
^.ss
 fn ^3 'O
 C C t3
VO U4 (Q
CU  5
rH **H
jQ i-H  rH 4-)
CU C
E E CU CU
4-) v^ CZ *5
4H (1) QI
BTJ fee
a > *cu'M
QJ *^ PM (0
03 Vj | ^
03 fl) C fO
Cp O 
-------
















s
rH
9
EH











3
C
O
H
4J
m
V4
I
>1 
CQ 4J
U g
(U
> en
H CO
U (V
a .H
jG Ui
Id co a>
co >a u
rH C (1)
 rH
< a
OJ >.
w co
ro
fV[





Q
i
a

1
CO
iH
!>
5
fl)
UJ

I
1
3
s





s
I
H
tc

Q)
^5
v^
4J
OT

a>
T3
M


I
3
U

C
rH
(U
8
S



m
m





CO



g
3
^
0)
1-1
8

Q,
H
U)


CO
in



CM
in
p~

vo

vo vo


CO
r-
VO CO
r r-





p- ?





H TO C
co cm

fl

CO
m
CO



00
pj
p^

^ ^
O VO
JL^"
m
K
*
* ^~
cp >-
^^
p-


55
00 00




m

6-23

-------
0)
       tt)
K
CQ
Q) TJ
01
JO .
i^j |_>j

rH
a

cu
co
H
3
i-i
U

tS

c
o
ll
^0
-i
i
Q








m
m





o





C
O

J
V-l
CU

"8
&
EH
CO
D
CQ

CO

,_i
00


V>
rH
00



^0
rH
VO VD



p^.
rH
in
00 ^3*
1 CO
ro
00


r~
rH
oo m
1 00
H
OO








0
T^
o oo
oo

H rn c
w cm
C (Q Qi
ft K S
l-i
EH

CO
*
0
00


m
r-
t-

ro
*,
vo
^*
00
r~ ^<
1 r-
m
vo
00
cs
ro
00
1 

vo oo

x.^

K
*
O O
00 00
u-r ~
in






ro
"^r
T M
r- oo
r-
*
K 0)
rH  > Ol C
O  C fO
rj > PH si
O nJ
U) ^"

CN
%
in



rH
-^
[*^


[^
rH
CS
r- oo
I *>o
vo




00
r^ in
I f*
ro
r-

in^ $
CN ^4"
" ^ro
00
I
VD




^*
m
^r N
T^^f
^
o r^

4J
U rri c
v^ C fo
(D (rt qj
^j ^^ *y|
M
                                                                                 o
                                                                                    O
                                         6-24

-------
                     Table 6-9
   Percentage of Time Spent in Each Operational Mode By
               Buses on Streets and Highways

           (Data from Reference 15 Unless Noted)
Bus Type
Transit
Street
Highway
School
Street
Highway
Intercity
Street*
Highway
Operational Mode
Acceleration

20
5

9
5

13
5
Deceleration

20
5

9
5

17
5
Cruise

26
85

21
85

56
85
Idle

34
5

61
5

14
5
*Data based on typical urban street cycle for automobiles,
 Reference 33.
                         6-25

-------
regulatory limit (see Section 5, Bus Noise Reduction Technology).  This



design level may be assumed to be the mean of what is actually a distri-



bution of noise levels for the redesigned buses.  Since it is expected



that nearly all redesigned buses will comply with the regulation, the



upper tail of the distribution is assumed to terminate at the regulatory



limit.  Thus all new production vehicles not initially complying with



a regulation are assumed to be redistributed in a normal distribution



with a width of 5 dB centered 2.5 dB below the regulatory limit (see



Figure 6-3).



        By changing the distribution of new vehicle noise levels with



the implanentation of noise regulations, the fleet-average acceleration



test level is reduced over time as more and more old unregulated vehicles



are replaced by new regulated ones.  Furthermore, regulating the noise



emissions from new vehicles lowers the median and average noise levels



as well as the variability of the noise levels within each vehicle class.



This is true because all the vehicles within each class are subject to



the same regulatory level, which tends to decrease the spread in noise



levels across all classes (see Figure 6-3).



        For simplicity, the reduction of acceleration test levels can be



assumed to result in equal reductions in the noise levels produced by



buses under actual accelerating conditions.  Actual reductions may be



somewhat smaller, but since data is not available to estimate how much



smaller, the reductions are assumed to be equal.  The actual reduction



in noise levels produced under deceleration and cruise conditions can



be estimated, however, from measured data.  Figure 6-4 demonstrates the



relationship between acceleration test levels and 30 mph cruise levels



that buses are expected to produce under regulatory conditions.  Since





                                 6-26

-------
   25
'I 20
 o
I
 I 15
Z
   10
 o
 cu
    0
   Old Complying
   Vehicles
Newly Complying
Vehicles
                              Not-to-Exceed Limit for
                              New Vehicles, 83 dB
      70   72
       74
                                        Would-be
                                        Violators
76    78    80    82    84
 Acceleration Test Level (dB)
90
      Figure 6-3.
           Illustrative Example of Redistribution
           of New Vehicles  Previously  Exceeding
           Regulatory Limit
                                6-27

-------
        90
 u
CD
-O
fl)
 a
a.
 E
 i
 a>
 wi

 L
U

 a.

o
CO
         85
80
75
      Interioi
   (near engine)
         70
          70
                                          Lcr-67LAcc+23
                                                 Exterior
                                                   (50ft)
               75
80
85
90
                       Acceleration Test Level,  dB  (L\cc)
       Figure  6-4.
            Average Relationship  Between 30 mph Cruise
            Maximum Passby Level  and Acceleration  Test
            Level  for Interior  and  Exterior Measure-
            ments  of All Types  of Buses
                                 6-28

-------
variations from this curve for different  types of  buses are extremely


small, the average curve is plotted and used  for all  bus types.   Figure


6-4 is also used to find the reduction in deceleration levels.   Noise


levels produced under  idling conditions are not expected to be  affected


by regulation of acceleration noise.


        The reduction  of cruise levels at high speed  (55 mph) is less


than what can be obtained at low speed due to the  fact that tire noise


creates a lower limit  on the cruise-by noise  level.   This lower  limit


is the "coast-by" or chassis noise levelthe noise level measured when


the bus coasts by the  measuring point with its engine off.  This level


has been measured for  twelve newly manufactured intercity buses  at an
                           42, 54
average of 75 dB at 50 feet.       Assuming the same  level is valid for


transit buses, the reduction of cruise levels at high speed can be esti-


mated by applying the  same reduction to the engine component of  the high


speed levels as was presented in Figure 6-4 for low speed noise, and adding


the result to the tire noise floor.  The  result is shown in Figure 6-5.
              80
         co >
         r-l (U
         3 iJ
         M
         O >,
           JZ
         JS CO
         P. CD
         & cd
           P-i
           H
             70
                                         Inter-city x_
                10         8         6          4          2

                     Reduction  in  Acceleration Test Level, dBA


Figure 6-5.  Relationship  Between  55 mph Cruise Maximum Passby Level
             and Reduction in Acceleration Test Level  Measured
             at 50 Feet for Transit and Intercity Buses
                                   6-29

-------
6.2.5   Traffic Noise Levels

        Traffic noise levels at observer locations obviously depend on

the traffic settings and geometry.  People living downtown may find that

a nearby high-rise completely blocks noise generated by a thoroughfare

located on the opposite side.  On the other hand, buildings may enhance

the reverberation of traffic noise such that the resulting levels are

higher than what would occur in a rural setting devoid of barriers.  In

addition to propagation factors, different traffic may have different

mixes of vehicles in the traffic flow, different average speeds, etc.,

each giving rise to different average traffic noise levels and, thus, to

different degrees of impact.  To simplify the variety of cases in the

following analysis, the impact of traffic noise, and the contribution of

buses to that impact, is examined within four land use areas:  high den-

sity urban; low density urban; suburban; and rural; as well as the total

urban case which is the summation of the high density urban, low density

urban, and suburban land use areas.  In the urban and suburban land use

areas, the assessment is further divided into street and highway settings.

In rural areas, only highway and other main-road traffic are considered

for bus noise impact.  Transit buses are assumed to operate in the urban

and suburban areas only, intercity buses and school buses are assumed to

operate in all four land use areas.

        The estimated average mix of trucks, automobiles, motorcycles,

and buses within urban and rural traffic settings is shown in Table 6-10.

The estimates are primarily based on the number of vehicle miles traveled
                1                      19
by each bus type  and by other vehicles.    By using these traffic mixes

to weight the contribution of passby levels for each traffic vehicle within


                                  6-30

-------
O
rH

 I



 0)
rH

,0


H
 (0
 CO
 (U
   m
 CO 3
 O Pi
s
 8-2
 KD
1
I
 10
 u








.3
MH
a
a

p
MH
O
d)
I
s
o









3
1













i
B








H
3s
c 
rH fTQ

1
>,
* -H
i
Q

XS-H

 S
u


3
a
>
ft ?
S
4J
XS -H
S1?



0)
rH
QJ
1

o oo m | ^ | |
in i

rH rH 4J T T -H
HO -H rH O
O X) >1 CO O -i
in o o co CD
j^ e >-i * ia jC -u
Boo * u o C
4J 4J (0 EH U5 M
o
o
o
o
i-H
0
o

0
o
rH
100.00
o
o
0
o
rH

O
0

O
0
rH

O
O
O
O
rH
O
O
O
o
rH

O
0
o
rH



J
1
                                                                                               (0
                                                                                               0)
                                                                                              rH
                                                                                               O
                                                                                              H


                                                                                              I
                                     6-31

-------
the traffic stream (Table 6-5), an average traffic passby level was



computed for each land use area. Noise emission limits on new buses tend



to reduce these average traffic levels. Consequently, changes in urban



street traffic noise levels lead to changes in the distribution of peo-



ple exposed to day-night average sound levels (L^-J .  As depicted in



Figures 6-6 through 6-9, however, the change in the number of people



exposed to various L^ levels is minor for the regulatory schedules con-



sidered.  Figure 6-6 shows the shift expected in the year 2000 between



the "no regulation" case (regulation schedule number 1) and an ideally



protective regulation case (regulation schedule number 15) in high density



urban areas.  Figure 6-7 shows similar but slightly smaller changes in



low density urban areas, and Figure 6-8 displays even smaller changes



in suburban areas.  Figure 6-9 presents the sum of these changes for all



land use areas.



        If noise regulations are applied to non-bus vehicles such as



trucks, there will already be an initial reduction in traffic noise,



depending on the severity of the regulation, the date of its implemen-



tation, and the turnover rate for the vehicle population involved.  In



Appendix F, data  (Tables F-5 through F-7) is presented which were used



to calculate average traffic passby levels for the following three



baseline cases:



        (1)  Regulation of new trucks, automobiles, and motorcycles



        (2)  Regulation of new trucks only



        (3)  No regulation of non-bus vehicles



The reductions of urban street traffic noise estimated by this method



for each land use area are shown in Tables 6-11 through 6-13 for the





                                6-32

-------
                     FIGURE 6-6.
HIGH  DENSITY  URBflN  P0PULRTI0N  VS  OUTDOOR

        TRRFFIC NOISE LEVEL  IN 2000

         WITH  REGULflTION OF  TRUCKS

           RUTOS RND MOTORCYCLES
   a
   a

   a
   o_
   o
   a

   o_
  a


  K
   a
   o

  LlJO-

  -J"3
  0_

  O

  LJ

  n.Q
   a

  LuaJ
  or.
  LU
  QQa
   CM
   a
   a
                                  CJ

                                  O
 REGULRT10N

   1

   15
        55-60   60-65   65-70   70-75   75-80


        DflY-NIGHT RVERRGE SOUND LEVEL (L
                                  ON
 60-85


) .08
                        6-33

-------
                    FIGURE 6-7
L0W  DENSITY URBflN PQPULnTIQN  VS OUTDOOR
       TRPFFIC  NQISE  LEVEL  IN  2000
        WITH REGULRTIQN OF  TRUCKS
           RUTQS  HND MOTORCYCLES
        a
        CJ

        C3
        10-
        0
        a
        *
        a
        a.
        CM
       V)
       o
       tuS.
       _j"
       Q-
       O
       UJa
       Q_a

       U-g.
       ct:
       LU
       CQa
       is-
        a
        a
                            O
                            O
REDULPTIQN

  1
  15
             55-60   5Q-55   B5-7D  70-75

        ORY-NIGHT flVERRGE SOUND LEVEL (L
                                  ON
     ),DB
                     6-34

-------
                FIGURE 6-8
SUBURBRN  PGPULRT1GN  VS OUTDOOR
  TRHFFIC N0ISE LEVEL  IN  2000
   WITH  REGULRTIGN  GF  TRUCKS
     HUTQS HND MOTORCYCLES
     a
     o
      
     0
     O.
     t\
     a
     a
      *
     a
     to.
    in

    O
     D
      +

     a
    UJCM.

    __ l~*

    0_

    CD
    (5300
    UJ
    CDo


    IsJ
     a
     a
                    a
                    o
                      REGULRTION
             15
   DRY-NIGHT
55-60   60-65   65-70

RVERRGE SQUND LEVEL
(LDN),DB
            6-35

-------
                  FIGURE 6-9
o
     URBRN  POPULflTIQN  VS  OUTDOOR
     TRflFFIC NOISE  LEVEL  IN  2000
      WITH -REGULflTIQN  OF  TRUCKS
        RUTQS RNU  MOTORCYCLES
                               3
                                  15
     55-60
50-65
65-70
70-75
75-BO
5Q-S5
      DRY-NIGHT RVERRGE SQUND LEVEL fLON).DB
                  6-36

-------
vo


 0)
r-H
                   8
                   I
               a
               M-) EH




               4J M-l
u C
V O
               H

               4-) W

                   B(0

                   (U
                   c
                   a

                  S
                   w
                         o
                         in
         fi


         s
         CO
         I
          (0

U-l
 OJ



 0)



 0)
         M-l
         O

         g
                   >-j  O 
             LninminininininminLninininin






      o


             inininLnintnininininLninininin







      oo

      r-l

 a)




 mm                                .   .   .   .   .
      oo     rommrorocorororonnroronrr

             rnrororororornrornrnrnrncororo

"ni




             
-------
VO
I
   8
   i-H

   I
   s
   
             -SB
9!
O CO

ga
a
M-i EH


u 0)
EH 2

4J <4-l

$ 

3S
cn
S
J3
l-i
D
   
5
   g-H

 H^
4J CO
                I
                M
                H
                CO
                     o
                     IT)
                     H
                     i
 CO





.^

MH
<4-l



E^




 I
                     s
                     4J
                      B
                              0)
                                   O
                                   o
                                   o
                                   in
                                   oo
                                   ID
                                   oo
                      ro
                      oo

                      iH
                      00
                              W  O 
-------
CO

                     V-l
                     s
                  0)
                  o  
                  H CO
                  M-I .*
                  EH EH
                  4J U-l
                  CO O
                  as
                     to
o
in
4J
 m

e
a
 Q)
 U)
H
t
 CO

                           U-l
                           s
                           
-------
first baseline case.  Reductions in urban street traffic noise rela-



tive to the other baselines are presented in Appendix F  (Table F-7).



Reductions in urban street traffic noise relative to the other two



baselines are presented in Appendix F  (Tables F-8 through F-13).



        From these tables, it should be noted that:



        (1)  Reducing bus noise emissions has little effect on overall



             traffic noise for either urban highways or urban streets.



        (2)  The most stringent regulation schedule considered in



             the analysisa reduction of bus noise to an ideally



             protective level of 55 dB at 50 feet  (regulation sched-



             ule 15)results in a statistical change in the average



             traffic passby level of less than 0.16 dB in the base-



             line case most favorable  for observation of measurable



             differences due to bus regulation, i.e., baseline  (1).



6.2.6   Reduction of Traffic Noise Impact



        The equivalent noise impact in each land use area is calcu-



lated for each regulation schedule and study year by  (1) applying the



traffic noise reduction for the land use to the present distribution



of people living in all urban areas with L^ greater than 55 dB  (Table



6-3), (2)  calculating the new total ENI, and then  (3) taking the same



percent of the ENI as the percent of population contained in the given



land use.  The results obtained by this method are presented in Tables



6-14 through 6-16 for the first baseline case.  Summary  tables show



the  total ENI due to urban street traffic for all urban  land uses  (Table



6-17) and the percent reduction of this total ENI  (Table 6-18) for  each



regulation schedule and study yearfor baseline  (1).  Results for  base-



lines (2)  and (3) are given in Appendix F  (Tables F-14 through F-23).



                                6-40

-------
 I
vo

 0)
                     8
                    iH
                     
                     o
                     t-l
                 .53
                 H  W
                 4-1  0
 SJ2
88
                 fl.S
                    4-)
                  0) (Q



                 II
 U  >

"i  (8
 3  (i)
                 ia-8
                    s
                    a:
               p
               u
               0)
               O4
                                g
                                Q
                                O

                                U
                                S
                                a
                                      m
                    I
                          o
                          o
                          a
                          in
                          ON
                          ON
O
ON
ON
                                           00
                                           ON
                                           m
                                           oo
                                           ON
                          m
                          oo
                          ON
                                           00
                                           ON
                                           ON
                     v-<  O  OJ
                     O <-* r-t
                    H 4J  a
                     V4  (0 T>
                     (U rH  CB
                     -U  3 X!
Sc
                                                 ooooNONONONOOoocoaooocoaoin
                                                 ro ro ro ro ro  ro ro ro co ro ro ro ro ro ro

                                                          ro ^  ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
                                                                vo vo vo vo **o 10
                                                 vo vo *o
                                                                  i-tr-lr-IrHrHr-lr-lr-IO
                                                 CMCMCMCNlOJCSfMCNCNCMCMfSCNCNO
                                                 0^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O^ O^ ^ O\ G) ON O^ ^ O\ ON
                                                       6-41

-------
in
iH

vo
I
   CO
   

 :*
 SB

 a-s
 .^^
 &^r
                a
                      i?
                      Q
                     8
                      o
         (1)
        I
        g
                      z
                      iJ
                      S
                      ^

                      '
                      I
     CD   VO VQ VO VO VO VO VO ^D ^D ^O ^O ViO ^O ^D
     o
     CM






     cri   ooooboooooooooooc6coo6o6o6obr~

     pH





     O    ___............
          rHiHiHrHHrHHiHHrHrHrHrHiHO

     a






     00
     (Ti






     in   rHrHrHOOOOOOOOOOOVO
     00                     .-.-_._._





6


     CO   CTtOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOin
     00
















     CT>                  ..........
          rommmromrnrommmmmmm

     iH   ooooooooooaocooooooocoaooooooo





ui o  
                                   CO
                                                 6-42

-------
VO
   8
   iH
H ^|
 
D M
 >i U
ffl2
S6*
P S
             *y
             M O
 
                       s
                      a
                      .?;
                       D
                      S1
                              ^
        V
       s
                                   o
                                   o
                                   o
                                   in
                                   ON
                                   CT>
                                   (Ti
                                   00
                                   
                              O -H iH
                              H 4J 3
                                        OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                                        iH^i-IMi-IOOOOOOOOOO
                                                                           CN
                                        CNCNCNCNCNfSCNCNCNCNCNCSCNCNCN
                                        i-HiHi IrHi-li Ir-l, Ir-Hi-HrHt-lr-lr-HrH
                 CNCMfSCMCNfMCNCSCSCNCNCSCSCNrH


                 fSCNCNCNCNCMCNCNCMCNCNCNCNICNfM
                                           6-43

-------
VO

 a
                  *M
                  0)
.5&

 9iS
H O

ss

 o g
"^ (y
M-4
IW  
 m w
 u o


 cl
               1-1 ro
               D^:


               CQ u
               s
   s
 y z
                  c
                 ,-S
               ^^
               1-1 JZ
               Q) 4J




               2 (A

               .U 
            O
                           0)
                           M-l
                           O
2
4J
s
a
>
                                    u O     OOOOOOOOOOQOOOCTt
            rn ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro o>)




            (Hr-liHrHrHrHiHi-Hi-HrHrHrHrHr-ir-

      r-
            co ro co ro co ro ro co ro ro ro co ro ro ro
            oororororororocorororncorororo
                                                                             V>
                                                                               

                                                                             
-------
00
0)
              IB
   W
    c
H.2
  '
              (0
              4->
 c5
H -H

 o 
         13
         s
         ^
         g
                                 CJ
                                      o
                                      o
                                      o
                                      
                                      CTl
                                      oo
                                      in
                                      oo
                                      
                                 O =! r-l
                                 H 4J  3
                                            OOO>i-li-lr-lT I
r~r~r~oooooooooooooooooooooo^j|


ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
                                            
-------
        Upon inspection of Tables 6-17 and 6-18, it is clear that little

relative change in the impact of overall traffic noise is obtained through

the regulation of bus noise.  In the most severe case (regulatory schedule

15), the equivalent of slightly less than half a million people would be

benefited by the implementation of bus noise regulation in the year 2000

less than 2 percent of the present total ENI.  Yet bus noise is perceived
                                                                       21
by many as a major concern in comparison with noise from other vehicles.

To investigate the cause of these concerns, a more direct approach is

discussed in Part 6.3 for evaluating the impact attributable to bus noise

in isolated passby situations.

6.3     REDUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL PASSBY NOISE IMPACT

        Up to this point, the analysis of bus noise impact has been con-

cerned with the contribution that buses make to day-night average traffic

levels (L, ).  The impact contributions which are calculated in this way

are not wholly representative of the input attributable to bus noise,

for the calculations are relatively independent of the actual operating

conditions of the buses.  For example, they do not reflect the fact that

almost the entire amount of hourly acoustical energy contributed by buses

in an area may be generated in only 10 seconds of noise during a single

acceleration near a bus stop.  Yet this intrusive, short, intense event

may be the most annoying noise-related situation faced over the entire day

by a large number of pedestrians, residents, or people waiting near the
        2, 21
bus stop.

        On some occasions bus noise will be completely masked out by

other noises, making the conclusions reached by using L,  essentially

correct.  At other times or situations, one can expect that other noise

sources will not mask the noise of a passing bus, and thus the bus will
                                6-46

-------
cause a finite  impact.  The actual  impact  from buses  is certainly due

to a combination of various levels  of bus  noise and other environmental

noise.

        Annoyance  is difficult to describe.  It may pass rapidly and

the cause remain unnoticed.  Or  it  may add to other agents causing  stress
                                  20
and lead to physiological problems.   As measured from people's responses

in questionnaires, however, there is no doubt that annoyance  to bus noise

does exist.  In fact, in a recent survey of people's  annoyance to motor

vehicles, it was found that, on  the average, buses are perceived as the
                                                                          21
loudest and the most intensely annoying of any of the motor vehicle noises."

     A loud vehicle passby may also interrupt people's activities,  such as

conversation or sleeping.  The interruptions may again lead to annoyance,

but in themselves they may represent a degradation of health  and welfare.

For instance, in a recent study  of  the annoyance caused by different levels

of simulated aircraft noise for  people seated indoors watching television,
                                                                         35
annoyance was seen to be mediated at least in part by speech  interference.

Not only is the TV program, or other person speaking, more difficult to hear

during the time in which a noisy vehicle is passing by, but it has  been ob-

served that the distraction which may occur from the  conversation in which
                                                           35
the person is engaged may contribute in itself to annoyance.   The  speaker

may behaviorally attempt to cope with the  noise intrusion either by increa-

sing his or her vocal effort, or in more severe cases, by ceasing to speak

altogether.  Such behavioral reactions may be quite indicative of general

annoyance and disturbance with the  intrusive noise event.  Similarly, the

reaction to a noise intrusion during sleep may be in  many cases a change

in sleep stage  (from a "deeper"  to  a "lighter" stage) or, if  the intrusive
                                6-47

-------
 noise is intense or long enough, an actual awakening may result.  In

 either case, repeated disturbance of people's activities may be

 expected to adversely affect their well-being.  The covariance of ver-

 balized annoyance with the interference of activities has been amply
                                        8, 23, 56, 57
 demonstrated in several investigations.

        For these reasons it seems appropriate for the analysis of

 passby impacts to examine the two activities of speech communication

 and sleep in 'some detail, both in order to determine the direct effect

 bus noise may have on them, as well as to aid in an estimation of the

 total annoyance attributable to bus noise.  These single event passby

 noise intrusions become particularly important in light of other regu-

 lations and efforts to reduce the noise from other motor vehicles and

 urban noise sources, i.e., without a reduction in noise emissions for

 buses, the bus may very well stand out as one of the most, if not the

 most, intrusive noise source.

 6.3.1  Sleep Disturbance

        The sleep periods of humans are typically classified into five

 stages.  In Stages I and II, sleep is light and the sleeper is easily

 awakened.  Stages III and IV are states of deep sleep where a person is

 not as easily awakened by a given noise, but the sleep may shift to a

 lighter stage.  An additional stage is termed rapid eye movement (REM)

.and corresponds to the dream state.  When exposed to an intrusive noise,

 a sleeper may (1) show response by a brief change in brainwave pattern,

 without shifting sleep stages;  (2) shift to a lighter sleep stage; or

 (3) awaken.  The greatest known impact occurs due to awakening, but

 there are also indications that disruption of the sleep cycle can cause
                                                            34
 (irritability, etc.) even though the sleeper may not awaken.

                                   6-48

-------
                          36, 37
        Two recent studies       have summarized and analyzed sleep

disturbance data.  These studies showed a linear relationship between

frequency of response  (disturbance and awakening) and noise level, and

demonstrated that the duration of the noise stimulus was a critical para-

meter in predicting response.  The studies also showed that the frequency

of sleep disruption is predicted by noise exposure better than is arousal

or behavioral awakening.  An important fact is that sleep disturbance is

defined as any physiological change which occurs as a result of a stimu-

lus.  The person undergoing such disturbance may be completely unaware

of being afflicted; however, the disturbance may adversely affect total

sleep quality.  This effect on overall sleep quality may lead to, in
                                                            34
certain situations, behavioral or physiological consequences.

        To determine the magnitude of sleep disturbance caused by

buses, some consideration must be made of the hours of bus operation.

Only two types of buses generally operate at nighttransit buses and

intercity buses.  School buses may be operating in the early morning

hours in some locales, but probably not nuch before 7:00 a.m.  Transit

buses, too, have limited nighttime operation.  For five major bus lines

in Los Angeles, for example, only 1/6 of the scheduled runs occur at

night, i.e., before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. (this ratio of day-

time to nighttime operation is not atypical throughout the nation).

Although some fraction of the population sleeps during the daytime,

it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that sleep only occurs

during the nighttime hours.  Therefore, the fraction of the total vehi-

cle miles traveled by transit buses which are likely to disturb sleep

is assumed to be 1/6 of the total.
                                   6-49

-------
        Official estimates of the portion of inter-city bus mileage
traveled at night are not available; however, some approximations may be
made.  If there were no change between night and day operations, 37.5
percent (9/24) would occur at night and 62.5 percent (15/24) in the day.
For people taking short trips (a few hours long) on inter-city buses it
is assumed that somewhat less bus travel per hour actually occurs during
nighttime hours than during the day.  A brief investigation of several
cross-country, inter-city bus schedules indicates that only a slightly
greater daytime biasing of the travel time is warranted for long trips
                                            49
(37.1 percent night versus 62.9 percent day).   In this analysis, a
35/65 percent split between intercity bus nighttime and daytime opera-
tions is used.
        To find impact on sleep and the reduction in sleep disturbance
achievable with bus noise emission regulations, the following method
is utilized:
Step 1.   Average passby levels at 50 feet are computed for both bus
          types (transit and inter-city buses).  These data are pre-
          sented in Table 6-6.
Step 2.   The distances from a typical bus passby at which these levels
          are decreased in steps of 5 dB are calculated  (Figure 6-10).
          These distances are assumed to begin from the center of the
          roadway since, on most roads, buses travel both directions
          in equal frequency.  .
Step 3.   The number of people living in each 5 dB band from the 50-foot
          passby level is calculated by multiplying the population
          density of each land use in which the buses operate by the

                                   6-50

-------
               Attenuation Curve for
               a Given Land Use
                   100            200             400
                       Distance from Source (Feet)
800
Figure 6-10.  Illustrative Example of Calculation of Distances
              Between Steps of 5 dB Attenuation  from the  50-Foot
              Average Bus Passby Noise Level
                              6-51

-------
          width of the 5 dB bands (calculated in Step 2) and then by

          the number of miles traveled within the  given land use by

          buses.  Depending on the land use, the first 40 to 90  feet

          on each side of the center line is assumed to be part of the

          roadway and adjoining sidewalk, and thus it is assumed to

          contain no people.

Step 4.   The average sleep impact is calculated in each of the 5 dB

          bands.  The impact, expressed as a fraction, is found from

          a curve relating sleep impact to passby noise level (Figure

          6-16 and Figure 6-17).  This procedure is analogus to the

          fractional impact method presented in Part 6.2.

Step 5.   The relative total impact is computed in each band by

          multiplying the number of people living in each band (from

          Step 3) by the associated fractional impact (from Step 4).

We shall now discuss in detail the steps outlined above, starting with

Step 2, since Step 1 has been previously defined.

          Step 2 - For the purpose of analyzing bus passby noise in this

section, each of the four land uses discussed in Part 6.2 is assumed

to have a simplified mix of high-rise, low-rise, and open-space areas
           51
(Table 6-19)  which correspond to different propagation laws.  The com-

putation of the distance between each 5 dB band of attenuation from the

bus roadway involves determining the noise attenuation characteristics

typical of each area.  In urban high-rise areas the building density may

be so great that the noise from a point source, such as a bus, located

in the middle of an intersection, decays in the lateral direction as if

the vehicle were a line source:  the acoustical waves have little chance


                                  6-52

-------
                            Table 6-19




     Assumed Mix of Building Types and Land Uses Impacted by Buses
Land Use
High Density Urban
Low Density Urban
Suburban
Rural
Percent of Different Types of Building Development
Corresponding to Different Propagation Laws*
High-Rise
100
50
0
0
Low- Rise
0
50
100
0
Open Space
0
0
0
100
See Figures 6-12  through 6-14
                                 ^53

-------
to dissipate in the direction parallel to the bus's line of travel

(Figure 6-11).  In low-rise areas, the noise travels more radially

and the attenuation is correspondingly greater.  In addition to these

two forms of laterally directed geometric spreading, building, ground,

and air absorption also contribute to attenuation.  A recent review

of the literature on urban sound propagation produced the attenuation
                                                    22
values for traffic line sources shown in Figure 6-12.   Applying the

same excess attenuation values to point source spreading losses yields

the curves of Figure 6-13.  As a simplification, all low-rise areas

are assumed to have point source attenuation characteristics and all

high-rise areas are assumed to have line source characteristics.

        The attenuation of noise in rural areas also involves many

factors (Figure 6-14).  The low density of buildings in rural areas

allows the neglection of building reflection and absorption, so that

the distance computations are straightforward.

        The build-up of reverberation in the longitudinal direction

(along the path of travel of the .bus) must also be considered as a

factor in the propagation of passby noise in high-rise areas.  Figure

6-15 shows the apparent amplification of noise level due to reveberant

buildup on narrow streets completely, or nearly completely, bounded by
         38
buildings.   The amplification of the noise level will occur when buses

are traveling along streets bounded by buildings less than 78 feet apart.
                                        39, 40
In a survey of twenty metropolitan areas,      it was found that dis-

tances between building fronts vary widely within each city.  In Boston,

for example, some building fronts are 50 feet apart, while others are 120

feet apart.  Although there are thoroughfares in Eastern and Mid-western
                                  6-54

-------
                  Distance   Attenuation
                  from      Relative to
                  Roadway   50-Foot
                  (ft)       Level (dB)
Distance Between
5 dB Attenuation
Steps (ft)    .
                     &.?: ::& t>
                                            High
                                            Rise.
                                                      Point Source Attenuatior
                                                        (6 dB per Doubling
                                                          of Distance)
                                               ^ Line Source Attenuation
                                                (3dB per Doubling of Distance)
   Figure  6-11.   Schematic  of Attenuation of  Bus Noise
                   by  Low and High  Rise Buildings

   Note:   Not drawn  to scale.
                          6-55

-------
(art
              o
              CM
                        o
                                              4)
                                             u.

                                             g

                                              0)
                                              u
                                              t_

                                              o
                                              I/I
0)
u
c
o
       52
       * -1 
       O 4) I
       _ irt
       So 

       zd
       2 8?
       a> I- a)
                                                     >

                                                     3

       *o  * 5
       c  8-0
       o  u c

       o  o '
                                                     CM

                                                     S

                                                     0)

                                                     i
                                                                  (U
                                                                  u

                                                                  o
                    o

                    "S


                    f
                    !5
                    uoj4Dnua44y
                   6-56

-------
                           I   I
                          i        r
                          15-Foot Alley (No Building Setback)
 o
 o
4)
U

8
CO
-o
D
25-Foot Alley (No Setback)
   10
                      36-Foot Local Street.
                   (50-Foot Right-of-Way)
                        44-Foot Collector
                        Street (64-Foot -
                        Right-of-Way)
               56             20
                    Distance Between Building Fronts/ Meiers
              Figure  6-15.   Noise Amplification Factors
                              Bus  Operation on  Narrow Streets"
                                     6-57

-------
cities with building fronts less than 78 feet apart, it is estimated


that these do not constitute the vast majority of public bus routes.


Western cities, as a rule, have constructed streets with building fronts


farther apart than Eastern and Mid-western cities.  Thus, reverberant


amplification along bus routes was excluded from the analysis used in


this study.


     Step 3 - Once the 5 dB band distances are known, the number of


people living within each band can be found by multiplying the bandwidth


area by the average population density of the locale.  The three urban


densities and one rural density which have been selected are shown in


Table 6-20.  The densities are converted to people per mile of road per


foot from the roadway.  Thus, by multiplying by the appropriate distance


from the roadway, the total number of people per mile of roadway can be


found.


        Step 4 - The fractional impact of the disruption of sleep by


noise is given in Figure 6-16 where the frequency of no sleep distur-


bance (as measured by changes in sleep state, including behavioral


awakening) is plotted as a function of the Sound Exposure Level  (SEL) of


the intruding noise.  Likewise, the frequency of behavioral awakening as


a function of SEL is shown in Figure 6-17.  These relationships, adapted


from Figures 1 and 2 of reference 36, consist of data derived from a re-


view of most of the recent experimental sleep data as related to noise


exposure.  The curves, which indicate the approximate degree of impact


(percent disruption or awakening) as a function of noise level, have
                                                            *

been modified somewhat from those contained in References 36.   (Note that
*Personal Communication, J. S. Lukas, July 1976



                                    6-58

-------
                     Table 6-20




Population Densities for Selected Areas of Bus Operation
Land Use Area
Type of Housing

Percent of the
1970 U.S. Urban
Populations 1
Average Popula-
uiation per Square
Mile24
Population per
Mile of Road per
Foot from Road-
way (Both Sides)
Urban
High Density
Dense and
Very Dense
Urban
Apartments
8.7

20,877
7.908

Low Density
Urban Row
Apartments
and Suburban
Dup! exes
24.9

8,473
3.209

Suburban
Suburban
Single Family
Detached

66.4

2,286
.866

Rural
Single
Family
Detached

-

20
.0076

                         6-59

-------
   a.
 CO

 8 a.
 if.  o
a. ~
  t/>

*.* o
 O -7
  O
""" X

"5 g


I*
 U 0)
 B
  I
100




 90




 80





 70




 60




 50




 40




 30




 20





 10




  0
Sleep Disruption

FI = 0.0135 (SEL
- 37)
           30   40    50    60     70    80    90


                      Sound Exposure  Level (SEL), dB
                                              100   110   120
      Figure 6-16.   Fractional Impact of Sleet Distruption^g

                    as a Function of Sound Exposure  Level

                    (Regressions of Sleep Distruption on SEL,  revised)
                               6-60

-------
   100
*r  so
9)
 O}
 c

J  60
 o
I
 o
 5

J  40
 
-------
 in Figure  6-17,  the  relationship beyond SEL = 95 dB is an extrapolation



 of data.   However, indoor  SEL's from bus passbys rarely exceed SEL = 70



 dB.)  Furthermore, the  noise  data contained within these studies were



 measured in  terms of "effective perceived noise level" with a reference



 duration of  .5 second (EPNL>5 sec) .   EPNL^ sec is converted to SEL by



 the following approximate  relationship:



          SEL = EPNL  ,-     -16 dB                                  (10)
                      3  S6C


The SEL is defined as:



          SEL = login    /

                   iu   /   2   dt                                (11)

                        J  o



where



          t  is the duration of  the noise



          P(t) is the A-^weighted sound  pressure



and



          P  is the  reference pressure  (20  micropascals).



For triangular time  histories such as vehicular passbys,  an approximation



 is







where



          I,   is the maximum A-weighted sound level
           TO3X


 and



           t  is the duration  in  seconds  measured between the "10 dB down"



           points where  the sound level  is equal to L_ax -10.



Based on the urban and  rural  attenuation curver (Figures 6-12 through



 6-14), an observer located 50 feet from the roadway would find t = 8

                                           5

 seconds for  an average  bus speed of  15  mph.  In rural bus operation on





                                   6-62

-------
main roads where the average  speed  is likely to be twice  this value

but the excess attenuation  is less,  it  is found that  t =  6 seconds.

These durations are increased to 17  and 14 seconds, respectively, at

distance of 100 feet from the road.  The difference between the longer

and shorter durations shifts  the SEL by 3 to 4 dB which changes the

fractional impact of sleep  disruption by only 4 to 5  percent.  It was

therefore decided to use an average  value of 10 seconds as the passby

duration for all buses in the analysis.  Selecting this duration sim-

plifies equation (12) to:

          SEL = L    + 7.0                                      (13)
        Using the average passby levels given in Table 6-6 for

the SEL's were found for each bus type.  To determine the resulting

SEL inside the home the following transmission losses were applied

to the propagated noise levels, depending on land use.

        1.  A noise level reduction of 20 dB was used for high and

            low density urban areas to represent the case in which,

            (because of the type of building construction) windows

            of half of the homes are open and half of the homes are
                  6
            closed.

        2.  A noise level reduction of 15 dB was used for suburban

            and rural areas to represent the case in which the
                                         6
            windows of all homes are open.

Step 5 - The equivalent noise impact (ENI) for sleep disturbance was

derived for each of the regulatory schedules and study years under

investigation.  The FI equations for sleep disturbance and sleep awak-

ening are included in Figures 6-16 and 6-17.  Table 6-21 presents the
                                  6-63

-------
total sleep disturbance ENI per night as a function of regulatory
schedule summed over all land use areas for various years.   Table 6-22
shows the percent reduction in potential sleep disturbances brought about
by each regulation schedule with reference to the no regulation case.
        Table 6-23 shows the total potential sleep awakening ENI occur-
ring per night as a function of regulatory schedule for all land uses.
Table 6-24 shows the percent reduction in potential sleep awakenings
brought about by each regulation schedule with reference to the no regu-
lation case.
        In order to more fully explain the contents of Tables 6-23 and
6-24 an example follows.  In Table 6-23, by consulting the year 2000
column, it is found that for regulation schedules 3 and 12 the sleep
awakening ENI due to buses are reduced to 27.88 million and 15.52
million per night respectively.  Therefore, the relative difference in
ENI between the two schedules in the year 2000 is 12.36 million per
night.  (Regulatory noise levels and dates of implementation for all
schedules are shown in Table 6-1.)  Table 6-24 indicates the percent
reduction from the baseline level, 30.38 million (regulation schedule
1, 1979 shown in Table 6-23).  Thus, the 27.88 million ENI value for
regulatory schedule 3 from Table 6-23 translates into a 8.23 per cent
reduction while the 15.52 million ENI value for regulation schedule 12
translates into a 48.91 per cent reduction from the baseline, a differ-
ence of 40.68 per cent between the two schedules.  The above procedure
can be used to assess the relative differences among any group of regu-
latory schedules for any of the years shown in the tables.  Furthermore,
the tables presented throughout this analysis (Section 6) follow the

                                  6-64

-------
0)
 CO
 ffl to
 q i
           en
              5s
              cu
                      4J


                      H
                      Z
                       CO
                       
                       0)
                       y
                      8
                      s
                      (0
                       a
                      I
                      CO
                                 v-i  O 


           CNtNCNCNiNCNiNrHCNirHrHrHrHrH





     00

     rH




^    in
<0    oo

                                       CS CS 
-------
CN
0)
             8
             Jj
             (0 (0
             rj >1
             w
             SS
             4J
             B
             4J

             i
             s
                       0)
ja
1^

-U
(0
Ul

c

                       o
05
4J


     o
     o
     o
     CM





     ID
     (Ti

     9





     o

     c^
     rH






     OO    Or-rHCOOVCVOOOrHODOr^VOrH


                  rH    rHrHrHiIrHrHrHrHiHON





     00    OOrHOOOOOlCOr^fSrHOCTiOOrH
     O>

                                      rH   l-i 
-------
CN
I
 tn


I
 w
 #
 P4

 M W
 O  r-t U>
                  U  D J3
                      o
     O









     {^)

     ^^
     ^^
     r-l






     O
     
-------
7
 0)



EH
                   3
                      R

 H Q


C  O
O 4->
H
4J  0)
                   S
                   o
            s
            I
            I

             I
            rH
            CO
             c
 g
H
4J

 O
             i
             u
             2
     o
     o
     o






     in
     Cft







     o     Qrorsiroi-HCNrHCNpoO'ifCNOoo
     eft
     eft   .  _  _
                     ^^ ^^  ^H 00 r^ ^ft OO ^O ^3 t*^ ^^ g_J
                     CNJrHCNrHCNCMtNCNCnfMrOQ





     00
     Cft   ,  ,_, U) ^

                     rHrHrHrHCNIrHCNrHiNrHCNO




     in
     00

     a
                     3rH     HrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHQ

                                                         '


     ro
     oo
     Cft

                                                       Q





      00

      a
                                                       o
                                                       rH



     Cft    OrHOOOrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHO
            o eft o o o cft cft eft eft eft eft CT> eft eft o

            ooooooooooooooo





u g  0)


w ^0 'O
0) rH  (D                                i-H r-H
-u D x:
                                                             6-68

-------
same general pattern as Tables 6-23 and 6-24 for all exterior bus noise



ENI calculations and all interior bus noise ENI calculations.  The only



major difference is that in the case of interior bus noise ENI, Table



6-2 should be consulted for the interior bus noise regulatory levels



and their respective implementation dates.



        The potential equivalent number of sleep disturbances and sleep



awakenings categorized by bus type (transit, intercity) and land use



are presented in Appendix F (Tables F-24 through F-35).



        The data presented in this section and in Appendix F concerning



reductions in potential sleep disturbances and sleep awakenings are



measures of people times events.  One person impacted  (e.g., awakened)



10 times is equivalent to 10 people being impacted one time each.



        It should also be noted that the individual bus passby noise



impact analysis examines the effects of reducing bus noise alone, and



hence does not take into account the presence of other noise sources in



the environment.  .It is obvious that other environmental noise sources



create background noise over which in many situations bus noise will not



intrude.  The benefits presented in this analysis represent the benefits



accrued during those times when the bus noise clearly  intrudes over an



ambient level.  The absolute sleep disturbance and sleep awakening impact



attributable to buses is dependent, of course, on the background level



assumed.  However, the per cent reduction of ENI (Tables 6-22 and 6-24)



is representative of the relative reduction of bus noise impact over any



given ambient level.  For a more precise description of the absolute



number of people impacted by nighttime bus noise, computer plots are



presented in Appendix F (Figures F-l through F-8) showing, for each of





                                  6-69

-------
the study years, the number of people exposed to various bands of noise

measured in terms of the SEL inside their homes for each regulatory

schedule.

        Additional analyses are underway to examine the absolute impact

of individual bus passbys assuming various background noise levels.

6.3.2   Speech Interference

        Unlike the disruption of sleep, the interference of speech,

i.e., conversation, occurs when people are both indoors and outdoors.

For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that virtually all

conversation takes place during the daytime hours; thus, only "daytime"

(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) bus operations were considered to contribute to

speech disruptions, whereas only "nighttime" operations were considered

to contribute to the disruption of sleep.  This assumption pertains to

all types of buses in the speech impact analysis.

        People can have their conversation disrupted by externally

propagating bus noise in at least three major settings during the day:

as pedestrians on the street, as residents inside their homes, or as

residents who are involved in leisurely activity just outside their

homes.  Three different approaches are required to assess the impact

of these three different situations.  Each approach will be examined

separately.  In the discussions that follow, "inside the home" and

"outside the home" should be taken to mean, respectively, "inside any

building" and "outside any building but not along a street."

6.3.2.1  Pedestrian Speech Interference

         Approximately 149 million people live in urban areas of the
                                          24
United States according to the 1970 census.   Extensive information on

pedestrian travel is not available to estimate the portion of the urban


                                  6-70

-------
population which experiences bus noise as a pedestrian.  However, for

the purposes of this discussion, a rough estimate of one-half mile of

travel per person per day may be assumed.  A large fraction of the popu-

lation is probably too old or too young to walk even a tenth of this

value per day.  Yet many healthy urbanites of young or middle age may

walk as much as a mile or more each day.  Bus stops are typically spaced
              45
1/2 mile apart.   The average distance from a person's house stationed

along a bus route to the nearest bus stop is then about 1/8 mile.  An

average bus passenger thus walks a total of 1/2 mile each day going to

and from the bus stop at which the passenger alights.  For people who

do not ride buses, a 1/2 mile per day average walk would be equivalent

to driving to work in a car and walking two blocks (1/8 mile each) to

and from a restaurant for lunch.  This walk may be assumed to take place

along main streets, and therefore these people are also exposed to bus

noise.

        Table 6-25 gives the step-by-step rationale for the derivation

of the number of pedestrians exposed to bus noise used in this analysis.

        From the point of view of the pedestrian, two average maximum

passby levels are considered to occur for each bus type:  (1) the level

measured when the bus is passing by on the same side of the street as

the pedestrian (10 to 15 feet away), and (2) the level measured when

the bus passes by on the opposite side (60 to 75 feet away).  The exposure

level occurring in the first case can be estimated from data on transit
                    52
bus levels at 3 feet.   Under the acceleration mode a maximum passby

level of 97 dB is reported.  This level represents approximately a 4

dB increase per halving of distance from the average acceleration level


                                  6-71

-------
                             Table 6-25
        Derivation of the Number of Equivalent Pedestrian-Impacts
           Due to the Disruption of Speech by Bus Passby Noise

1. Daytime Vehicle Miles
Traveled on Urban
Streets (Millions per
Year, 1973)
2. Vehicle Miles Per Day
Per Street Mile
3. Pedestrian Miles
Traveled Per Day on
Urban Streets
4. Pedestrian/Street
Mile
5. - Pedestrian- Impact
Events Per Street
Mile Per Day
6. Average Fractional
Speech Impact^
7. Equivalent Impacts
(millions per day)
Transit
1450
8.28
School
478
2.73
Inter-City
25
.14
40,000,000
1.85
15.3
.68
5.0
5.05
.52
1.3
.26
.81
.1
Derivation
Reference 1 ,
(1) - (480,000 St. Miles)

- (365 Days)

(80 Million Workers)*
x (1/2 Mile/Day
Walk Per Worker)
(3) - (480,000 St. Miles)

- (3 mph Pedestrian
Velocity
- (15 Hours/Day

(2) x (4)
From Table 6-26
(5) x (6)
x (480,000 St. Miles)
                                             24
*Employed non-agricultural civilians in 1973.
                                   6-72

-------
                         15
at 50 feet of about 81 dB.   Assuming the same attenuation figure can be

applied to the noise levels produced under other operational modes as

well, the average maximum passby levels can be computed for buses on

either side of the street. The estimated values are given in Table 6-26.

        The criteria for outdoor speech interference is shown in Figure

6-18 as a function of the level of an interfering noise.  (Note that

the appropriate noise metric for the criteria is an I^g occurring for

the duration of the passby, rather than the SEL of the event.)  The

ENI speech for pedestrians is obtained by finding the fractional impact

produced by the average passby level of each bus type (Table 6-26) and

multiplying by the number of pedestrians impacted (Table 6-25).  Reduc-

tions of bus levels measured at 50 feet were assumed to yield equal

reductions in levels measured at the distances from the bus at which

pedestrians are exposed.  The effect of various regulations on the

predicted equivalent number of pedestrians impacted by bus noise inter-

fering with speech is given in Table 6-27.  The percent reduction in

ENI is given in Table 6-28.

6.3.2.2  Residential Speech Interference

         The interference of conversation between people located in or

near their homes involves both indoor and outdoor situations.  For the

outdoor case, the same criteria used in the pedestrian impact analysis

was again utilized.  In this case, however, disruptions only occur

beyond 40-90 feet from the bus, depending on land use, and they are

measured out to the point where the bus passby level is equal to the

background level.  In this assessment, an outdoor cutoff background

level of 55 dB, and an indoor cutoff level of 45 dB are used.  Although


                                  6-73

-------
                               Table 6-26
Average Maximum Passby Levels to Which Pedestrians Are Exposed
and Fractional Speech Impact, by Bus Type and Location of Passby
Location of Passby
Bus on Same Side of Street
as Pedestrian
Bus on Opposite Side
of Street
Bus on Same Side of Street
Bus on Opposite Side
of Street
Arithmetic Average
Bus Type
Transit
School
Inter-City
Average Maximum Passby Level (dBA)
81.6
74.0
80.4*
71.3*
85.5
77.0
Fractional Speech Impact**
1.0
.35
.68
.94
.10
.52
1.0
.62
.81
 *Levels weighted 97 percent gas-powered, 3 percent diesel-powered
              14
 school buses.

**From Figure 6-18.  Six dB is added to the x-axis legend to account for
  a halving of the speaker-listener distance to 1 meter.
                                    6-74

-------
r-
CN

vo

 
-------
00

7
VO

 cu
                   CU



                   0)

                   
CO
                   C. eg
                   *^ (O


                   C^
                   O
                   3
                      a>
                   S
                   a
      CO
      CD

      O


      
                            CU


                            C
C
CU
      .5
      3

      S1

      C
      
      13
      

      4.)


      8
      CJ
      S-l


      S
                
                                            00
                     in
                     00
               PO
               oo
                                                           rHrHiHrHCNCNCNfSCMCSCNO
                                                                                          cri
                                                                                          CN
                                                  or~i-ir~c3Oinoooo(T> o o
                                     rH    rHrHrHrHrHrHiHrHCJO

                                                                       ^^
                                                              rH    rH O
                                                  OinvOrOCNCNCSrslCNrHCNCSCJCNO
                                              _.L.
                                            00
                                            Ol
                                      O -S ^


                                      U <0 TJ

                                      
-------
      100
       80
    
-------
average urban ambient noise (LjJ tends to be about 5 dB greater than

the assumed outdoor background level, a concerted effort to reduce motor

vehicle noise in the future would make the 55 dB level a more appropriate

figure to use for this analysis.

        Propagation loss is computed for each land use category in the

same manner as was discussed in Part 6.3.1.  First, the distances from

the road at which the passby noise levels fall off in 5 dB steps are

computed.  Then the number of "people" per mile living within each band

is derived.  Finally, the relative impact is fractionally calculated

using the criteria shown in Figure 6-18.  This number is multiplied by

the number of bus miles traveled during the time in which people are

estimated to be outdoors each day (.4 hours, i.e., 2.7 percent of the
   33
day)   to give the total ENI due to outdoor speech interference.

        The potential ENI for outdoor speech interferences per day is

given in Table 6-29 for the 15 regulatory schedules.  The reductions

in ENI obtained with these regulations are tabulated in Table 6-30.

It should be noted that "people outdoors" does not include pedestrians,

or people engaged in other forms of transportation during the day.

Rather it is intended to include those time-periods in which people are

relaxing outdoors - either outside a home, business, or cultural insti-

tution.

        Indoor speech interference is assumed to occur when bus noise

propagates through walls of residences or buildings and remains above a

typical indoor background level of 45 dB.  The criteria of impact for

indoor speech interference is given in Figure 6-19.  The curve is based on

the reduction of sentence intelligibility relative to the intelligibility


                                  6-78

-------
CM

VO

 0)
                  M
                  u
                  8
                  S
                  3
f

3
P-4
W
D
BO
                              I
                              W
                              
                              (0
                              0)
                             m
                             I
                    r^
                    3
                                            o
                                            o
                                            s
                                            in
                          o
                          a
                          00
                                            in
                                            oo
                                            en
                                            oo
                                            CO
                                            
                                      V-l CtJ
                                      
-------
o
7
vo
 
                                       [^
                                       CO
                                       en
     IT)
     00
     O>
                                       00
                                       O>
                                       00
                                       
                                       CT>
                                     Q  CU
                                  CU r-j  d)
                                  t^l-6
                                  w^co
           ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

           O C3 O O* O O O O O O O O* O O O
                                                  o
                                          6-80

-------
    100
    80
 u
 55
Q.
 u
 o
 Q.
 O

 
 +
 U
 o
 
-------
which would occur at 45 dB.  If people are conversing indoors during

the time a bus is passing by, the probability of a disruption in com-

munication is given by Figure 6-19.  Before the fractional impact is

computed, the same reductions in the passby levels due to transmission

through walls which were used in Part 6.3.1 must be taken into account.

During times when buses are not passing by, no bus-related speech inter-

ference occurs.  It is estimated that people spend an average of 13

daytime hours inside each day, i.e., they spend about 86.7 percent of
              33
the day inside.   Taking this fraction of the daytime bus vehicle-miles,

we can compute the indoor speech impact.  The estimated ENI for indoor

speech interference is given in Table 6-31, and the percent reduction

is given in Table 6-32.  Adding these impacts to the pedestrian and

outdoor impacts described above gives the total estimated potential

ENI due to the interference of speech by bus passbys shown in Table

6-33.  The associated percent reductions are shown in Table 6-34.  In

Appendix F, Tables F-36 through F-38 present the reduction in speech

interference ENI categorized by the major bus types (transit, intercity

and school).

        The actual levels to which people are exposed in the areas of

speech impact described above are of interest for analyzing the daytime

effects of bus passby noise.  Appendix F contains figures (Figure F-9

through F-16) which show the average maximum passby levels to which the

daytime population of pedestrians, people indoors, and people located

outdoors are exposed.  Each graph is a plot of the distribution of popu-

lation by exposure level for a given year.  Again, the differences become

more noticeable as the years progress.


                                  6-82

-------
 0)
I
          en
          u

          1
          H
          0)
          a
          a
          CQ
          r?
          CM
          a
                I
                I
                a
                o
                             c
                          v-i O  d>
                          O -H rH
                         H 4J  3
                          V-t (0 TJ
                          X CF  O
                          w ja> w
                             CH
      O    MrHrHOrHOrHOOOOOOOO
      O    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      o     	
      CN    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





      in    rHiHiHiHiHrHrHOrHOiHOrHOO
      <7\    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      CTi	
             OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





      O    rHr-lr-li-lr-l!li-Hr-lili-HrHi-lrHc-HO
             OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      H    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





             iHrHrHiHrHiHrHrHrHiHrHiHiHiHO
      OO    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

             oooooooooooo'oocs
5?




      in    iHrHrHiHiHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHfHO
      00    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      rH    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


o


      CO    rHrHrHrHrHMrHr-IMrHrHiHrHrHO
      00    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

             OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





             rHiHiHr-liHrHiHiHiHrHrHrH
-------
CM
00

vo

       0) W
       O >i
          8
 l-i t3
  O


*^	a



ro   in
    oo


              1-HrHrHCNrHCNCNCSCNCNrHCN
                                          O
        	_rH


    n
    oo

    a
                                       rH O





    OO


                                          Q




    CT                                 -
         OfiooofOcnrnconmnnMo

    9
                                          o
                                    6-84

-------
m
ro
vo
 0)


1
            CO

         *8
IM
            B

            
                               i -H rH
                               I 4J  3
                                 fo 'rt
                               1 rH  3)
                                 3 !
                                  '  O
                                   w
      o
      o

      8




      IT)

      





 m    m
O    oo
 S    5
 a)    H    m'S'LnoiTj'CNroiicsrHcs
rH          rHrHi-lrHrHrHrHlHi-li-trH

8

            inmcNooooooooooooo
      (T)           ._....
      00
            inmLn^jim'a<'
-------
 01
I
        (fl
     8
     JZ (X

     fl,1?
     o (3

     g  .
     n in
     Q) >_,
     M-l O

     9-8
   0>

6-SL
a) O
$ 0)
p^ p[

c co


s|
4-> CO
O 0
   Ul
-P O
^ *' '
g^
o w
     
        J
             a>
        4
        0)
       4-1



       I
6

I
.s

O
             a
                      u  o 






     O   _           _                     _
          ooofsdSoocN^ocNcNovbrnoo
     o>

                 rJCNCJCNrorororororoMQ





     oo





^  .

     in
     GO
     o>

rH               OJ






          oncsroovonvonvonvocnvoo
     fY%   X^ 	1 XVN Vk ^^ *^S 	I *^^	1 f^\ _-_J *^N 	1 f^\ ^^

     o>

                                            o
                                            1-1



          OCSOOOCNJCNCNCSCMCMCNoaCSO
          OOOOOOOOCOCOCOGOOOOOOOOOO

          C3OOC5QCDC5OOC>C3OOC>C3
                                            O
                                        6-86

-------
6.4     REDUCTION OF INTERIOR NOISE IMPACT

        Interior bus noise affects primarily two population groups;

bus operators and bus passengers.  Transit and inter-city bus operators

tend to spend more time each day driving their buses than school bus

operators since school transportation is usually only required during

the opening and closing hours of school.  Typical passenger exposure

times are also different for each bus type.  Inter-city passengers tend

to take infrequent but long trips, whereas short but recurrent trips

are characteristic of transit and school bus passengers.  Two kinds of

impact may be associated with interior bus noise:  the impact on hearing

for bus operators and passengers, and the disturbance of conversation

of bus passengers.  These impacts are discussed in the following section

along with the reductions which are obtainable with the interior regula-

tion schedules (Table 6-2).

6.4.1   Hearing Loss Reduction

        Average exposure levels measured in the driver's position and

in the rear of the bus have been given in Tables 6-7 and 6-8.  Since

these levels are averages, an accurate description of the effects of

interior bus noise must include an assessment of those buses which are

much noisier than these levels may suggest.  Based on data from EPA

studies, interior noise levels have a standard deviation of about 2 dB
                              15
for buses of the same bus type.   If the distribution is normal, buses

producing an average interior noise level of L are distributed about
            18
L as follows:

          Level (dB)   L-4   L-2    L    L+2    L + 4

          Percent (%)   6.6    24.2    38.4  24.2      6.6


                                  6-87

-------
Although it is possible that some bus operators and passengers are

exposed to a variety of bus levels and therefore receive the average

noise exposure for a given type of bus over a long period of time, in

many cases passengers and operators may receive higher-than-average or

lower-than-average exposures.  This would be the case if a school system

were to purchase only one type of bus for its operations, for instance,

or if bus operators were assigned particular buses for long periods of

time.

        The distribution of people about an average interior bus noise

level may be estimated in this way for both front and rear seat loca-

tions.  Lacking information to the contrary, it may be assumed that half

of the population riding buses of a given type (transit, school, etc.)

receive front seat exposure levels and half receive rear seat exposures,

i.e., half ride in the rear of the bus and half ride in the front.  In

the case where the engine is located in the middle of the bus and middle

seats receive the loudest exposure levels, as occurs with mid-engine

diesel-powered school buses, the distribution of people by exposure level

will again be broken down into two equal groups - those receiving an

average middle seat exposure level and those receiving an average of the

front and rear seat exposure levels.

        The reduction in the acceleration test interior noise levels

measured near the engine due to the regulation of interior noise is cal-

culated in much the same manner as the exterior noise situation, using
                   33
the HINCSAM program.   These reductions are again assumed to yield equal

reductions in the acceleration levels measured under actual operating

conditions.  The reduction of deceleration and cruise levels are taken
                                  6-88

-------
from Figure 6-3.  Interior noise levels produced in the idling mode are

again expected to remain constant and unaffected by the regulation.

With these assumptions, the calculations of the new average interior

noise levels are made for each regulation and study year for the front

and rear seat locations.

        The total number of operators and passengers riding each type

of bus is given in Table 6-35.  To find the equivalent noise impact on

hearing (ENIH) applicable to each population group the following frac-
                               13
tionalization equation is used:


          FIH = 0.025 (1       ~70)2                                 (14)
where

          FIH is the representative Noise Induced Permanent Hearing

              Threshold Shift (NIPTS) expected over a 40-year exposure

              period averaged over the .5, 1, 2, and 4 kilo hertz

              frequency bands

and

          L  (24) is the equivalent continuous sound level experienced by

              the bus operator or passenger over typical 24-hour periods.
To estimate the 1^/24) f ^e bus-riding population it is necessary to

ascertain the exposure levels received while off the bus.  While some

data has been collected in this regard for workers in manufacturing in-

dustries, very little data is available which would enable an accurate

prediction of the average daily exposures experienced by the great ma-

jority of the population.  In order to proceed with the estimate of

L  /24\ therefore, three non-bus exposures have been chosen in order to


                                  6-89

-------
                                 Table 6-35
                    Statistics of Bus Operators  and Passengers
                             Estimated  for  Each  Bus Type
                                    Drivers                Passengers
         Bus Type                 (thousands)               (miles/day)

                                          (1)                       (4)
         Transit                        80                      8.3

                                          (2)                       (5)
         School - Gas                  290                     23.0

                                          (2)                       (5)
         School - Diesel                10                       .7

                                          (3)                       (6)
         Inter-city                     24                      1.1


                9
(1)   (1.545 x 10  vehicle mil.es/yr)
             (15 miles/hr)           x ((6  work nours/day)  x <225 work


(2)   Assuming approximately one driver per bus.   Gas/Diesel breakdown from Ref.  14.

(3)   Estimate based on extrapolation from  Class I carrier  data in Ref.  27.

(4)   Assuming 2 trips per day.   Total from Ref.  28.

(5)   Ref. 28.  Gas/Diesel breakdown from ^e.  14.

(6)   Ref. 27.
                                         6-90

-------
cover the possible range of values which may occur:  60 dB, 70 dB, and
80 dB.  The Leq(24) is then calculated using the following formula:

                              *b  10V10  + "-*!, .. V10    ....
            Leg(24)  10 log  2?  10       * 24 ' 10          (15)

where
     tb        is the time spend on the bus per day
     24- tb     is t^6 ti1116 spent off the bus per day
     Lb        is the average level of interior bus noise
     Ln        is the level of non-bus exposure
Exposure times for operators and passengers are derived in Table 6-36 for
each bus type.
        Once Leg (24) is calculated for a given interior noise level
                                                                      13
and FIH is thereby defined, the estimated ENIH is found by the formula:
          ENIH =FIH    P
where
     P is the population exposed
        The impact of bus noise on potential hearing loss is estimated
for each regulation schedule and assumed non-bus exposure level.  Table
6-37 shows the ENIH for bus operators assuming they are exposed to an
energy-average level of 60 dB during the time they are not driving buses.
Table 6-38 shows the percent reduction from the baseline case (regulatory
schedule 1)  that each regulation would accomplish.  Note that for regula-
tion 15, interior bus noise is set to an arbitrary health and welfare
level of 55 dB.  Table 6-39 shows the ENIH for operators which would
occur if their non-bus driving exposure were 70 dB, and Table 6-40 shows

                                  6-91

-------
                               Table 6-36
Duration of Daily Noise Exposure Experienced by
Operators and Passengers, by Bus Type
Exposure Per Day (Hours)
Operator
T
2
8
-
-
-
6
S
2
8
1-2
-
-
2
I
4
8
-
-
5-6
6
Passenger
T
2
-
-
-
-
2
S
2
-
1-2
-
-
2
I
4
-
-
1-2
-
2
Basis For Estimate
Reference 2
Assuming a full work day
Derived belcnr
Derived below
Derived below
Assumed for this report
Key
T
S
I
Transit
School
Inter-City
(1)   (2 bil bus miles/yr i (15 - 30 mph)
     330,000 buses) x (180 school days/yr)

                    =1-2 hours/operator or passenger/day


(2)   (25.6 billioji revenue passenger miles/yr) _f (30 - 50 mph)
           (0.4 billion revenue passengers/yr)

                    = 1-2 hours/passenger/day
(3)   (1.2 billion bus miles/yr) 4 (40 mph)
     (24,000 operators) x (225 work days/yr)

                    =5-6 hours/operator/day
                                  6-92

-------
I

T
 0)
                   B1
                  ff,  W
                      Ul
                   (0  O
                   ft)  4J
                   (0  (0

                  ffl  *
41
H  W
 (0  3
 C CD

H  ,
                   8
 O
!Z O


&


 $  ft)
 ra  JH

 (T3  (0
O  ~
                  "
                   (0  D
                   (0 CQ
                   Q  I
                   Id
                   
                      (0
                            w
            ^OOCNOOVOiHCVIiHOJCSOOOOOOOOO
      O      "     ~

      O    rHOO^fSCMOOOOOOOOOO






      in    vbobnr~-SobboobdooOiHiHiHr-io

            rHOO^PCSCNOOOOOOOOOCD






      o


      9





      r-
      00

      H





      IT)
      00

      rH






      00

      iH





      rH
      00

            d







      O>    i! ilOi-lf-liHiIQrHiliJHQi(O
                        ^H r*i f^i




    c
 U^  O  tt)
 O -H rH
rH 4J  3
 l-l  <0 TJ
 0| rH  $

^  a-6
H  0) 03
                                                 6-93

-------
00
n

V>
I
           Ul
         0) U
         w 
                         O -H rH
                        H 4-J 3
                         V-i  O(T>o
o
o






m   _ _  _       __       ___
     or>ioSr>joooooo
en
rH





O
ON







r-
oo
  . _

           mvoijpmoooovot^ooooooooQ




in
Op     ..........  ....o







n   OfSncnOOrHOOCMinrHrHOOCNOOO
00
<^
     omr-r-oooooN^i'ooooo






ob   ovooovororonoovovonnoono
o>

           cQrHCSC^CNcQ       fMCSCNCJO





r

rH   orooomnnonnmnono
           rH           rH            rH   O
                                        6-94

-------
IO
*
 "V

'S
                                   o
                                   o
                                   o
                                   (N
                                   m
                                   o
                                   a
                                   
                                   rH
                                   GO
                                   in

                                   en
                                   oo
                                   oo
U O 4>

333
Ut 'O T5
0) rH 
4J D 
c & o
M ID en
                                        LD^mCNCSrHrHrHrHrH
                                        r^innnooooooromLnoooonooo
                                                            oS ^ oS oS co oS o
                                                              H rH rH rH
                                      6-95

-------
(1)
                 W
               0) U

              ES
               (0 <0

              s*
               8
                 (0
S '

m$
                 o
                 r-



                 "8
(0 0)
U U

3 w
   w

 <3 w
 (U 3
 s op



ss

 S 
H rji
 4J fl
 U U
 3 Q)



 <


 Sa
 rj W
 l-i 0)
 0) U

 ^S
              "8
                      CQ
       -S


        
       I-)
       4-)



       I
       fi

       4->

        
        o
               13
               'V

               s
               
-------
the resulting percent reduction.  Tables 6-41 and 6-42 show  the comparable



ENIH and percent reduction respectively, for an operator non-bus exposure



of 80 dB.  Tables 6-43 through 6-48 show the ENIH and percent reduction



for the same three non-bus exposure levels for bus passengers.  Appendix



F (Table F-39) contains a percentage breakdown of the contribution to



hearing loss impacts for each major bus type considered in the analysis.



        The distribution of bus operators by interior bus exposure level



(level experienced independent of the time of exposure) is presented in



Appendix F (figures F-17 though F-34).  From these figures it is clear



that in the year 1979 there is very little difference between the regula-



tions except for the ideally protective level (55 dBA) regulation number



15, which is assumed to be implemented and complied with immediately by



all buses.  As the years progress, however, a shift is noticeable from



the higher to the lower noise bands. Appendix F also contains figures



(Figures F-25 thgough F-32) showing the distribution of bus passengers



by interior bus exposure level which display the noise band shift again



becoming more noticeable as the years progress.



6.4.2   Speech Interference Reduction



        Interior bus noise has a second impact on people which must be



considered - the interference with speech.  The implications of speech



interference for passengers are perhaps not too great.  A conversation



may be interrupted for a few seconds as the bus accelerates, for instance,



or a few words may be missed.  On the other hand, the interruption of



speech between passengers and the driver during an emergency situation



may have critical implications.  A school bus driver should be able to



hear a child in need, for example, regardless of the loud commotion that



usually occurs on school buses.



                                  6-97

-------
I
 CO


I
 tfl

S
 i
 CO
a
                    CO
                    u
                 en  o
                 0)  4-1
                 CO  
                 Oj

                 c
                                       .

                                     (0

                                      '
                                                  ro PO ro m ro ro co co ro ro ro ro
                                            i-Hi-IOOOOOOrHOOOOO
                                            ^<^j.T}Tj^'T3^rTj
-------
CM


I

 (U
iH


I
                     01
                  T)
                  0) iI  Q)
                 -p D x:
      o
      o







      IT)

      Oi






      o

      o>
      rH






      CO

U    rH   oOOrHrHrHrHiHrHrHCMrHCSCMr^
(0




ro    m
      >

           OOOOOi-HrHrHOOrHr-HrHrHr*


8



      QO   ocs^ihwJcdvbcbfMrocbvbcbvbo
      (Ti	
           oooooooooooooor-






      oo
      o>
           oooooooooooooor~






           OOrHOOOOrHOOOOrHOO
      Oi     		
           oooooooooooooor^
                                                                         OrH
                                                                         rH r-1
                                              6-99

-------
CO

 I


 Q>
rH


I
                  (0


                     a>


                  1 ^

                  m ca

                  d) p^

                  H tQ
                  W D
                  C OQ
.as
    O

 $  0)
 (0  y
 a  3
   u

   U]
   a
S  (0
          en
         o
         
          03
          CO
         I
                  s
                                          o
                                          o
                                          o
                                          CM
                        ID
                        CT*
                        O
                        (Ti
                        a\
                        CO
in
GO
                                          m
                                          oo
                                          oo
                  >-i O  rH 
                  JJ 3 X!
                  C CT O
                  M 3<'*oorr'^rT33''*T3<^Tro

                                               mooonooooooooooooo
                                               CMi-HOOtNrHrHilOOr-HrHrHrHOOrH
                           6-100

-------
T
vo
I
                  (0
                    (0
                  0) 1-1

                 a a
                  (0 C

                 M (0
                    CO
                  m (0
                  W 04
                 fl
5

'
                    n
                 I*
                 4J  J-l
                                     rp O
                                     Iw
      o    _____                     _    	
      o    o>oCoo6Scor~rH^'obvooovoo

      CM





      in
      cr>    oooinocNocMrHCNOioomoono
      o\
      rH





      O
      o\

      rH-





           omoor-^ovocNoocMnr^inooooo
      oo
      o>






m    in
      oo
      



O


      ro
      oo
      o>

                 CSCNCNnCSrOrHrHnCNICOCNO





      00
      o>

                               "^      rH rH rH r-j O





      r-
      o>
           OCNVDOCNCNCNVOCNCJCNCNIVOCNO
                                                   O
                                             6-101

-------
T

                01
                (0
                (0
                8&
                Sff
                CQ  0>
                0)
                T3
                3  n
te
Sc
o
o

S
     m Ol 01 rH




IT)


S
     PO CS CN r~r-r~inro

t~-   rHCOrHrHrHCOrHrHrHrHCOrHO
     O VO CO O VO VO VO CO VO VO VO VO OO VO
                                                                  rH rH rH rH rH rH
                                       6-102

-------
VO

T
vo

              CQ
              0) CO
              'H o)
              CQ Ql

              sf
              2 w
              oca
CO  O
(0
              S
              aa  m

              C  CQ
                 SS-I
                 O
              O 4H
              l-i
        CO
        (0
        3

        .?
        s
                      g
        I
        -U
        
        o
        t-l
      o
      o















      o   o^moooomvooor-ocNinnooo
      cri   ~ -    --------








      oo

      r-(






      00
      CT>



u


      ro
      oo


                 rH r-i rH





      oo   ooboorHininindbobobininoDino
      o>

                                                  o
                                                  rH






           OrHnOrHrHrHnrHrHrHrHCOrHO
                                                  Q




u O  3
i-j fo 'O
0> i! ai
U 3 X!
                                            6-103

-------
I ^-

I
a)
rH

*
sng
                   (0

                   s
s
                   (0
                   s
    (/}
    0)
    $
    %
    
 0)

H  0)
 W  3
 C  CQ
H
   s
                      o

                   3) 
-------
CO

T
10
 nr~OOrH
-------
        It has been suggested that the masking of speech between pas-

sengers not conversing with one another is a benefit of bus noise.

Passengers are often reluctant to have their conversation overheard by

others, and in cases where the bus level is quite low, they may compen-

sate by lowering their voices unnaturally or by not talking at all due

to the lack of privacy.  This argument may be somewhat valid, however,

it cannot take precedence over a program to reduce the impact of in-

terior bus noise on hearing.

        EPA has identified 72 dB as the intruding noise level at which

a conversation at .5 meters with normal voice projection is considered

to be satisfactorily intelligible (95% sentence intelligibiity) in
                  8
steady state noise.  It has been suggested that 0.5 meters is a typical
                                              2
speaker-to-listener distance for bus passenger.  Thus, the outdoor speech

interference curve shown in Figure 6-18 was adjusted to 0.5 meters for
                                                     8
bus passengers by adding 6 dB per halving of distance, or a total of

12 dB, to the abscissa.  The outdoor speech intelligibility criteria was

then used to assess the ENI for speech inside buses.

        It was decided that outdoor speech criteria were better than

indoor speech criteria for estimating the impact of speech disturbance

inside buses because the background level assumed for the estimation of

outdoor speech disturbance is closer to the background level actually

experienced by bus riders and operators.  A typical outdoor day-night
                                              7
equivalent sound level in urban areas is 60 dB, which is the background

level assumed in the outdoor speech disruption criteria and is considered

comparable to actual background levels inside buses.  The indoor criteria,

however, uses 45 dB as a background level.  In addition to reasoning on
                                  6-106

-------
the basis of background levels, it is also felt that outdoor criteria
should be applied to the case of bus passengers and operators because
the setting inside buses is not the typically relaxed environment one
experiences indoors.
        Utilizing the values for the average interior front and rear
noise levels described in Part 6.4.1, the speech fractionalization method
described above, and the passenger population data of Table 6-35, the
equivalent number of people disturbed by interior noise as measured by
the potential disruption of speech can be estimated by the following
formula:
          ^speech  =    FIi speech  x  p
where
     FI^ speech ^s snown by Figure 6-18  (as adjusted by the above discus-
sion) for each interior level and P-^ is the population exposed per day.
        Table 6-49 shows the potential equivalent number of people esti-
mated for ENIspeech ^or eac^ ^ t^e samPle interior regulatory schedules
and study years.  Table 6-50 shows the percent reduction which can be
accomplished with each regulation schedule.
        Appendix F contains information  (Table F-39) regarding the ENI
contributions by bus type to all interior ENI (hearing loss effects and
speech interference effects) discussed in this part.
                                  6-107

-------
Ch
T
vo
 0)


1
                                   V-! O  1>
                                   O -H iH
                                   H .u  a
                                   V^ flj fQ
                                   
                                   *> 3 X!
                                   C Oi  O
                                   M ID w
      O
      O






      m


            cnr-LninincogDcoppcpcocovp





      p






            OOr-^iHiHOaNOiHrHcbOVOOO
      t-^
      CO
      


.
-------
o
T
 0)



EH
                   Oi
                   u M
                   Q) Q>
                   U-l W
                   >-i 3
                   OJCQ

                   C 0)
XJ  W
t5  c
 "  M
.5
                   u o
                   *3 4J
                  8 ^

                  4J
                   s
                   o
                   t-i O  
                   -U 3 jC
                   c en  o
                   M S W
                      PH
      O        _      _      _..__..__.__
      O     OOOVO^vDvDVOvOV)OOOOO>mO

             O^fOOCOOOCNfSCNCSCNininint^-Q





      in

              	 o
             O^OOOOOOCSCSOOOOCNfNCNCNVO  .

                                                         rH



      o     QinmininoonopoooofScsfNCNO

      (Ti
             O^OOOOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                            mroro       mrororoo





      bo

             o^vor^r-oooooor-t-^ooooooooo
 cq                                                       o




      m
TJ    oo

 g    ^





             OCNCNcTiCNrHCNrHCNCNrHfSrHCNO
      00     -------   -  -   -   -  _   -_T_.

      O>

                                                         O





      ob     oinininininininininLOininino

             OCNCMfNCNCNCSCNICSCSfNCSCNCSO
                                                         O
                                                         rH




             oinmoinininininininminino

             OCM(MOCNC>J
-------
6.5.0   SUMMARY



        The impacts from bus noise presented in Parts 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4



are based primarily on a single equation:



          ENI = FI x P



where



     ENI  is the equivalent noise impact



     FI   is the fractional impact produced by the noise



and



     P    is the population impacted



This basic equation finds many forms as the investigated area of impact



changes from traffic noise to single passbys to interior noise.  Table



6-51 summarizes the forms used in the preceding sections.  Five areas of



impact are distinguished:



     a.   Annoyance from urban street traffic



     b.   Sleep disturbance from bus passbys



     c.   Speech disturbance from bus passbys



     d.   Hearing loss from interior bus noise



     e.   Speech disturbance from interior bus noise



The first three impact areas concern exterior bus noise, while the last



two areas concern interior bus noise.
                                  6-110

-------
                                  Table 6-51

           Summary Equations Describing Calculation of Bus Noise Impacts


 Basic Equation:   Equivalent Noise Impact = Fractional Impact x Population
                                 Ldn max
a.                   ENI      = V    ( FI          x Pop.
                        traffic   A    ^   annoyance     ri
                                 i = 55 dB
                             0             "-an * 55dB

                annoyance
Ldn>55dB
                                   
b    ENI i         =  SEL max    /FI  ,       x Pop DensiiyxBus Miles x Distance from Koad. \
         sleep          y         /   sleep       r       /                              ,  \
        disturbance    . ~ 7      I   disturbance                                         /
        (awakening)    '  ,,.^        (awakening)
     where
              FI,     ,. t ,       =(1.35 SEL -50.0) x  .01
               sleep disturbance

              FI.        ,   .    =(1.19 SEL -59.7) x .01
               sleep awakening
                                      
      ENI     ,             eq     / Fl'     ,   x Pop Density x Bus Miles xDistance from Road.
         speech     =     \~     /    speech      r      '                              \
        disturbance         )      I    outdoors
        outdoors          i = 55 dB \   (indoors)
        (indoors)            (45)

      where    Leq  =  Lmax -  10  log  2.3 (Lmax - Lb)/10
              Lmax 1S the maximum level of a triangular  time  history passby
              Lfc   is the background level
              ^speech 1>s defined in reference 8,
                                       6-111

-------
                             lable  6-51  (Continued)

              Summary Equations Describing Calculation of Bus. Noise Impacts
                                            max
d-                I-NIHL__:__  =     Y'"/     / FI,    .    x
hearing        >    '      ( '"'hearing
             i = 70 dB    \
      \vhere
               FI,   .    = .05 (L  ,     -7Q
                 hearing       
                                         L
                    i-k. ir                 max  / _.i
                    ENIspeech       =   I     ("speech
                        disturbance       i ="55     outdoors
                        for passengers
      where
              FI     ,  is defined in reference 8.
                speech
                                           6-112

-------
                                Section 6

                               REFERENCES
1.   U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
     Highway Statistics, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office,
     1975.

2.   Wyle Laboratories, "Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment
     Powered by Internal Combustion Engines," for the EPA, ONAC,  December
     1971.  NTID 300.3.

3.   Booz/Allen, Inc., Memorandum to Wyle Research, February, 1976.

4.   A.T. Kearney, Inc., "Cost and Economic Impact Analysis," Preliminary
     Report for the EPA, ONAC, February 1976.

5.   Transit Research Foundation of Los Angeles, "City and Suburban
     Travel," Issue 123, August 1971.

6.   House Noise  Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of  Aircraft
     Noise, SAE Report AIR 1081, October 1971.

7.   Wyle Laboratories, "Community Noise," Prepared for the EPA,  Office of
     Noise Abatement and Control, December, 1971.  NTID 300.3.

8.   U.S. EPA, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
     Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety."
     March, 1974.  550/9-74-004.

9.   C.B. Burroughs, "Public Health and Welfare Benefits from Regulations
     on New Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emissions," Report to EPA,  ONAC,
     August, 1975.

10.  B. Sharp, Wyle Laboratories, "A Survey of Truck Noise Levels and the
     Effect of Regulations," Wyle Research Report WR 74-8, for the Office
     of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. EPA, December, 1974.

11.  K.E. Gould and R.H. Rowland, General Electric Tempo, "Health and
     Welfare Benefits from the Reduction of Motorcycle Noise Levels,
     "Draft Interim Report to EPA, ONAC, May, 1976.

12.  W.J. Galloway, K.M. Eldred, and M.A. Simpson, "Population
     Distribution of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Noise
     Level," EPA Report 550/9-74-004, June, 1974.

13.  D.L. Johnson, "The Impact of Levels Above 70 dB for Hearing  Loss
     Considerations," Memo from Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
     Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to the EPA, ONAC, 1976.
                                  6-113

-------
14.  J. Brandhuber, A,T.  Kearney Corp.,  Personal Communication, April 20,
     1976.

15.  "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement," Booz/Allen
     Applied Research, Draft final report submitted to  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Noise  Abatement and Control, EPA Contract
     No. 68-01-3509, June 22, 1976.

16.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Passenger Noise  Environments
     of Enclosed Transportation Systems," Report Number 550/9-75-025,
     June 1975.

17.  Booz/Allen Applied Research, memo to Wyle Research, March 12, 1976.

18.  Games, P. and Klare, G., "Elementary Statistics."   McGraw-Hill Book
     Co., New York (1967), Appendix D.

19.  Gould, K.E. and Rowland, R.H.,  "Environmental Impact of Noise Emission
     Standards for Motorcycles,"  Draft  interim report  submitted  to U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
     June 1976.

20.  Welch, B.L. and Welch, A.S. (Editors), "Physiological Effects of
     Noise."  New York, Plenum Press, 1970.

21.  Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.,  "A Survey of Annoyance from Motor
     Vehicle Noise."  Report No. 2112, June 1971.

22.  Rackl, R., Sutherland, L.C., and Swing, J., "Community  Noise Counter-
     measures Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Wyle Research Report  No.
     WCR 75-2, prepared for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers  Association,
     July 1975.

23.  Noise-Final Report, "Cmnd. 2056, July 1963, Her Majesty's Stationary
     Office, London.

24.  U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States:
     1975"  (96th Edition), Washington, D.C., 1975.

25.  U.S. Department of Transportation,  Bureau of Public Roads,  "1970
     National Highway Needs Report, with Supplement."  December 1969.

26.  Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.,  "Motor Vehicle Noise Identification
     and Analysis of Situations Contributing to Annoyance."   Report No.
     2082, June 1972.

27.  National Association of Motor Bus Owners, "Bus Facts" (39th  Edition),
     1972.

28.  Warnix, J.L. and Sharp, B.H., "Cost-Effectiveness  Study of Major
     Sources of Noise.  Vol. IV - Buses," Wyle Research Report WR 73-10,
     April 1974.
                                  6-114

-------
29.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement
     and Control, "Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact State-
     ments on Noise," Second Draft, February 1976.

30.  Plotkin, K., "Assessment of Noise at Community Development Sites.
     Appendix A-Noise Models."  Wyle Research Report WR75-6,  October 1975.

31.  Plotkin, K., "A Model for the Prediction of Highway Noise Assessment
     of Strategies for its Abatement through Vehicular Noise  Control,"
     Wyle Research Report WR 74-5, September 1974.

32.  Whitney, D., General Motors Corporation, verbal communication with
     Wyle Research, July 23, 1976.

33.  Sutherland, L., M. Braden, and R. Colman, "A Program for the Mea-
     surement of Environmental Noise in the Community and its Associated
     Human Response, Volume 1," Wyle Research Report WR-73-8  for the U.S.
     Department of Transportation, December 1973.

34.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Public Health and Welfare
     Criteria for Noise."  EPA Report 550/9-73-002, July 1973.

35.  Gunn, W., T. Shighehisa, and W. Shepherd, "Relative Effectiveness  of
     Several Simulated Jet Engine Noise Spectral Treatments in Reducing
     Annoyance in a TV-Viewing Situation." NASA Langley Research Center,
     Draft Report, 1976.

36.  Lukas, J., "Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy in
     Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep."
     UoS. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/1-77-010,  February 1977.

37.  Lukas, J., "Noise and Sleep:  A Literature Review and a  Proposed
     Criteria for Assessing Effect," J. Acous. Soc. Am., Vol. 58(6) p.
     1232, Dec. 1975.

38.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,  "Urban
     Traffic Noise Strategy for an Improved Environment." Paris, 1971.

39.  Southern California Rapid  Transit District, "South Bay  Improvement
     Guide," effective June 27, 1976.

40.  Department of Traffic, City of Los Angeles, "Traffic Counts," 1972.

41.  Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles, "Standard Street
     Dimensions," Regional Plan Association Standard Plan D-22549,
     effective September 23, 1969.

42.  "Noise Levels of New MCI Buses," Booz-Allen Applied Research, a
     report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys
     Office of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA Contract No.  68-01-3509,
     October 7, 1976.
                                  6-115

-------
43.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Noise Enforcement Facility,
     "Lima School Bus Test Report," Sandusky,  Ohio,  June,  1976.

44.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Document  for
     Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Regulations."   EPA Report
     550/9-76-008, March 1976.

45.  Regional Plan News, "Where Transit Works," August, 1976, No.  99.

46.  Wilbur Smith and Associates, "Transportation and Parking for
     Tomorrow's Cities," New Haven, Conn., 1966.

47.  Russ Kevala, Booz-Allen Applied Research, Personal Communication,
     September 23, 1976.

48.  Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, "Economic Impact Analysis  of Proposed
     Noise Control Regulation," Report No. 3246 for  the U.S.  Department
     of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health  Administration, April  21,
     1976.

49.  Continental Trailways, Schedule from Los  Angeles to New York,
     effective April 25, 1976,  CW-2.

50.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Comparison of  Alternative
     Strategies for Identification and Regulation of Major Sources of
     Noise."  EPA Report February 1975 (original reference reported  by
     reference 9).

51.  Rowland, R.H., and K.E. Gould, "Environmental Impact  of Noise
     Emission Standards for Solid Waste Compaction Trucks:  Health and
     Welfare Benefits."  Draft Interim Report  to U.S. EPA, ONAC, June
     1976.

52.  Mitre Corporation, "Feasibiity Study of Noise Control Modifications
     for an Urban Transit Bus."  Prepared for  Urban  Mass Transportation
     Administration, January 1973.  PB-220 364.

53.  U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, "Study of Potential for Motor Vehicle Economy
     Improvement" Truck and Bus Panel Report,  January 10,  1975.

54.  "Noise Levels of New Eagle Buses," Booz-Allen Applied Research, a
     report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
     Office of Noise Abatement, and Control, EPA Contract No.  68-01-3509,
     November 16, 1976.

55.  R. E. Burke, S. A. Bush, and J. W. Thompson, "Noise Emission  Standards
     for Buses - A Draft Environmental Impact  Statement,"  Wyle Research
     Report WR 76-21, submitted by Wyle Laboratories under EPA Contract No.
     68-01-3512, prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement and  Control,
     October 19, 1976.
                                  6-116

-------
56.  Grandjean, E.,  Graf,  P.,  Lauber, A., Meier, H.P., and Muller, R.,
     A Survey of Aircraft  Noise in Switzerland, Proceedings of the Inter-
     national Congress on  Noise as a Public Health Problem, Durbrovnik,
     Yugoslavia, May 13-18, 1973,  pp. 645-659.

57.  Sorenson, S., Berglund, K., and Rylander, R., Reaction Patterns in
     Annoyance Response to Aircraft Noise, Proceedings of the International
     Congress on Noise as  a Public Health Problem, Durbrovnik, Yugoslavia,
     May 13-18, 1973, pp.  669-677.

58.  Johnson, D.R.  A note on  the  relationship between noise exposure
     and noise probability distribution, NPL AEPD Report Ai40 (May 1969).
                                6-117

-------
                                SECTION 7



                   ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BUS NOISE CONTROL



I.   OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

     The purpose of this overview is to outline EPA's approach to the

economic impact analysis of bus noise regulation.  Figure 7-1 describes the

conceptual format of the analysis in terms of a flow diagram, and the dis-

cussion that follows is essentially an elaboration of that diagram.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
  ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

     This part describes the basic supply/demand model underlying the

analysis.  For each of the major areas of bus noise abatement  inter-

city buses, urban transit buses, and school buses  two separate but highly

related markets are under analysis:

     1.   The market for fully equipped, finished buses, viewed as durable

          capital goods input to producing transportation services.

     2.   The market for bus transportation, from the view point of final

          consumers of bus services.

     It should be noted that the market for school bus services in a consumer

sense differs from the market for other bus transportation in that it is

dictated more by the need to transport pupils and associated policy and legal

considerations than by individual consumer choice.

     Bus transit firms, whether intercity carriers, urban transit authori-

ties, or public school districts, act as intermediaries, operating in both

of these markets.


                                    7-1

-------
      FIGURE 7-1.  ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF NOISE REGULATION
INDUSTRY PROFILE;

     o    Industry Structure

     o    Components of Prime Cost,
           Prime User Costs

     o    Age Distribution of capital
           Stock,  User Inventories

     o    International Trade

     o    Ongoing Regulatory Programs,
           Government Subsidies, Etc.

     o    Baseline Forecast
DETERMINE

FEEDBACK EFFECT

ON SUPPLY;

ITERATE

ANALYSIS
         T
DETERMINE EFFECT OF

REGULATION ON SHORT-RUN

INDUSTRY SUPPLY CURVE,

USER DEMAND CURVE
                           REGULATION PROFILE;

                           IDENTIFY CHANGES  IN:

                             o  Technology

                             o  Production Costs

                             o  Product Configurations

                             o  Enforcement  and
                                 Compliance  Costs

                           AS REQUIRED BY THE PROPOSED

                            REGULATIONS
                                                              I
USE DEMAND ELASTICITY

ESTIMATED AND COST

ANALYSES TO ASSESS EFFECT

ON EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY
o  Econometric
    Studies

o  Sensitivity
    Analysis
  EXAMINE LONG-RUN

  EFFECTS  ON INDUSTRY

  STRUCTURE, EXPORTS/IMPORTS

  INDIVIDUAL FIRMS
                            EXAMINE FINANCIAL IMPACT

                            ON USERS, CONSUMER GROUPS,

                            GOVERNMENT, INFLATION,

                            BALANCE OF BWMENTS
                                   7-2

-------
     The demand for buses as a capital good is a "derived" demand for a fac-

tor input, that is, derived from the demand for final consumption of bus

services by eventual end users.  A large portion of the economic analysis

is devoted to describing the relationship between facts that can be ascer-

tained about final demand and the conditions under which that final demand

translates into a demand for buses as capital inputs.

     The mix of regulatory and managerial incentives observed in the various

bus transportation markets implies a variety of potential responses to the

proposed regulations.  A separation of the parallel analyses of the three

major categories (transit, intercity, and school buses) is maintained

throughout the Economic Impact Analysis.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND AT
  THE CONSUMER LEVEL

     (a)  Urban and Intercity
          Transportation Services

     Figure 7-2 portrays a standard supply and demand model for urban and

intercity transportation services at the consumer level.  Ideally, both

the supply and demand schedules could be estimated econometrically, and the

analysis conducted in precise, empirical terms.  Realistically, however, we

know very little about either the supply or the demand curve, particularly

the former, and it is necessary to proceed in terms of heuristic arguments

combined with sensitivity tests of specific parametric assumptions.

     The supply and demand curves of Figure 7-2 apply to the relevant market

or submarket in which the transit firm operates.  For example, the relevant

market for an urban transit system is the appropriate urbanized area, while

the market for intercity bus carriers is nationwide.


                                  7-3

-------
                               FIGURE 7-2
                 SUPPLY AND DEMAND AT THE CONSUMER LEVEL
Fare per '
Bus-mile'
         So
                                                       Si
                     Ql
Qo
Bus-miles per  unit time
     Consider the effect of a rise in the cost of transportation equipment.
Assume, to begin with, that the  increased cost of equipment results in an
increase  in the marginal cost of operating a bus transit firm, hence of the
supply curve facing bus passengers.  The assumption can be verified subse-
quently in an analysis of transit firms.
     Since the exact shape of the curve SS is not known in advance, a hori-
zontal supply curve S S  is taken as a first approximation.  This shape is
consistent with a long-run supply of an industry that does not experience
                                    7-4

-------
economies or diseconomies of scale  (Reference 1) in its bus operations,  so


the initial analysis also has implications for long-term economic impacts.


     (b)   School  Bus

          Transportation  Services


     The demand for  school  transportation services are viewed as being signi-


ficantly different from that of urban and intercity transportation services.


Figure 7-3 is an  approximation of the demand for school bus transportation.



                              FIGURE 7-3


                       TOTAL MARKET DEMAND FOR
                       SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION
      Price  per

      Pupil  Mile
          P  =$0.009
          0
                                                      Demand
                                                     0
                                                            Bus  Miles
                                   7-5

-------
     Present conditions are approximated by the price/quantity relationship
                                                          1
of Q  x  P  where P  =  $0.009 represents an approximation of the

present taxpayer burden per pupil mile for school bus transportation  (cal-

culated in terms of numbers of students transported at public expense).

     Price P, represents one of several alternative price levels per

pupil mile where other forms of transportation become visible alterna-

tives to school bus transportation.  Depending upon individual circumstances,

prices around level P, can be viewed as the operating costs associated

with the following transportation alternatives:

                     price of riding transit buses
                       to and from school

                     car pool costs on a per pupil
                       basis

                     cost of automobile transport
                       (if car pools are not a viable
                       alternative)

     As the price per pupil mile for school bus transportation moves between

P  and P-, very few parents would be rational if they chose to transport

their children on a personal basis due to the following conditions:

     1.   Pupil transportation is viewed as an essentially free commodity

          due to the tax burden being shared by nearly all taxpayers  in an

          area.

     2.   If large numbers of publicly transported pupils chose alternative

          forms of transportation, the public costs would remain essentially

          unchanged in the short term with an additional burden being borne

          by the individual transporting families.
1
   For 1973-74, 267,704 school buses transported 21,347,039 pupils at an
   average cost of $0.72 per bus mile.   (National Center for Education
   Statistics, Statistics of State School Systems, 1973-74, Table 41)

                                  7-6

-------
     If the individuals were the only interested parties, the demand curve

between P  and P, would be perfectly inelastic such that no reduction

in school bus usage would be realized from price/cost increases.  However,

state and local transportation coordinators and legislators feasibly have

options available to them such as changing policy to the extent that volume

of service offered as a free commodity would be reduced.  Such policy con-

siderations might be in the following areas:

                     reduction in the quantity and/or
                       length of field trips

                     elimination of free transportation
                       to sporting events

                     changing physical conditions which
                       presently preclude walking at
                       present (such as installing side-
                       walks and traffic lights where
                       necessary for safe walking)

Nevertheless, the section of the demand curve between P  and P, is

viewed as being essentially inelastic.

     As prices move above level P,, the likelihood of eliminating school

transportation services becomes much more viable, and we would view the curve

as being essentially elastic where it might be more attractive to eliminate

school transportation services entirely, with school districts possibly

offering payments to differentially impacted families.

INCREMENTAL
  COST ANALYSIS

     An estimate of the effect of the proposed noise regulations on the

supply curve SS  (see Figure 7-2)  can be formed by examining the expense

statement of a typical transit firm (or of U. S. transit firms in the aggre-

gate) .  From economic theory, we know that the supply curve of an industry
                                    7-7

-------
is the horizontal sum of individual firm supply curves, and individual firm



supply curves are the "marginal" or "incremental" cost schedules for oper-



ating transit fleets.



     The transit firm's expense statement e is a sum of contributing expense



accounts, including labor (L),  maintenance (M), fuel (F), capital expense



(X), stations (S), and other expenses (0):



                         Expense =L+M+F+X+S+0.



     Imposition of noise control technology, as a first approximation,



affects only a subset of these expenses.  (For the costs of bus noise tech-



nology, refer to Appendix C.)   Since only incremental impact is relevant



to movements in the supply curve, consideration of many expense categories



can be eliminated.



     Specifically, we determine (from Appendix C) the incremental effect



on E of imposition of regulatory level R:



                         dE/dR = oty/dR + dF/dR + dX/dR.



     The derivatives with respect to other expense categories vanish,



since as a first approximation the technology has no effect on these items.



     Note, however, that the full response to the regulation may change all



expense categories as different forms of bus and fleet management



technology are applied.  The "first-round" approximation is an approach that



provides an upper bound to the predicted economic cost impact.



     Analysis of incremental capital cost dX/dR deserves special attention.



If the firm's capital stock of buses is K dollars, then the relevant annual



carrying cost is X - (r + i) K dollars, where r is the rate of depreciation



per year and i is the rate of interest.  Incremental capital cost there-



fore is:



                         dX/dR = (r + i) dK/dR,



                                   7-8

-------
where dK/dR represents the additional cost of noise reduction equipment
installed on a newly-equipped bus.
     (a)  Effect on
          Quantity Demanded
     A rise in the supply curve to S, S,  (see Figure 7-2) implies
a reduction in equilibrium quantity from Q  to Q-,.  The econometric
formula for estimating this relationship is given by the fare elasticity
of transit demand, EL-:

                     E_  = % Change in Quantity Demanded (B)
                      BF ~          % Change in Fare (F)

     Appendix D reviews estimates of the fare elasticity of demand for
the urban bus transit market and the intercity bus transportation market;
adequate data for a similar estimate of the school bus market is unavail-
able, due to difficulties associated with defining the concept of a "fare"
in that market.
     It is important to bear in mind certain cross-effects vis-a-vis other
modes of transportation.  Empirical work in this area suggests that such
"cross elasticities" are indeed present to some extent, hence that a dif-
ferential rise in the price of bus services as compared with fares (or user
costs,  in the case of private automobiles) of competing modes will have a non-
negligible impact on demand for the mode in question. A relevant consider-
ation in this regard is the possibility that simultaneous promulgation of
noise regulations on all modes of transit may have similar effects on fares
in all markets.  To the extent that this phenomenon is true, the effect
of cross elasticities of demand is diminished.
                                    7-9

-------
     (b)  Equilibrium
          Quantity Impact

     As a first approximation, the reduction of output to Q, translates

into a reduced long-run demand for bus capital as input to providing bus

services by the ratio (1 - Q-.Q ).  To examine this impact further,

we consider the market for finished buses.  In doing so, it is hoped that

some knowledge may be gained concerning the shape of the supply curve SS.

     Analysis of the market for finished buses draws on the industry profile

section (Section 3).  The aspects of the analysis can be distinguished as

one which is long-run and somewhat theoretical, and the other as which is

short-run and descriptive.

LONG RUN
  ANALYSIS

     The long-run analysis considers the effect of a long-run reduction in

output of buses by the ratio I - Qi/Ogf superimposed on the natural long-

term growth rate of the industry.  Inasmuch as reduction in bus service is

predicted by movements along the demand curves in Figures 7-2 and 7-3,

reduction in long-run bus output will be forthcoming.   (This assumption is

supported by an observed constant share of bus capital costs in the expense

accounts of bus fleet operators.)

     The bus industry profile  (Section 3) provides information concerning

the size distribution and profitability of bus manufacturers, the history and

growth of the industry, trade-in buses with foreign countries, life-cycle

characteristics of buses, and technical data concerning the manufacture and

design technology of buses.  This information is examined to assess the

likelihood that reduced output levels result in a lower marginal cost of

newly produced buses  (hence that the supply curve SS in Figure 7-2 is


                                    7-10

-------
upward-sloping) and whether there are marginal firms in the industry, includ-

ing importers, who would be forced to cease operations due to the potential

reduction in equilibrium output.  Note that this latter consideration properly

belongs to the normative phase of the overall impact analysis.

     If so indicated, a rising supply schedule for bus production would

imply a rising supply curve SS in Figure 7-2, and a revision in the quan-

titative estimate of the impact Q^ /Q  .  An interative procedure {Fig-

ure 7-1) then leads to a determination of the long-run equilibrium.

SHORT-RUN
  ANALYSIS

     Although the long-run analysis is a reliable indicator on which to

base the overall study, some relevant short-run elements are worth consi-

dering, particularly in regard to assessing the possible costs of disrup-

tions following the initial promulgation of the regulations.

     One such effect is the so-called "pre-buying" phenomenon wherein bus

fleet operators invest heavily in pre-regulation bus capital to avoid

the higher costs associated with the post-regulation equipment.  In con-

trast to the effect on buyers of buses, the disruptive impact on manufac-

turers of buses is reduced by providing adequate lead times for the develop-

ment and introduction of noise abatement technology.  A precise statement

as to the relative magnitude of these phenomenon is difficult to produce,

but the potential existence merits attention.

     A second short-run phenomenon is the determination of the degree to

which higher equipment costs are passed through to eventual consumers and

end-users by the manufacturers and the bus fleet firms.  Since most bus

fleets (except tourism, some charters, and private, non-revenue fleets)
                                    7-11

-------
operate in a regulated or public ownership setting,  immediate pass-through

of operating cost increases may not occur, particularly in the short-run.

Factors working against immediate operating cost pass-through include:

                     government funding of bus
                       capital expenditures

                     political decision-making
                       processes of regulatory bodies

                     regulations relating to routes
                       and service requirements

                     direct subsidies to mass
                       transit systems

                     costs of record-keeping and
                       financial control

Since all of these factors serve to reduce or forestall the pass-through

of long-run incremental cost increases, the long-run analysis serves as

an "upper-bound" on the overall impact estimates.

SENSITIVITY
 ANALYSIS

     In complex numerical computations, the term "sensitivity analysis"

refers to tests concerning estimated values of certain key parameters by

varying their magnitude and by performing the calculations under the changed

assumptions to detect the significance of errors on the final results.

     Such sensitivity tests are performed in two ways on the economic

analysis below.  First, the estimate of technology costs (Appendix C) are

determined as a range of potential values and EE&'s independent estimate.

The three values (high, low, and the EEft. independent estimate) are carried

through the economic and financial impact analyses.  Since the high estimate

generally corresponds to the highest estimate provided by industry sources,
                                    7-12

-------
the calculations for this level also have implications for  assessing the

"worst case" conditions envisioned by respondent industry firms.

     A second use of sensitivity analysis is in examining the effect of

certain heuristic assumptions about demand elasticities,  public funding

levels, and product costs.  These tests are made routinely in the devel-

opment of the overall analysis.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
   ANALYSIS

     The positive economic analysis of what occurs after  the regulations

are promulgated has implications for financial impacts on various special

interest groups.  Since these normative aspects of the regulations may affect

the decision-maker's decisions, pertinent information is  supplied.

     Specific areas covered are the effects on exports and  imports, impacts

on marginal producers, differential impacts on municipalities and consumer

groups, costs to government in the form of increased subsidies to transit

firms, inflationary impacts, and possible balance of payments repercussions.

     The industry profile section (Section 3)  presents projections for

industry output during the period 1976-90.  The projections are combined

with the various technology cost estimates (Appendix C) and the assumptions

about the current capital stock of buses to produce a simulation of the

financial cost impact of the proposed regulations.  The simulation permits

the assessment of alternative regulatory actions on the basis of an annual-

ized resource cost to the economy as a whole.

     Because the intent of these projections is to obtain estimates of the

total resource cost, and not to predict economic behavior,  incremental

capital cost is handled somewhat differently here than in the above economic

analysis.  Here the objective is to measure the incremental capital cost


                                    7-13

-------
actually expended in the aggregate, as opposed to the effect of a change in
marginal capital costs on pricing decisions of bus fleet operators.
     Actual incremental capital expenditures in any given year are estimated
by multiplying the sum of depreciation and interest (r + i) times the value
of the stock of additional outstanding equipment, net of reserves for depre-
ciation, that has been committed for the purpose of noise abatement.  If,
for example,Ak.  additional equipment is installed in year t for noise

abatement, then the capital cost related to that investment in year t + s
is given by:
                    (r + i) (1 - r)s   Akt,
                      a
where the term (1 - r)  reflects depreciation at annual rate r for s years.
     Alternatively, if straight line depreciation is employed, this cost is
estimated by:
                      k /n  + i (1 - s/n)s   Ak ,

where n is the depreciable life of the equipment installed.
                                   7-14

-------
II.  ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOISE REGULATIONS ON USERS AND MANUFACTURERS

INTRODUCTION

     This part of the analysis deals with the economic impact of the
promulgation of noise abatement regulations on bus manufacturers, industry
suppliers, end-users and other affected groups as have been identified.
The industry has been divided into three separate product groups 
intercity, transit, and school buses  due to the following considerations.

     1.   The products are dissimilar with respect to

          their end-use characteristics.

     2.   Operating entities in each category are

          structured and regulated differently.

     The three economic impact assessments appear in the following order:

     A.   Economic Impact of Noise
          Regulations on Intercity Motor
          Bus Carriers and manufacturers

     B.   Economic Impact of Noise Regulations
          on Urban Transit Motor Bus Carriers
          and Manufacturers

     C.   Economic Impact of Noise Regulations
          on School Bus Carriers and Manufacturers
A.   ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOISE REGULATIONS ON INTERCITY MOTOR
                              BUS CARRIERS AND MANUFACTURERS

     Appendix C indicates three major effects of bus noise reduction tech-

nology:

                    o  Additional noise-abatement equipment
                       installed on newly-produced buses

                    o  Increased maintenance costs for new
                       buses

                    o  Reduced fuel efficiency of new buses
                                   7-15

-------
Since the primary impact of these costs is on bus users  fleet operators,

intercity cariers, and, ultimately, consumers  the analysis below concen-

trates attention initially on the user end of the industry.  Induced impacts on

manufacturers and financing authorities is studied subsequently.

ANALYSIS OF
  USER COSTS

     By way of introduction, Table 7-A-l summarizes operating expense accounts
                                          2
of the Class 1 intercity motor bus carrier  during the years 1939-75.  An

important result from economic theory (reference 2) states that as the demand

for an intermediate product (like buses) is less sensitive (elastic) to changes

in its own price, the smaller is the share of that intermediate product in the

composition of the final product demanded (bus transportation).  The reason is

that for a given elasticity of demand for the final product, bus transportation,

the smaller the share of the intermediate input, buses, the smaller will be the

percentage impact of a change in bus prices on the total cost and price of the

final product.  A relatively small change in the price of the final product,

transportation, implies a relatively small effect on quantity demanded of both

the final product and the intermediate good.
2
 Class designations are formed using annual revenue dollars.
 Class 1 carriers have revenues of $1,000,000 ore more.
 Class 2 carriers have revenues of $300,000 or more but less than $1,000,000.
 Class 3 carriers have revenues less than $300,000.
                                    7-16

-------

(
f^
CM
i 1
V
CM
rH

P

1-1

g
1
^
*. rH
Ssc
M | 0
S*h Irt
2J is?
ro CM
ss M
0
fe
M tS 
S U en
H rH
2 
2 ri3
a u en
'CO .

rH
2
vo
iH
rH
O
m
rH
CN
VO
rH
rH
CM

VO


CM
vo
ro


in
CO
rH











c
o
H
4J
JS
CO

ro
CO
ro

rH
CN
ro

vo
00
CN

CN
CN
CN

CN

rH


ro
rH
rH


,3,
CM
O

S
U
4J
^
(U
rg
*
<3
^
c
ic, Solicitatio
D-l
m

o
CN
**

0
"*

CM
^
ro

rH

CN

CM
CM
rH


m
^*
rH


VO
O
rH











1

-------
     Using this theorem, Table 7-A-l lends insight into the probable

results of the economic impact analysis.   Bus capital,  the major component

of the "Depreciation and Amortization" account in the ICC reporting format,

represents a small fraction of total operating expenses, say five percent

of less.  Hence, a given regulation-induced change in the price of new

buses has only a small effect on the "derived" demand for new buses, and

the ability of the bus manufacturing industry to pass through the additional

equipment costs without severely reducing their sales is thereby enhanced.

     Expenses for fuel and maintenance, are relatively important compon-

ents of the operating expense accounts, but here the potential for adverse

economic economic impacts on the suppliers of these inputs  the petroleum

industry and the supply of skilled mechanic labor, respectively  is

negligible due to the overwhelming size of these markets relative to the

bus service industry.

COST ESTIMATES
  FROM APPENDIX C

     Table 7-A-2 summarizes the pertinent estimates of technology cost from

Appendix C.  Expense estimates are in terms of 1976 dollars.  It should be

noted that the various proposed technology levels are cost independent of one

another.

     The estimates in Table 7-A-2 are "incremental" expenses, that is, addi-

tional expenses over and above the costs in 1976 of purchasing and operating a

typical bus that has no noise abatement equipment installed.  Incremental fuel

costs are computed on the basis of midpoint mileage estimates, as described in

the footnote to the table.
                                    7-18

-------
CN


 I
r-


a
   CO CO
                           CO
                           D
                           PQ

                           CtJ
3
                 8
                 H
                           CQ
                        W
                            U)
                           u
                            tji
                           H

                           a
                                            o
                                            r--
                                                             m
                                                             o
                                                             ro
       O
       CN
       in
o
oo
oo
                                                          in
                                                          o
                                                          00
                                                                           s
                                                                           o
                                     to-
                                     o
                                     un
                                            in
                                     co-
                                      in
                                      o
                                     oo-
                                     oo
                                                             in
                                                             r-
                                                             00
                                                   o
                                                   m
                                                   ro
       o
       in
                                                      m

                                                      8
in     o
CTt     CT
ro     o

rH     CN"
              o
              r^-
              CN

              ro
o
in
o

o
                                            oo
                                                   o
                                                   oo
                                                                    0
                                                                    CO
              oo
              r--
                                                                                      &
                                                                                      (0
                                                                                                .  .  CO  CU ro
                                                                                                CJ  CU  > CU
                                                                                                CU
                                                                                                       H >,
                                                                                                           Oi     C
                                                                                                           >  >1-H  CO
                                                                                                           (Q  ^j     QJ

                                                                                                              P >irH
                                                                                                           01  10 U -H
                                                                                                            3 O>  E=
                                                                                                              CO
                                                                                         CO   -

                                                                                      CJi 01  CO

                                                                                      C  6  u
                                                                                     H  -3    3  CO
                                                                                                       CU  t3  01
                                            CN
                                                   ro
                                                                in
                                                                           CU
                                                                           1-1

                                                                           I
                                                  7-19

-------
     For Technology Level 5, an additional consideration not reflected in

Table 7-A-2 is the fact that noise abatement equipment required to attain

the 75 dBA exterior level and the 78 dBA interior level also entails a

reduction in seating capacity by two seats (four passengers) from the

standard 43-seat bus.  Reduced seating capacity clearly imposes costs on

the intercity carrier, but the magnitude of these costs is difficult to

assess.  The average passenger load on intercity trips is 20 passengers,

or less than half-full, so a large proportion of current service would be

unaffected by the loss of these seats, except to the extent that increased

crowding of remaining capacity adversely affects customer demand.
                      3
     Industry sources  have indicated to EPA that the price differential for

similarly-equipped 41 and 49 passenger-rated buses is $12,000 in 1976.

The implied differential for estimating the cost of losing two seats (four

passengers) is $6,000.  No measurable difference is indicated in the opera-

ting and maintenance costs between the two buses.

     The only adjustment called for in Table 7-A-2 is the addition of $6,000

to the equipment cost for Technology Level 5.  This adjustment is included

in^ all subsequent calculat ions of the economic impact^ analysiis.

     The $6,000 estimate is substantiated by some evidence collected in 1973

by Greyhound Lines, Inc., in connection with their discussion at that time

to make the 43-seat bus standard equipment in preference to the 38-seat bus.

Greyhound's study involved a survey of departure loads for twelve different

U.S. locations.  For a sample of 2,179 scheduled bus departures, 45, or 2.07
3
 Housman Bus Sales; Chicago, Illinois (a major distributor)
                                    7-20

-------
 percent, had passenger loads of 39 to 43 passengers.  Since Greyhound

 has a legal obligation to provide service for all paying customers, the

 implication is that a reduction in bus seating capacity from 43 to 38

 seats would raise total operating costs by roughly two percent.

      In the analysis set forth below, an increase of $6,000 in equipment

 costs implies a maximum 1.40 percent increase (see Table 7-A-8) in total

 operating costs. After adjusting this estimate to reflect five lost seats

 instead of four, the agreement with Greyhound's measure is apparent,

 particularly in light of the fact that the $6,000 estimate reflects full

 adjustment of schedules to fleet capacity whereas Greyhound's test held

 schedules constant.

 ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
            CAPITAL COSTS

      The formula for estimating incremental capital costs is

                dX/dR = (r + i) dK/dR,

 where dX/dR is the incremental capital cost associated with regulatory

 level R, dK/dR is the dollar value of noise abatement equipment installed

 on new buses, r is the rate of depreciation, and i is the rate of interest.

 A major difficulty arises in providing accurate estimates of the rate

 of depreciation r.

      Three alternatives for estimating r are discussed:  estimates based

1 on observations of prices of used equipment, life cycle estimates, and

 analysis of carriers' accounting statements.  Each of these methods en-

 counters difficulties which are examined in turn.
                                   7-21

-------
     (a)  Estimates Based on Observed
          Used Equipment Prices	

     The major difficulty in this case is the lack of meaningful data

on which to base estimates.  For time periods of ten years or more, the

difference in quality and design of used buses versus newly produced buses

makes price comparisons highly difficult.  The used market itself is not

well organized, thus pure quotations are not easily obtained or necessarily

representative.

     One major dealer did provide EPA with a pair of prices of standard

intercity buses for the years 1976 and 1964.  The price for the 1964 bus

includes expenses incurred by the dealer for equipment overhaul and refur-

bishing (as much as $10,000 per bus), so the extent to which the price

reflects true "depreciation" is not certain:

     1976 new intercity bus                             $85,000 - $95,000

     1964 good condition used intercity bus             $31,000 - $32,000

     The implied rate of depreciation over the 12-year period is estimated

as follows:
                                       1/12
                    1 -  (31,500/90,000)     = 8.4%

     (b) " Estimates Based on
          Life Cycle Assumptions

     Tables 7-A-3 and 7-A-4 demonstrate that the total U.S. population of

intercity buses has remained relatively constant during the past two decades,

and that new bus production has amounted to five-to-ten percent of total

stocks.  The difference between the two tables in the ratio of new bus pro-

duction to total stocks is explained by the fact that Table 7-A-4 records

only Class I bus inventories, whereas Table 7-A-3 gives estimates of Class I,

II and III inventories.
                                    7-22

-------
                               TABLE 7-A-3

                        INTERCITY BUS FLEET VEHICLE
                         INVENTORY AND PRODUCTION
                                 1970-75
Calendar
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975p
Bus
Inventory5
22,000
21,900
21,400
20,800
20,600
20,500
Bus
Shipments
1,064
977
1,353
1,276
1,350
	
Shipments as
of Existing
4.84%
4.46
6.32
6.13
6.55
	
Percent
Stock






Source:
National Association of Motor Bus Owners (NAMBO).
Note:
Bus inventory refers to estimated inventories of all
operating companies, including Class I, Class II and
Class III Carriers, from NAMBO, One-half Century of
Service to America, Table 1. p:  preliminary.
                                 7-23

-------
                                   TABLE 7-A-4

                SELECTED BALANCE SHEET AND OPERATING STATISTICS,
                      CLASS I INTERCITY MOTOR BOS CARRIERS,
                                    1941-73
Calendar
  Year
Total Revenue
  Passenger
  Equipment
  (millions)
           Net Revenue
            Passenger
            Equipment5
[uipmei
dllioi
                           (millions)
Depreciation
 of Revenue
 Equipment
 (millions)
 Equipmen t
 Acquired
During Year
   (Buses)
Equipment
Owned At
 Year-End
  (Buses)
1941
1950
1955
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
    $ 75.0
     214.
     264.
     319.8
     332.
     402.
     408.
     428.
     376.0
         ,7
         ,1
394
424
450.0
415.9
418.7
439.5
454.0
464.2
              $ 42.4
                88.7
               112.1
               119.4
               127.8
               178.
               184.
               205.
                    194
                    250
                    256
 171.8
 186.1
 199.0
     ,3
     .2
     ,6
                    255.9
                    249.5
                    226.3
    $ 12.1
      24.4
      25.0
      27.6
      26.7
      32.6
      32.0
      37.7
      34.8
      37.4
      38.9
      40.7
      34.3
      32.8
      32.9
      31.3
      34.9
   1,358
     697
   1,344
   1,639
   1,057
   1,329
   1,102
   1,543
   1,084
   1,376
   1,411
   1,205
     743
   1,042
     893
     972
   1,000
 7,891
13,200
11,547
11,093
11,036
13,873
13,608
14,274
11,295
11,749
12,307
12,257
10,063
10,158
 9,900
 9,711
 9,300
Source:    Interstate Commerce Commission, Transport Statistics in the United
           States (annual).
Note:      Net of Reserves for Depreciation.  Coverage varies from year
           year according to ICC definition of Class I carriers.
                                                              to
                                     7-24

-------
     A large portion of the supply of buses to Class II and Class III fleet

operators is in the form of second-hand, used buses from Class I operators,

and only a small part of this supply is in the form of newly-produced buses.

Hence, the total supply of new buses, around 1,200 per year, more properly

represents replacement service to the entire population of carriers and not

just to Class I Carriers.

     On the assumption that the age distribution and technology of buses is

roughly uniform over time, these numbers indicate a lower bound on the rate

of depreciation of five percent per year.

     (c)  Estimates Based on
          Carriers' Financial Statements

     An upper bound on the rate of depreciation may be obtained by examining

the pertinent accounting statements from ICC Class I annual complications.

These statistics are provided in Table 7-A-4 for the period 1941 through 1973.

     ICC accounting rules permit a variety of depreciation formulas for

reporting purposes, including depreciation by number of miles driven, but the

industry norm is eight-year, straight-line depreciation.  The ICC Class I

motor bus statistics are dominated by the major carriers (Greyhound, Conti-

nental Trailways, Bluebird, etc.) and the numbers in Table 7-A-4 undoubtedly

reflect this method of accounting in large part.

     The eight-year figure is well below the true economic life of intercity

buses:  actual service life is at least fifteen and potentially thirty years

or more.  But due to the significantly greater intensity with which new inter-

city buses are driven during the initial two years of operation (250,000 miles
                                    7-25

-------
per year as compared with an average annual mileage of 86,000 miles per year

for all Class I intercity buses),  the official depreciation life of eight

years represents a compromise between straight-line method and true economic

loss-of-value.

     The question remains as to whether to use the "total equipment" or "net

equipment" accounts as the basis for estimating the rate of annual depreciation.

Use of the "total" depreciation (Column 2 of Table 7-A-4) results in an under-

statement of depreciation, since it includes equipment still owned but older

than eight years and therefore no longer depreciated.   Net equipment, on

the other hand, results in an overstatement of depreciation because the eight-

years straight-line formula results in an understatement of the total capital

stock.

     Note, however, that estimates of the rate of depreciation based on these

accounting summaries are not biased due to price inflation:  both the numerator

(stated depreciation) and the denominator (total or net assets) are increased

each year by equally inflated increments.

     Using the net equipment definition of depreciable assets, an upper bound

for the annual rate of depreciation r is estimated from the years 1964 through

1973 as 16.65% per year.

      (d)  Summary of Pate of
          Depreciation Estimates

     Intercity buses have potentially long service lives, and the concept of a

"rate of depreciation" is not necessarily well-defined or applicable.  Depre-

ciation is itself an economic variable, subject to variation according to the

maintenance and route decisions of the fleet operator.
                                    7-26

-------
     Historically, however, the size of the total U.S. fleet and production

of new equipment have maintained relatively constant levels through the past

two decades.  On the assumption that this record is representative of the type

of depreciation that buses do in fact experience, EPA estimates an annual rate

of depreciation of five to fifteen percent, with a best midrange estimate of

ten percent per annum.

ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
              PRIME COST

     The technology cost estimates from Table 7-A-2 for incremental equipment,

fuel, and maintenance costs can be combined into single estimates of incre-

mental cost per vehicle mile.  This is accomplished by converting equipment

cost increments from Table 7-A-2 into per annum capital costs  (depreciation

plus interest), and then by dividing the sum of annual capital, fuel, and

maintenance cost by 250,000 miles per year.

     The relatively high figure of 250,000 vehicle miles per year is used

rather than the average 86,000 miles per year, because the purpose of the

analysis is to estimate the effect of marginal prime cost.  The results of

using the alternative 86,000 miles per year figure are indicated below in

Table 7-A-8.

     Tables 7-A-5 and 7-A-6 provide results of the calculation for assumptions

of 5% and 15% annual rate of depreciation.  It is clear that the calculated

numbers are relatively insensitive to both the assumption about the annual

rate of depreciation and the incremental capital cost from Table 7-A-2.  In

the following analysis, only the midrange estimate of these numbers (i.e.,

10% depreciation and EPA's independent estimate of incremental capital costs)

is considered.
                                    7-27

-------
                              TABLE 7-A-5
            INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
               ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED LEVELS OF NOISE
                 ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY, DIESEL POWERED
                       INTEGRAL INTERCITY BUSES
Technology Exterior
Level dBA
1 86
2 83
3 80
4 77
5 75
Interior
dBA
84
83
80
80
78
Incremental Cost  Cents per Vehi<
High Low EPA Estimate
0.012
0.058
0.522
1.055
2.561b
0.000
0.028
0.459
0.969
2.361b
0.003
0.040
0.491
1.030
2.512b
Source:  Table 7-A-2.  Interest and depreciation are calculated as 15%
         of incremental capital cost (5% depreciation from Table 7-A-3
         plus 10% interest).  Estimates reflect an assumption of 250,000-
         vehicle-miles per bus year.  (See Source note to Table 7-A-2.)

        a
Note:    1976 dollars.

        b
         Includes adjustment for seat loss.
                                    7-28

-------
                              TABLE 7-A-6
            INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
               DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL INTERCITY BUSES
                      ASSUMING 15 PERCENT RATE OF
                       DEPRECIATION IN EQUIPMENT
Incremental Cost  Cents per Veh
Technology
Level
1
2
3
4

5
Exterior
dBA
86
83
80
77

75
Interior
dBA
84
83
80
80

78

High
0.021
0.079
0.578
1.139
b
2.965

Low
0.000
0.028
0.473
0.995
b
2.631

EPA Estimate
0.005
0.048
0.526
1.097
b
2.883
                                                                           a
Source:  Same as Table 7-A-5 but with interest and depreciation computed as
         25% of incremental captial cost (i.e., 15% depreciation plus
         10% interest).

        a
Note:    :\976 dollars.

        b
         Includes adjustment for seat loss.
                                    7-29

-------
IMPACT ON QUANTITY OF
  BUS SERVICE DEMANDED

     On the assumption that increments to prime cost are passed through

fully, to consumers, results of the sort provided in Tables 7-A-5 and 7-A-6

can be combined with average revenue statistics to estimate the potential

increase in average fare per mile that results from the various levels of

noise abatement technology.

     Statistics on average revenues per vehicle mile are provided in Table

7-A-7.  Comparison of these numbers with expenses per revenue mile, Table

7-A-l, indicates that profit margins in this regulated industry are moderate

and relatively constant over time.  The average fare in 1976 dollars can be

estimated by applying the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index
                2
(transportation)  for 1975 to June 1976:

          (165.9/150.6) X 93.20 = 102.67c  per vehicle mile.

     Midrange calculations for the estimated percentage increase in average

fares are given in Table 7-A-8.  These numbers are multiplied by the demand

elasticity estimate of -0.5 from Appendix D to compute the expected change

in quantity of service demanded.

IMPACT ON EQUILIBRIUM
  BUS PRODUCTION

     The foregoing analysis, and Table 7-A-8, indicates that for all tech-

nology levels proposed, the impact on equilibrium bus service demanded is

quite small, and in most cases virtually imperceptible.  Since it is unlikely

that the technology of bus fleet management permits substantial substitution
2
 Survey of Current Business, July 1976; page S-8.
                                    7-30

-------
                       TABLE 7-A-7
        OPERATING REVENUE PER PASSENGER AND PER
               VEHICLE MILE, 1939-75, U.S.
           CLASS I INTERCITY BUS OPERATIONS
Calendar
Year

1939
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974p
1975p
Source:
Passenger
Revenue
(millions)
$113.9
321.4
354.8
453.2
463.7
483.2
510.9
540.1
540.3
562.4
643.3
638.2
Operating Revenue
per Passenger

$ 0.83
0.97
2.12
2.73
3.18
3.55
3.81
4.19
4.25
4.73
5.27
5.45
National Association of Motor Bus Owners
of Service to America, Tables 3 and 4:
Operating Revenue
per Vehicle Mile

22.35$
34.32
48.68
55.36
60.93
65.25
68.84
74.32
76.45
79.91
89.09
93.20
, One-Half Century
Regular route inter-
city service,  p: preliminary.
                           7-31

-------



















00
f
r-~
a
n
u



























a
M
s
CCj Q
rvj m
21
< y  2
fa w  u
<  M
 Q W
w H en Q
> Q M E CO
< S Q 3 W
< 3 u en
H H bj 8 CQ
Q O W
SUaiSli
H M H CO CJ
W EH ^ W S
^ < 3 Q P
rH ["^ 2l
O Q  M
H W >H
!J5 EH O Q
u y E s
K fri cj
E W B P
HH
g Q is
3
g

W




.5-0

QJ 
CQ C7> 6
!Z m Q
O JS
R G
a
S 0
CO 10
u5 0 o

Cti O
M

5 -TS
0 g
f*4 QJ
2 r5 Q
S 6
S
 0
CO W
CO Or* tO
(^ Vi QJ
Ct5 ^
c
M
U
S
VJ rf]
i

rH rH
O 0

dP
VO
O
O
0
1



rH
rH
O
0

dP
CN
O
O
o
1

dP
O
O

O




00





10
00







rH
rd
CN U3 m rH
VO CN m rH
O ^3* 00 *"O
O O O CN
1 1 1 1



CO rH O CN
CN in r- CN
rH OO VO VO
O O rH *

rd
i i r~ oo *3*
CN * rH rH
o CN m ro
?O O rH
T i i

id
CN in vo r~
^  fO CN
O * O ^>
   
O O rH CN




m o o oo
co oo oo r^





ro o r~ m
oo co r-- r







CN m * m
0
^j
to


m
rH
rH
O
o
V0
r
CTi
rH
.5
(D
i
^i
H
Ul

to
0
3
S .
0 0
1-1 rH
H
5 0
-P 3
2S
g1 2J
u
* CJ
t"**" QJ
*a
r~ vo
'O CN
(0 rH
,
c tn r
u o fO tn
u -H 0 3
0 -P u ^2
Cu fO 0

o 's ? 0
rH t} Oi
r^ \J v*4
rH 
C CJ (0 0
O 0 rH
P  1 E
to tn en
H 4-1 3 0
O tn J2 rH
00 u
Ur i v_i >iH
VJ X4 rn
'DO >
to
E to 0 o
3 0 rH 0
C 4-> -H 0
c (0 E *
5 0 00
U 4-> rH
0 CO O 0
& 0 -H E
0 U <8
^ T"3 C^ rO
0 c o
&i 10 - C
o o
o 4-> in -H
rH 10 CN 4J
0 Q.
0 i-i 0 e
3 -B S W
co c to to
en -H tn ,3!
n] a)
U-l U,
tn o < 0
C t3

4J (tj -H
(0 l-i 4J tO
tg
H
rH C CO 4J
id c to nj
U (3 < rH



 
o



















fl
(0
QJ
i i
to
0
rH
U

4-1
6
B
to
3
m
rrj
fO
to
0
3
rH
O
s
m



7-32

-------
between buses and other inputs in the production of bus service, it is

probable that reduced patronage of one or two percent resulting from noise

abatement technology will translate into an equivalent reduction in long-run
                    5
demand for new buses.

     To buttress this argument further, note in Table 7-A-2 that the noise

abatement technology in Levels 3 through 5 simultaneously affects maintenance

and fuel costs each to a greater extent than interest and depreciation

expense on incremental equipment.

     Fluctuations in annual bus output of one or two percent are well below

the normal variation experienced from year to year by the bus industry as a

whole (Table 7-A-3).  Any attempt to refine the analysis further along the

lines of an aggregate demand model would prove fruitless.  The remainder of

Subsection 7-A addresses secondary financial impacts and the baseline pro-

jections.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS
         ON USERS

     The proposed regulations may have adverse economic impacts not recorded

above in the "long-run" analysis if they cause short-run financial disruptions

or have adverse distributional effects.  Consider first the impact on the

consumer and fleet operators.
5
 Passengers per bus (average load) have remained remarkably constant on
 intercity bus service.  1950:  18.2 passengers per bus; 1960:  18.0;
 1965:  19.2; 1970:  19.1; 1975:  19.3.  (Source:  NAMBO, One-half Century
 of Service to America.)
                                    7-33

-------
     Since motor bus intercity travel is typically somewhat slower  and less

convenient than travel by alternative modes (especially air and  auto), a

larger portion of intercity bus patronage is from lower income groups than

for other modes.  Increases in the costs of intercity bus transportation will,

therefore, affect lower income groups more adversely than others.   The magni-

tude of this distributional effect is likely to be quite small,  however. An

increase in fare revenues by 4.62 percent (Table 7-A-8) and a resulting

predicted loss'in demand of 2.31 would increase the total revenue of all U.S.

carriers by about $25.7 million (in 1976).

     Fleet operators would be disadvantaged by the noise abatement  technology

if the increased equipment costs could not be met without incurring sub-

stantial additional financing.  The relatively small share of equipment

replacement costs (Table 7-A-l) in total operating expenditures  makes this

an unlikely possibility, however.  Moreover, the increased responsiveness of

regulatory bodies to permitting cost-justified fare increases will  help firms

to maintain satisfactory profit margins.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON
  PRODUCERS, INCLUDING
  EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS

     As indicated in the above economic analysis, the long-run impact on

equilibrium industry output is likely to be small in percentage  terms, so

that given the current growth rate of industry output no actual  reductions

in output are projected from one year to the next as a result of reduced

demand for bus services.  There remains, however, the possibility of

adverse impact on specific supplies if their product or technology  differs

significantly from the industry norm.
                                    7-34

-------
     For U.S. producers of intercity buses, Figure 3-16 (Section 3)  indicates

that the market is dominated by three large producers:   Motor Coach  Industries

(Greyhound), General Motors, and Eagle International, who together account

for virtually 100 percent of U.S. production.   The production of these bus-

makers is highly standardized (Figure 3-6), and no differential impact on

producers is envisaged.

     U.S. International trade in intercity buses involves two major  foreign

countries:  Canada and Belgium.   Canadian production, trade,  and regulation

of buses are so completely integrated with U.S. production (under the Auto-

motive Pact Trade Agreement) that virtually no differential impacts  vis-a-vis

Canadian imports is expected.  Imports of buses from Belgium, which  have

amounted to approximately 62 percent of annual U.S. production during 1970-

75, are almost exclusively production of a subsidiary of Eagle International;

currency devaluation by the U.S. has led Eagle to shift its manufacturing

facilities back to the United States, and beginning in  1976 this "import"

source is largely eliminated.

ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR
  INTERCITY BUS NOISE ABATEMENT

     Annualized cost calculations projected to the year 2000  for 15

regulatory schedules are presented in Appendix E.   Input variables for

intercity buses are listed in Table 7-A-9.
                                    7-35

-------
                               TABLE 7-A-9
                     DATA INPUT AND PARAMETER VALUES
                    FOR ANNUALIZED COST CALCULATIONS
                 DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL INTERCITY BUSES
            Variable Description               Source or


            Baseline Production Rate             Figure 3-23

            Projected Production Rate            Figure 3-23

            Incremental Operating Cost           Table 7-A-2

            Incremental Maintenance Cost         Table 7-A-2
                                                           a
            Incremental Equipment Cost           Table 7-A-2

            Depreciable Life (years)             15

            Price Elasticity of Demand           -0.50

            Rate of Discount                     0.10
      a
Note:  Incremental equipment costs in Table 7-A-2 for Technology Level 6
       are increased by $6,000 to reflect seat loss.
                                    7-36

-------
B.  ECONOMIC IMPACT OP NOISE REGULATIONS ON
  URBAN TRANSIT MOTOR BUS CARRIERS AND MANUFACTURERS

     Appendix C indicates three major effects of bus noise reduction tech-

nology, as applied to the standard diesel powered integral urban transit bus:

               o    Additional noise-abatement equipment
                    installed on newly-equipped buses

               o    Increased maintenance costs for new
                    buses

               o    Reduced fuel efficiency of new buses

     The primary impact of these costs is on bus users  fleet operators,

transit authorities, and consumers.  The analysis below concentrates atten-

tion initially on the user end of the industry.  Subsequently, induced

impacts on manufacturers and financing authorities are studied.

ANALYSIS OF
  USER COSTS

     Tables 7-B-l and 7-B-2 summarize operating expense accounts of a sample

of urban bus transit systems which are also members of the American Public

Transit Association.  The tables demonstrate that bus capital, the major

component of the "Depreciation and Amortization" account, represents a small

fraction of total operating expense, about seven percent or less.

     An important result from economic theory  (reference 2) states that the

demand for an intermediate product (like buses) is less sensitive (elastic)

to changes in its own price, the smaller is the share of that intermediate

product in the composition of the final product demanded (bus transportation)

The reason is that for a given elasticity of demand for the final product,
                                    7-37

-------
                               TABLE 7-B-l
               PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSES BY EXPENSE
                     CATEGORY,  APTA BUS TRANSIT SYSTEM
                        RESPONDENTS, 1960 AND 1969
Expense Category

Total Operating Expenses
Operation and Maintenance - Total
Equipment Maintenance and Garage
Transportation
Station
Traffic, Solicitation, and Advertising
Insurance and Safety
Administrative and General
Depreciation and Amortization
Operating Taxes and Licenses
Operating Rents, Net
Percent
1960
100.00
85.56
19.26
49.42
0.60
0.90
5.31
10.07
6.06
7.92
0.46
of Total
1969
100.00
86.72
16.37
52.68
1.04
1.29
4.41
10.93
6.98
5.81
0.46
Note:   Numbers are compiles from American Transit Association,
        Transit Operating Report, 1960 and 1969, as aggregates
        of respondent-firm data.  The sample contains 107 firms
        in 1960 and 76 firms in 1969.

Source: John D. Wells, et. al., Economic Characteristics of the
        Public Transportation Industry, Table 3.5 Washington, D.C.
        U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
                                    7-38

-------
                    TABLE 7-B-2
    EXPENSES PER BUS-MILE BY EXPENSE CATEGORY,
       AGGREGATE FOR 48 BUS TRANSIT SYSTEMS,
         AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, 1974
EXPENSE CATEGORY
Total Operating Expenses
Operation and Maintenance  Total
Equipment Maintenance and Garage
Transportation
Station
Traffic, Solicitation,
and Advertising
Insurance and Safety
Administrative and General
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation of Revenue Equipment
Operating Taxes and Licenses
CENTS PER
BUS-MILE
116.65
106.18
20.68
63.31
0.25
1.93
4.65
15.36
5.27
4.60
5.20
Source: American Public Transit Association, Transit
Report for Calendar/Fiscal Year
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
100.00
91.02
17.73
54.27
0.21
1.65
3.99
13.17
4.52
3.94
4.46
Operating
1974, Section D. The
sample consists of all APTA respondent systems in
locations where buses are the sole public transit mode
and for which either ICC or APTA format of accounts are
provided.
                          7-39

-------
transportation, the smaller the share of the intermediate input,  buses,

the smaller will be the percentage impact of a change in bus prices on

the total cost and price of the final product.  A relatively small change

in the price of the final product, transportation, implies a relatively

small effect on quantity demanded of both the final product and the

intermediate good.

     Using this theorem, Tables 7-B-l and 7-B-2 lend insight into the

probable results of the economic impact analysis.  Since bus capital has

a small share in total factor cost, a given regulation-induced change in

the price of new buses has only a small effect on the "derived" demand

for new buses.  The ability of the bus manufacturing industry to pass

through the additional equipment costs without severely reducing sales

is thereby enhanced.

     Expenses for fuel and maintenance are relatively important components

of the operating expense accounts, but here the potential for adverse

economic impacts on the suppliers of these inputs  the petroleum industry

and the supply of skilled mechanic labor, respectively,  is negligible

due to the overwhelming size of these markets relative to the bus service

industry.

COST ESTIMATES
  FROM APPENDIX C

     TafrLe 7-B-3 summarizes the pertinent estimates of technology cost

from Appendix C.  Expense estimates are in terms of 1976 dollars.  It

should be noted that the various proposed technology levels are cost

independent of one another.


                                    7-40

-------
I
r>
a
                        3
                        a
                                  r 


                                  J,
                               w
                                  CO

                                  Cd
JS
 cr
H
o
                                           CO-
      O
      r-
                                           O
                                           in
                                                 in
co-
                                           in
                                           o
                                           
      ro
                  o
                  in
o
o
in
 *.
m
                            o
                            CO
                                                                         oo
                                                 ro
                                                 oo
                                                       oo
                                                                         in
lu
& CO
0)
CO rH *
1-1 O
E 0
3 "
rarH -P
DI O O
r-t (Q
M ,c EH
m 0)
4-J > .p
Sow
S o fjj
1-1 . i_l
U o EH
.5 .
w c
tn Si o
.5-S'J
>1->J (0
_ i 1
n-( 'I"!
& s y
H O 5
4J rH ffl
H i-l CO
a m <
80^
>1 S-J "-)
X5 0 W
'O (o
35 w >j
P -P EH
nt r*
i s o
R O -H
P rH
W CN 12
^-P 0)






































^
W '^ 3 -5T
a u "CM
X5
X
1
ro
U -H -CM
0) 73 s-i
Qu C (0
f(D
>1
1


DJ
a

CO ^>
x u ~-" 3 r~
H X>
M
TJ rH (U
c 
-------
     The estimates in Table 7-B-3 are "incremental" expenses,  that is,

additional expenses over and above the costs in 1976 of purchasing and

operating a typical bus that has no noise abatement equipment installed.

Incremental fuel costs are computed on the basis of midpoint mileage

estimates, as described in the footnote to the table.

     For Technology Level 6, an additional consideration not reflected  in

Table 7-B-3 is the fact that noise abatement equipment required to attain

the 75 dBA exterior level and the 78 dBA interior level also entails a

reduction in seating capacity by two seats (four passengers) from the

standard 45 or 53 passenger bus.  Reduced seating capacity clearly imposes

costs on the transit firm, but the magnitude of these costs is difficult

to assess in the absence of accurate information on capacity utilization

of existing buses.

     An indirect estimate of the cost of reduced seating capacity is avail-

able by comparing the costs of constructing and operating buses of

different sizes.  Currently, two sizes of urban transit buses are pro-

duced, with passenger ratings and specification as follows:

                 Standard
     Passenger   Wheelbase    Length       Weight           Engine
      Rating      (Inches)    (Feet)    (1,000 Ibs.)    Make and Model

        45          225         35       17.6-22.7     Det D 6V-71N

                                                            - or -

        53          285         40       19.3-23.8     Det D 8V-71N

     Industry sources have indicated to EEA that the two bus types are

priced in 1976 as follows:

          35 foot        $58,000 - $68,000

          40 foot        $64,000 - $75,000


                                    7-42

-------
A comparison of midpoint price estimates indicates a price differential

of $6,500 for eight passengers, hence an implied differential of $3,250

for four passengers.

     Bus industry sources have also indicated to EE& that there is no

measurable difference in operating and maintenance costs between the

two buses.  Hence, the only adjustment called for in Table 7-B-3 is the

addition of $3,250 to the equipment cost for Technology Level 6.  This

alteration is included in all subsequent calculations of the economic

impact analysis.

ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
           CAPITAL COSTS

     The formula for estimating incremental capital costs is:

                    dX/dR = (r + i)  dK/dR,

where dX/dR is the incremental capital (equipment)  cost associated with

regulatory level R, dK/dR is the dollar value of noise abatement equip-

ment installed on new buses, r is the rate  of depreciation, and i is

the rate of interest.  A major difficulty arises in providing accurate

estimates of the rate of depreciation r.

     In the absence of satisfactory price information on used urban

transit buses, two alternatives for estimating r are discussed:

(1) estimates based on life cycle assumptions, and (2)  analysis of

fleet operators' accounting statements.  Both of these methods encounter

difficulties, which are examined in turn.

     (a)   Estimates Based on
          Life-Cycle Assumptions

     Table 7-B-4 demonstrates that the total U.S. population of transit

buses has remained virtually constant at roughly 50,000 units during the


                                    7-43

-------
                               TABLE 7-B-4
                    URBAN BUS TRANSIT VEHICLE INVENTORY
                          AND PRODUCTION, 1940-75
Calender        Motor Bus          New Bassenger       Deliveries as Percent
  Year          Inventory          Buses Delivered       of Existing  Stock


  1940           35,000                3,984                 11.38%
  1945           49,670                4,441                  8.94
  1950           56,820                2,668                  4.70
  1955           52,400                2,098                  4.00
  1960           49,600                2,806                  5.66
  1961           49,000                2,415                  4.93
  1962           48,800                2,000                  4.10
  1963           49,400                3,200                  6.48
  1964           49,200                2,500                  5.08
  1965           49,600                3,000                  6.05
  1966           50,130                3,100                  6.18
  1967           50,180                2,500                  4.98
  1968           50,000                2,228                  4.46
  1969           49,600                2,230                  4.50
  1970           49,700                1,442                  2.90
  1971           49,150                2,514                  5.11
  1972           49,075                2,904                  5.92
  1973           48,286                3,200                  6.63
  1974           48,700                4,818                  9.89
  1975p          50,811                5,261                 10.35


Source:  American Riblic Transit Association, Transit Fact Book
         '75-'76, Tables 12 and 14.  p:  preliminary.
                                  7-44

-------
post World War II period.  New production has averaged roughly six percent

of total inventories during this period.

     On the assumption that the age distribution and technology of buses is

roughly uniform over time, these numbers indicate a lower bound on the rate of

depreciation of six percent per year.  Some caution should be exercised,

however, in accepting this figure as an unbiased estimate of depreciation,

because of the likely possibility that inventory figures represent an

increasing proportion of relatively inactive buses.  Such buses serve  as

capital reserves to meet contingencies and periods of peak demand.  Ihe

accretion of such reserves during the post-war period implies a downward

bias in the above estimate of the actual annual rate of depreciation.

     A comparable estimate of the rate of depreciation based on life cycle

data was recently undertaken using fleet inventory characteristics

collected by the American Public Transit Association (Reference 3).  Using

survivor curve techniques applied to the age distribution of current

bus fleet inventories, the study concluded that transit buses have an

average life of 19 years, implying a depreciation rate of roughly six  per-

cent per annum.  As with the above estimate, however, the 19-year age  may be

biased (upwards)  due to the existence of significant stocks of old,  low-

use buses.

     (b)   Estimates Based on Fleet
          Operators' Financial Statements

     An upper bound on the rate of depreciation may be obtained by examining

the pertinent accounting statements from ICC annual compilations for

Class I carriers engaged primarily in local or suburban service.  Since
                                    7-45

-------
the coverage is limited to the large carriers, and hence to the larger



urban areas, the rate of depreciation is probably somewhat higher than that



experienced on a nationwide basis.



     ICC accounting rules permit a variety of depreciation formulas for



reporting purposes, but the industry norm (and the rule of the Internal



Revenue Service) is eight year, straight-line depreciation.  Eight years is



well below the true economic life of urban transit buses; actual service life



can extend to fifteen or twenty years or longer.  Table 7-B-5 records the



pertinent statistics from the ICC Annual Statistics.  A question remains



as to whether to use the "total equipment" or "net equipment" accounts as



the basis for estimating the rate of annual depreciation.  Use of the "total"



definition  (Column 2 in Table 7-B-5) results in an understatement or



depreciation, since it includes equipment still owned but older than eight



years and therefore no longer depreciated.  Net equipment  (Column 3 in



Table 7-B-5), on the other hand, overstates depreciation because the eight-



year formula understates the total capital stock.



     Note, however, that estimates of the rate of depreciation based on



these accounting summaries are not biased due to price inflation;  both the



numerator (stated depreciation) and the denominator  (total or net assets)



are increased each year by equally inflated increments.



     Using the net equipment definition of depreciable assets, an upper bound



on the annual race of depreciation r is estimated for the years 1960-73 as



14.3% per annum.
                                    7-46

-------
IT)
a
                           &T3 Vj
                          ^  CD <0
                                    w
 s'gS
 Cl-H  C7>
       D
       Q
          10

          a
a  in 4->
    So  c
    en o


III
  ,  w  S,
P  JJ5  O1
 rH
                                                                                                                            M-4
                                                                                                                            O

                                                                                                                         c c
                                                                                                                         &.T!
                                                                                                               ,-.        10
                           QJ
                           D
    i-i -P
    CU  C
    Cn O


    II
                          13
                              O S3


                              fl

                              jS^
                              CO CO
                              U (U
                              Q) 4J

                              c5
                              M CO
                                                                                                                         0) o
                                                                                                                         K O

                                                                                                                         iw ^
                                                                                                                         O
                              CO
                             T3  ^-1
                              C  (0
                              0)  Q)


                              ro
                                                          CTi
                                                                           CTt
                                                                                        CTt CTi
                                                                                  (U
                                                                                  U
                                                                                  U
                                                                                  D

                                                                                  O
                                                                                 C/3
                                                               7-47

-------
     (c)   Summary of Rate of
          Depreciation Estimates

     Urban transit buses have potentially long  service  lives, and  the concept

of a single "rate" of depreciation is not obviously well-defined or  appli-

cable.  Depreciation is itself an economic variable, subject to variation

according to the maintenance and route decisions of the fleet operator.

     Historically, however, the size of the total U.S.  fleet and production

of new urban transit buses have maintained relatively constant levels over

the past three decades.  On the assumption that this record  is representative

of the type of depreciation that buses do, in  fact, experience, EPA  estimates

an annual rate of depreciation of six to fourteen percent, with a  best mid-

range estimate of ten percent per annum.

ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
              HOME COST

     The technology cost estimates from Table  7-B-3 for incremental  equip-

ment, fuel, and maintenance cost can be combined into single estimates of

incremental cost per vehicle mile.  This is accomplished by  converting

equipment cost increments from Table 7-B-3 into per annum capital  costs

(depreciation plus interest), and then by dividing the  sum of annual capital,
                                                           6
fuel, and maintenance cost by 30,000 vehicle miles per  year.

     Table 7-B-6 provides results of the calculations for the assumption of

a 10% annual rate of depreciation.  The calculated numbers are  relatively

insensitive to the assumption about incremental capital cost from  Table

7-B-3 (i.e., low versus medium versus high).
6
 American Public Transit Association, Transit Fact Book '75-'76,  pp.
 23-24.
                                    7-48

-------
                              TABLE 7-B-6
            INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
               ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED LEVELS OF NOISE
                 ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY,  DIESEL POWERED
                     INTEGRAL URBAN TRANSIT BUSES
a
Incremental CostCents per Vehicle-Mile
Technology
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Exterior
dBA
86
83
81
80
77
75
In ter ior
dBA
84
83
83
80
80
78

High
0.137
0.570
1.589
3.433
5.533
11.567b

Low
0.000
0.233
0.467
1.733
3.167
8.533b

EPA Estimate
0.033
0.363
0.720
2.083
3.847
10.080b
Source:  Tables 7-B-3 and 7-B-4.  Interest and  depreciation  are calculated
         as 20% of incremental capital cost (10%  depreciation plus  10%
         interest).   Estimates reflect an assumption  of 30,000 vehicle-miles
         per bus-year (American Public Transit Association, Transit Fact
         Book '75-'76f pp. 23-24).

         a
          1976 dollars.

         b
          Includes adjustment for seat loss.
                                    7-49

-------
EFFECT OF IMTA SUBSIDIES
 FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES

     Qualified urban transit authorities receive a subsidy of up to 80%

of the cost of new equipment purchases from the Urban Mass Transit

Administration (UMTA).   Since the urban transit firm has no incentive to

pass on costs borne by the Federal Government to its customers,  the effect

of UMTA subsidies is to reduce the effective capital cost by 80%.   Table

7-B-7 reproduces the calculations of Table 7-B-6 on the assumption that

incremental equipment costs have an annual value equal to 20% that assumed

in Table 7-B-6.

     The calculations also constitute a sensitivity analysis with respect to

the assumption about the rate of depreciation.   In effect, Table 7-B-7

assumes an annual rate of depreciation of 2.0%  in place of 10% in Table

7-B-6.  The difference in the resulting numbers is not substantial, and one

may conclude that the economic impact analysis  is relatively insensitive to

the assumption about the annual rate of depreciation.

IME&CT ON QUANTITY OF
BUS SERVICE DEMANDED

     On the assmption that increments to price  cost are passed through to

consumers, at least in part, results of the sort provided in Table 7-B-7

can be combined with average revenue statistics to estimate the  potential

increase in average fare per mile that results  from various levels of noise

abatement technology.

     Statistics on average revenue per vehicle  mile are provided in Table

7-B-8.  The average fare in terms of 1976 dollars can be estimated by applying
                                   7-50

-------
                              TABLE 7-B-7
            INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
              DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL URBAN TRANSIT BUSES
                ASSUMING 80 PERCENT FUNDING OF CAPITAL
                    EXPENDITURES BY THE URBAN MASS
                     TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION
Technology Exterior
Level dBA
1 86
2 83
3 81
4 80
5 77
6 75
Interior
dBA
84
83
83
80
80
78
a
Incremental Cost  Cents per Vehicle-Mile
High Low EPA Estimate
0.027
0.301
0.691
1.887
3.293
6.90013
0.000
0.233
0.467
1.547
2.820
6.293^
0.007
0.259
0.517
1.617
2.956
6. 60^
Source:  Same as Table 7-B-6, but with interest and depreciation
         computed as 4.0% of incremental capital cost (i.e.,
         1/5 x 20%).

        a
Note:    1976 dollars.

        b
         Includes adjustment for seat loss.
                                    7-51

-------
                                TABLE 7-B-8
                 OPERATING REVENUE PER PASSENGER AND PER
                        VEHICLE MIIB, 1940-75,  U.S.
                         MOTOR BUS TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Calendar       Passenger      Operating Revenue       Operating Revenue
  Year          Revenue         per Passenger          per Vehicle Mile
               (millions)
  1940          $248.8             6.87$                   20.83$
  1945           590.0             7.07                    34.26
  1950           734.2             9.56                    38.74
  1955           826.3            14.41                    48.32
  1960           910.3            17.17                    57.75
  1961           897.8            18.57                    58.69
  1962           910.1            19.07                    60.06
  1963           932.2            19.62                    61.20
  1964           950.4            20.10                    62.20
  1965           971.9            20.55                    63.59
  1966           998.1            21.23                    65.59
  1967          1037.3            22.39                    67.98
  1968          1049.7            23.20                    69.60
  1969          1114.8            25.71                    75.41
  1970          1193.6            29.41                    84.69
  1971          1226.8            32.23                    89.19
  1972          1177.8            33.07                    90.05
  1973          1183.8            32.40                    86.38
  1974          1269.6            31.76                    88.72
  1975p         1310.1            32.10                    85.74
Source:  American Public Transit Association, Transit Fact Book
         *75-'76, Tables 7, 9, and 10.  p: preliminary.
                                    7-52

-------
                                                                    7
the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (transportation)   from

1975 to June 1976:

          (165.9/150.6) X 85.74  94.45 per vehicle mile.

     Examination of the cost/revenue ratio of U.S. urban mass transit

systems (Table 7-B-9) indicates that an assumption of full cost pass-through

of incremental expenses is unwarranted.  Not only do urban transit systems

enjoy significant subsidies in the purchase of new equipment (a relatively

small proportion of total operating costs), but subsidies by federal (UMTA),

state and municipal financing authorities has brought about a condition

of costs in excess of revenues by a ratio approaching two-to-one in 1976.

     A reasonable assumption is that such subsidization will continue at

present levels.  The calculations of Table 7-B-10 assume, therefore, that

only one-half of regulation induced cost increments are passed on to consumers

in the form of higher fares.

     Percentage increase in fares as computed in Table 7-B-10 translates

into estimates of the corresponding decrease in ridership demanded by apply-

ing demand elasticity estimates from Appendix D.  The calculations of regu-

lation-induced reductions in quantity demanded in Table 7-B-10 assume the

relatively high elasticity of -0.5:  actual percentage decreases in quantity

will probably be less than those computed in the table.
7
 Survey of Current Business, July 1976; page S-8.
                              7-53

-------
                                TABLE 7-B-9
TREND OF
Operating
Revenue
(millions)
$ 737.0
1,380.4
1,452.1
1,426.4
1,407.2
1,443.8
1,478.5
1,556.0
1,562.7
1,625.6
1,707.4
1,740.7
1,728.5
1,797.6
1,939.7
2,002.4
TRANSIT OPERATIONS, 1940-1975
Operating
Expense
(millions)
$ 660.7
1,231.7
1,385.7
1,370.7
1,376.5
1,454.4
1,515.6
1,622.6
1,723.8
1,846.1
1,995.6
2,152.1
2,241.6
2,536.1
3,239.4
3,705.9
Cost-Revenue
Ratio

0.896
0.892
0.954
0.961
0.978
1.007
1.025
1.043
1.103
1.136
1.169
1.236
1.297
1.411
1.670
1.851
Calendar
  Year
  1940
  1945
  1950
  1955
  1960
  1965
  1966
  1967
  1968
  1969
  1970
  1971
  1972
  1973
  1974
  1975p
Source:  American Public Transit Association, Transit Fact
         Book '75-'76 Table 4.  p: preliminary.
                                    7-54

-------
i
                 cn
          w fc,  a:
          &< w  EH
                                        as
                                               o
                                              s
 0)
I
                                                        dP
                                                        CN

                                                        0

                                                        0
                                                          

                                                        0
                                                        o
                                                        o
                                                        o

                                                        o
             (Ti

             VO

             O
               

             O
                                                               r-
                                                               n
             CN


             O


             O
r-
co
                                                                     O
                    r-
                    CN
                                                                     CN
                                                                     O
00
(N
                                                                            o
       in
       CO
                                                                            cn
                                                                            o
                                                                            o
CN
00
                                                                                  o
       in
       vo
       m
                                                                                         ro
                                         oo
                                                                                                               TJ
                                                                                                               flj
                                                                                                                  TJ
                                                                                                                   CD  (I)
                                                                                         ro
                                         m
                                         en
                                                                                           co
                                                                                         ro
                                                                                  o
                                                                                           vo
                                                                                         (0
                0)

                ro

                co

                ro
                            vo
                            r-
                            en
                                                                                                                 .33
                                                                                                               u & co
                                                                                                               3 g  co
   H     m
-P      ro  3
    W 0)  CJ
O  O i-l r-H
rH  O U  (0
       C CJ
T3 rH -H
 C  ra
 rO -P 0   
(U
CO
CD ro
li flj
^ U/
ro u
fc O
C
M
C

CD r?j
? 
r3 Q
x:
u
0)
CO
0) ro
u 0)
ro M
&-i CJ
C
M
^
O
H
u -i p T3


><

dP
O
0


dP
r-
0
0
o
I

%?
rH
O

O




^*
00







vo
00



rj
CN
rH
O



O
00
O
O
1

cn
in
rH

0




00
oo







co
00



r~ cn co
^* i  i cn
CN 00 f
O O rH



co cn CN
oo cn r^
i  1 ^J* 00
o o o
1 1 I

^O ^^ CO
^D ^^ ^<
ro o> r^
  
0 0 rH




CO 0 O
00 00 00







rH 0 r^
co co r^



CN
co
CO
co


fl3
VO
CN
00
rH
1

ro
CO
in
vo

co




00
r-







in




0)
rH
H

I
CQ
0)
3
1

U

S1
rH
4J
(0
u
(U

C5"^

*
00
1
CQ
1

U
C
fO

ro
1

1
r^
rH
t_Q
$




















O-
m

^
Q^

J_J
ro

*^3
cD
4->
(0
4J
CO
(1J
rH O
4->
(0 r-f
H pj
CJ -P
c& c
u (U
ts
CJ
e c

C CD
4J

0) 4-1
a o
4-1 dP
C 0
o; CN
u
U 4J
flj d3
Qj j~4
o
i-H 'O
pf
d) ?u

k
CO 4J
CQ CQ
rO OJ

CQ CU
C -P
O C
T-t -1-)
4->
(0 M-I
^o
CJ 4)

32


*
0
oo
S

c
H
Ej
2j

5
g1
H
U
C

H
MH

"^C
P-(
^
D

CO

^
 H
y-i

4_)
rH
ro
u
4J
O

| |
+-J
CQ
CQ
a
4->
CO
O

C
0)
o
u
S,
>1

IW
 H
'1 1
(0

14H
O

C
O
H
4->
cx

3
CO
03
ro

0)
5

c
o










*
rcf
0>

3


-i
S,

CQ
a>
rH
rH
^
0)
rH
CJ
rH
x:
cu
>

o
o
O
fe
0
CO










CQ
4J
m
OJ
CQ
4-1
CO
O
rH

0
<4H

4J
C
01
B
CO
3
n
TD
(0

CO
CU
s
I 1
(_)
M
                                                               CN
                                                                     co
                                                                                  in
                                                                                                  cu
                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                  u
                                                                                                  D
                                                                                                                                ro
                                                               7-55

-------
       ON EQUILIBRIUM
       BUS PRODUCTION

     The foregoing analysis, and Table 7-B-10,  indicates that for  all  Technology

Levels proposed, the impact on equilibrium bus  service demanded is quite small,

and in most cases virtually imperceptible.  Since it is unlikely that  the tech-

nology of bus fleet management permits substantial substitution between buses

and other inputs in the production of bus service, it is probable that reduced

patronage of one or two percent resulting from  noise abatement technology will
                                                                       8
translate into an equivalent reduction in long-run demand for new buses.

     To buttress this argument further, note in Table 7-B-3 that the noise

abatement technology in Levels 4 through 6 simultaneously affects maintenance

and fuel costs each to a greater extent than interest and depreciation expense

on incremental equipment.

     Fluctuations in annual bus output of one or two percent are well  below the

normal variation experienced from year to year  by the bus industry as  a whole

(Table 7-B-4).  The remainder of this analysis  for transit buses addresses

secondary financial impacts and baseline projections.

FINANCIAL IMEACT
        ON USERS

     The proposed regulations may have adverse  economic impacts not recorded

above in the "long-run" analysis if they cause  short-run financial dislocations
8
 Motor bus passengers per vehicle have declined steadily since World War
 II, despite fluctuations in relative operating costs.  1945;  5.74 passen-
 gers per vehicle; 1950:  4.74; 1955:  4.24; 1960:  4.08; 1965:  3.80;
 1970:  3.57; 1975:  3.32.  (Source:  ARTA, Transit Fact Book '75-76,
 Tables 6 and 10.)
                                   7-56

-------
or have distributional effects.  Consider first the impact on consumers and

fleet operators.

     Since urban transit by motor bus is typically somewhat slower and less

convenient than travel by alternate modes, especially auto, a larger portion
                                                                        9
of urban bus patronage is from lower income groups than for other modes.

Increases in the costs of urban transit will therefore effect lower income

groups more adversely than others.  The magnitude of this distributional

effect is likely to be quite small, however.  A maximum predicted increase in

fare revenues of 3.65 percent (Table 7-B-10) and a corresponding decrease in

demand of 1.83 percent would increase the total revenue of U.S. bus transit

systems by $35.1 million (in 1976).

     Fleet operators would be disadvantaged by the noise abatement technology

if the increased equipment costs could not be met without incurring substan-

tial additional financing.  The relatively small share of equipment replace-

ment costs (Tables 7-B-l and 7-B-2) in total operating expenses makes this an

unlikely possibility, however, particularly when consideration is taken of

the UMTA equipment subsidy program.

     The annual survey by the American Public Transit Association of urban

transit fleet inventories makes possible a statement of the likely replace-

ment needs of various municipalities.  Table 7-B-ll presents such a summary,
  
broken down by size of city fleet.  It is apparent from Table 7-B-ll that
9
 The Federal Highway Administrations's Nationwide Personal Transportation
 Study, 1973, shows that for 1969-70, ridership on bus and street car
 transportation is distributed as follows (by annual household income):
 $0-3,000: 12.7%; $3,000-3,999: 10.8%; $4,000-4,999: 9.2%; $5,000-5,999:
 8.8%; $6,000-7,499: 12.3%; $7,500-9,999: 15.4%; $10,000-14,999: 16.3%;
 $15,000 and over: 7.9%; Not applicable: 6.6%.
                                   7-57

-------
larger cities do not differ significantly from smaller  cities in  terms of

median fleet age.

     Table 7-B-12 identifies major municipalities with  median fleet age in

excess of ten years as of June 10, 1975.   Municipalities that are especially

prone to replacement needs appear to be distributed evenly by geographical

region and city type.

FINANCIAL IME&CTS ON
  PRODUCERS, INCLUDING
  EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS

     As indicated in the above economic analysis, the long-run impact on

industry output equilibrim is likely to be small in percentage terms.

Thus, given the current growth rate of industry output  (in recent years), no

actual reductions in output are projected from one year to the next as a

result of reduced demand for bus services.  There remains, however, the

possibility of adverse impact on specific suppliers if  their product or

technology differs significantly from the industry norm.

     Figure 3-17, section 3, indicates that the market  is dominated by three

large producers:  General Motors, Flexible, and AM General, who together

account for virtually 100 percent of U.S. production.  The production of these

bus-makers is highly standardized (Figure 3-7), in fact virtually inter-

changeable, and no differential impact on producers is  envisaged.

     Since the noise abatement technology involves mostly minor additions

and modifications to existing equipment,  the potential  for impacting U.S.

export production to non-regulated countries is minimal.  The only,

importer of consequence of urban transit buses is Mercedes-Benz,  whose

marketing activities are devoted exclusively to the airport-hotel and muni-

cipal "feeder route" markets.


                                   7-58

-------
          TABLE 7-B-ll
MEDIAN AGE OF FLEET BY FLEET SIZE,
  U.S. MOTOR BUS TRANSIT SYSTEMS,
       AS OF JUNE 30, 1975
Fleet Size (Buses) Number of Cities Mean Median Age Standard Deviation
500 or more
100 to 499
50 to 99
3 to 49
17
43
41
104
Source: American Public Transit
Vehicle Fleet Inventory
9.82 years
b.23
9.54
8.64
Association, Transit Passenger
as of June 30, 1975.
4.14
4.48
7.23
6.68

                7-59

-------
TABLE 7-B-12
MAJOR BUS TRANSIT SYSTEMS WITH MEDIAN
FLEET AGE IN EXCESS OF TEN YEARS
AS OF JUNE 30, 1975
City
Maplewood, New Jersey
Boston, Massachusetts
Oakland, California
Seattle, Washington
Buffalo, New York
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Cincinnati, Ohio
Houston, Texas
Norfolk, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
Sacramento, California
Jacksonville, Florida
Louisville, Kentucky
Fleet Size (Buses) Median Fleet 
1847
1149
878
559
556
523
444
421
285
233
204
193
179
Charlotte, North Carolina 132
Hampton, Virginia
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Dayton, Ohio
Des Moines, Iowa
Des Plaines, Illinois
106
98
93
90
88
Source: American Public Transit Association, Transit
Vehicle Fleet
Inventory as of June 30, 1975.
12
13
12
20
12
13
11
13
18
14
13
13
14
14
19
23
27
17
20
Passenger

      7-60

-------
     The Mercedes-Benz buses sold in the U.S. are small  (passenger rating:

19), limited use vehicles which do not compete with the  industry standard

U.S. urban transit model.  Annual average sales amount to 200 units, with

a base price of $26,111.  Sales to municipalities are primarily to service

"feeder" routes, and some further penetration of this market is anticipated

in future years.

     Noise levels of the Mercedes bus are currently high  (84 dBA) at 75%

of maximum throttle at 45 mph).  Mercedes-Benz has engaged in research to

reduce these levels, including the development of optional equipment to

reduce exterior noise to 80 dBA.  Information on their ability or the cost

of attaining noise levels below 80 dBA is not available  at present.  Some

adverse impact on Mercedes-Benz imports to the U.S. market does appear

possible at this point.

ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR
  URBAN TRANSIT BUS NOISE ABATEMENT

     Annualized cost calculations projected to the year  2000 for 15 regu-

latory schedules are presented in Appendix E.  Input variables for urban

transit buses are listed in Table 7-B-13.
                                  7-61

-------
                            TABLE 7-B-13
                   DATA INPUT AND PARAMETER VALUES
                  FOR ANNUALIZED COST CALCULATIONS
             DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL URBAN TRANSIT BUSES
        Variable Description                 Source or  Value


        Baseline Production Rate              Figure 3-24

        Projected Production Rate             Figure 3-24

        Incremental Operating Cost            Table 7-B-3

        Incremental Maintenance Cost          Table 7-B-3
                                                         a
        Incremental Equipment Cost            Table 7-B-3

        Depreciable Life (years)              12

        Price Elasticity of Demand            -0.50

        Rate of Discount                      0.10
     a
Note: Incremental equipment costs in Table 7-B-3 for Technology Level 6 are
      increased by $3,250 to reflect seat loss.
                                  7-62

-------
C.  ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOISE REGULATIONS ON
      SCHOOL BUS CARRIERS AND MANUFACTURERS

INTRODUCTION

     The school bus industry is a highly complex entity consisting of several

manufacturers producing an almost infinite number of variations to the basic

product - a vehicle designed to transport pupils to and from schools.  Almost

any combination of the following characteristic variables can be specified

by the school bus customer:

     1.   Engine Type - Gasoline or diesel of various horsepower ratings.

     2.   Construction - Body-on-chassis or integral.

     3.   Engine Placement - Forward, mid-unit, or rear.

     4-   Make - Chassis  (3 primary manufacturers), body (6 primary
          manufacturers), integral (2 manufacturers).

     5.   Size (seating capacity)  - as many as 97 passengers.

     6-   Options - Air conditioning, interior quality, transmissions
          (various speeds; standard or automatic), etc.

The production of school buses is, therefore, of a customizing nature with

differing costs and prices associated with each of the variables described

above.

     Due to the impracticality of assessing the economics impact of noise

abatement regulations on all possible variations in the product, the

analysis has been limited in the following manner:

          Small buses (under 10,000 pound gross vehicle
          weight rating (GVWR)  have been eliminated from
          consideration.

          Size of buses (in terms of passenger capacity)
          and optional equipment have been considered
          only with respect to their contribution to the
          price range of the final product.


                                  7-63

-------
     The outgrowth of these limiting factors are the following school bus

"product" types:

     1.   Gasoline powered conventional
     2.   Gasoline powered forward control
     3.   Parcel delivery and motor home chassis
     4.   Diesel powered conventional
     5.   Diesel powered forward control
     6.   Diesel powered integral mid-engine
     7.   Diesel powered integral rear-engine

     The proposed noise abatement schedules differ by type of power unit (gas

and diesel), and costs of meeting the proposed regulations differ by each of

the seven product types defined above.  Furthermore, consideration has been

given to differential noise abatement costs associated with individual manu-

facturers insofar as these costs can be identified.

     The primary economic areas affected by the noise abatement requisitions

are shown schematically in Figure 7-C-l.  Each of the following economic

impact areas are given consideration in the analysis:

     1.   Manufacturers
     2.   End users
     3.   Suppliers

     The economic impact analysis assumes a quantitative posture where

possible, and the discussion is ordered in the following manner:

          Timing of the regulation
          Costs of noise abatement
          Industry considerations
        Analysis of User Costs
          Estimates of Incremental Capital Costs
          Estimates of Incremental Prime Costs
       Impact on Quantity of Bus Production
          Financial Impacts
          Baseline Projections

TIMING OF THE
   REGULATION

     The point in time when regulations are to be imposed on the industry is

important in several respects.
                                  7-64

-------
                          FIGURE 7-C-l
                  ECONOMIC IMPACT FLOW CHAKT-
                  "SCHOOL BUSES
/NOISE  \
&EGULATIONST
         PUBLIC
         SCHOOLS
                           SUPPLIERS
                        MANUFACTURER-

                            CHASSIS
                        MANUFACTURER-

                            BODIES
PRIVATE
SCHOOLS
                     FIRM
                    IMPACTS
OTHER
USERS
1
r
1
r
                         OPERATIONAL/
                          FINANCIAL
                            IMPACTS
                          COMMUNITY/
                          INDIVIDUAL
                           IMPACTS


                             7-65

-------
     1.   Technology considerations.  The development of the technology



          associated with quieting vehicles to the noise level allowed



          by the requisitions can take several years of effort on the



          part of manufacturers.  If the lead time given to the industry



          is sufficiently long, the opportunity exists to develop and



          implement less costly emission control equipment for the



          vehicles.  Furthermore, the potential for technology



          advancements to be realized by all industry groups



          increases with time.



     2.   Planning horizon.  The promulgation of regulatory constraints



          has the potential of producing disruptive effects on an industry



          and its market if the effective date and level of regulation



          are known only a short time before regulation occurs.  The



          longer the time that industry has to gauge the effects of the



          regulation on its markets, the more intelligently it is able



          to react to those effects.



     Thus, the economic impact of the various regulatory levels as recommended



by EPA and presented in this analysis assumes that sufficient time will have



elapsed between announcement and promulgation of the regulations such that:



     1.   Technology will be adequately developed when regulations



          are effective.



     2.   The planning horizon for industry adjustment to any discernable



          market reactions is sufficiently lengthy.
                                  7-66

-------
COSTS OF NOISE
     ABATEMENT

     After the assessment of the noise abatement technology presently .

available to the school bus industry was made by EPA an analysis of the

costs associated with applying that technology to the various types of

school buses was undertaken. EPA's estimates of those costs and discussions

concerning the required manufacturing processes are included in the text

and figures of Appendix C of this report.

     Note that each dBA level has three costs associated therewith 

low, high, and one called the EPA independent estimate.  The low and

high estimates in most cases refer to cost estimates which were provided

to EPA by industry representatives who responded to requests for cost

information.  The independent estimates were developed by EPA and con-

sulting firms utilizing all available information.  Although all three

estimates are utilized in developing the economic impact analysis, it

is felt that the independent estimate more adequately reflects the actual

costs which can be expected to be expended in the process of meeting the

regulations.

     In order to analyze the costs of quieting school buses in the

proper context, it is appropriate to relate the post-regulatory costs

of manufacture to the present costs.  Cost data of this nature in con-

sidered by most companies to be proprietary and confidential.  Therefore,

the post-regulatory price (assuming a full cost pass-through) related to

the pre-regulatory price will serve as a best available approximation of

the estimated cost increase.
                                  7-67

-------
     (a)  Present School
              Bus Prices

     Due to the variance in model types available to the consumer (as desc-

ribed in the introduction of this section), there is no one price which can

be pinpointed as being representative of all school bus prices.  However,

Table 7-C-l attempts to identify the range of prices a consumer could expect

to pay for each type of bus.

     Note in Table 7-C-l the wide range of prices quoted within bus type

category and between different categories of bus.  The range within categories

is primarily due to the variance in specifications required by bus purchasers

rather than any discernible differences of manufacturing companies.  With

respect to the wide variance between prices paid for different school bus

types, it should be noted that diesel powered units cost from $3,000 to $4,000

more than comparably equipped gasoline powered units.  Also, the nature of

construction and special characteristics of the integral units account for

the large price difference, in terms of the average price, between all other

bus types.

     (b)  Estimated Cost
               Increases

     The percent cost increase due to the proposed regulatory scenarios is

calculated by applying the manufacturing cost increases expressed in Appendix

C to the prices of respective units presented in Table 7-C-l.

IMPORTANT INDUSTRY
    CONSIDERATIONS

     In addition to the following industry considerations, Section 3 contains

a profile of the school bus industry.  Certain major points are detailed here

as they are important factors to be considered for analyzing the economic

impact of proposed noise emission regulations.

                                  7-68

-------
                             TABLE 7-C-l
                       August, 1976 Prices for
                Completed School Buses, by Type of Bus
Type of Bus

Gasoline Powered:
     Conventional
     Forward Control
     Parcel Delivery

Diesel Powered:
     Conventional
     Forward Control
     Integral Mid-engine
     Integral Rear-engine
Range of Prices
$11,000-18,000
$26,000-30,000
$10,000-11,500
$17,000-25,000
$28,000-30,000
$37,000-90,000
$37,000-75,000
Average Price
   $14,500
   $27,000
   $11,000
   $19,000
   $30,000
   $50,000
   $50,000
Note:      itie average price expressed here is the price given
          by respondents as closely approximately the mean price
          paid for units of the respective type.

Source:   Telephone interviews conducted between EPA consultants
          and manufacturers and school bus distributors.
                                  7-69

-------
     (a)   Competition Nature of
                   the Industry

     Due to the complex nature of the channels of distribution operating in

the school bus market, it is important to highlight some salient points

relative to industry competition.

     The market for integrally constructed buses is distinctly different

from that of body-on-chassis models both in terms of market interactions

and marketability.  The principle difference are as follows:

     1.   The sale of the integrally constructed bus is generally

          conducted by the manufacturer of the unit, whereas the body-on-

          chassis bus is normally sold through a distributor representing

          a particular body builder.  The body builder, in turn, obtains the

          driveable chassis from the chassis manufacturers (with the

          chassis make and specifications being indicated in the bid

          document).

     2.   The integrally constructed unit contains physical characteristics

          which make it more appropriate for use in a particular region and for

          specific functions where the body-on-chassis type of bus is

          physically unsuitable or economically unjustified.  Integral

          units appear to be particularly well-suited for use in mountain-

          ous terrain and when high speed highway driving is necessary.

          Also, integral units all well-suited for such special purposes

          as the transportation for college football teams to and from

          games.
                                  7-70

-------
     Due to these important considerations, among others, body-on-chassis



school buses are not thought of as being substitutes for integrally



constructed buses.  Rather, they are in a class more like that of intercity



buses although they are neither as heavily constructed nor as costly in



terms of purchase price.



     As far as competition between buses other than the integrally con-



tructed types, a high degree of competition appears to exist at least within



bus categories.  For example, gasoline powered conventional buses of dif-



ferent makes compete directly, as readily substitutable goods.  Any make of



bus body can be constructed on any one of the four major chasses makes, and



sales are typically made on the basis of competitive bids by several pro-



ducers.  Domestic market share data for the four major chassis manufacturers



(Table 7-C-2) shows that a great deal of brand switching does occur from



year-to-year  further a priori information indicating a high degree of



competition.



     At the assembly stage of manufacture, diesel and gasoline body-on-



chassis school buses are highly substitutable, and the assembler can switch



easily from production of one to the other.  This is a significant consi-



deration in connection with the differential lead times envisaged for



attainment of the various levels of noise attenuation.  Should an



industry-wide noise standard be promulgated, say, one year in advance



of compliance capability by diesel chassis maufacturers but not so



for gasoline chassis, the assemblers could shift production entirely to



gasoline chassis with minimal hardship.  Advance notice of the forth-



coming regulations would enable bus purchasers with strong preference



for the diesel mode to advance or delay their buying.





                                  7-71

-------
                   TABLE 7-C-2
            SHARES OF DOMESTIC MARKET
       FOR SCHOOL BUS CHASSIS  1973-1975
Make

Chevrolet

CMC

Ford

International Harvester

                         100.0%    100.0%   100.0%


Source:  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
1973
.et 11.9%
8.2%
29.6%
itional Harvester 50.3%
1974
12.8%
9.2%
35.0%
43.9%
1975
15.0%
8.2%
22.7%
54.1%
                         7-72

-------
      (b)  Price
          Movements

     No information has been found during the course of this study to express,

in a quantitative manner, the way in which manufacturers of school buses per se

have reacted to increased production costs in the past.  However, if the

Wholesale Price Index for all buses is a representative measure of school bus

price movements, we find that bus prices have lagged behind the WPI for all

manufactured goods since 1973 when prices jumped from an index of 117.9

(1967 base) for 1972 to 129.2 for 1973 (Table 7-C-3).  In 1975, bus prices

showed an extraordinary increase from 128.6 in 1974 to 156.4 in 1975.  The

margin of difference has narrowed again by June of 1976, possibly due in

part to cost increases associated with brake system regulations.

     Irrespective of the behavior of manufacturers to other associated cost

increases, industry sources indicate that cost increases caused by regulatory

actions are passed through to consumers in full.  Such is the expectation

relative to safety regulations to be effective in early 1977 and thereafter.

      (c)  Differential
               Impacts

     Differential impact on the school bus industry are discussed in the

following paragraphs in the context of differing costs, by firms manufactur-

ing the same product type, and of differing costs associated with

quieting different types of buses.

     1.   Differential costs, by manufacturer, for producing the same

          product.  As discussed previously, it is felt that the

          regulatory levels under analysis here will cause no

          differential costs which will put one firm in a less favorable

          competitive position than may be the case at present.


                                  7-73

-------
                     TABLE 7-C-3


              WHOLESALE PRICE COMPARISON -
              ALL MANUFACTURERS VS. BUSES

                      (1967=100)

YEAR      WPI - BUSES              WPI - ALL MANUFACTURED GOODS

                                              100.0

                                              102.6

                                              106.3

                                              110.2

                                              113.8

                                              117.9

                                              129.2

                                              154.1

                                              171.1

                                              178.7
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
100.0
103.6
106.9
111.2
115.0
116.8
117.7
128.6
156.4
167.8
Source:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
                           7-74

-------
     2.   Differential costs associated with quieting different product

          types.  Here it is necessary to analyze the pre-and-post-regulatory

          prices of different product types relative to competitive product

          types.

     It can be concluded from inspection of the price differential movements

for the various regulatory levels that little change in the relative competi-

tive positions of competing units will derive from the regulatory levels

under study.

     This result is of importance because it demonstrates that differential

impacts on the demand for various construction categories of school buses
                                                   10
will be minimal under the proposed regulatory level.  In the following

analysis cross-effects on demand, as between the different categories will

not be considered in detail.

     For purposes of the overall microeconomic analysis, there is little

loss in generality by proceeding to terms of the two principal construction

categories:  conventional gasoline and conventional diesel school buses.

Table 7-C-4 shows that in percentage terms, this simplification sacrifices

coverage only to a very limited extent.
10
  Integrally constructed mid-engine and rear-engine buses built by Crown
  Coach and Gillig Bros, are an exception to this statement, but as
  mentioned earlier, they are considered specialized products not
  competing directly with other school bus types.
                                  7-75

-------
                  TABLE 7-C-4
              PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
             OF ALL SCHOOL BUS TYPES
                                       Percent of
   Type of Bus                         Total Buses

Gasoline Powered:

     -Conventional                       84.8%

     -Forward Control                     0.7%

     -Parcel Delivery and
       Motor Home Chassis                 4.4%

     Subtotal Gasoline                   89.9%


Diesel Powered:

     -Convent ional                        4.9%

     -Forward Control                     3.9%

     -Integral Mid-Engine                 1.0%

     -Integral Rear-Engine                0.3%

     Subtotal Diesel	               11.1%

TOTAL ALL TYPES                         100.0%
Source:  Based on market share information from
         Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association,
         School Bus Fleet, industry interviews,
         and EPA estimates.
                        7-76

-------
ANALYSIS OF
  USER COSTS

     To assess the economic impact of noise abatement technology on the over-

all market for school buses, an examination of user costs parallel to that

in Subsections 7-A and 7-B is appropriate, despite the fact that no "fare",

as such, is generally charged to riders of school buses.  Instead, pupil trans-

portation expenses are funded out of general school system revenues.  Route

service decisions are determined in part by local school boards and in part

by requirements of state and federal law to provide adequate transporta-

tion for all pupils.

     Just under half of the pupils attending schools travel to their
                                            11
destination by means other than school buses,  either on foot, by public

conveyance, or in private automobiles.  Since the allocation of school

system revenues is in part at the discretion of local government, service

decisions  and by implication, the demand for transportation equipment

 will respond to changes in the cost of providing transportation service.

     Figure 7-C-2 demonstrates that during the period 1963-74 expenditures

by school systems for replacement and new vehicles was a relatively small

percentage of total transportation expenditures.  Since total bus inventories

were also rising significantly during this period (Table 7-C-7), annual capital

replacement costs were at most ten percent of total transportation expen-

ditures.
11
  In 1971-72, 46.1 percent, and in 1973-74, 51.5 percent, of average daily
  attendance was transported at public expense.  (National Center for
  Educational Statistics, Statistics of State School Systems.)
                                    7-77

-------
                                                Figure  7-C-2

                    HISTORICAL REVIEW  OF EXPENDITURES  BY ELEMENTARY AND
                SECONDARY  SCHDOLS BY  MAJOR ACCOUNT AND  BY TRANSPORTATION
                                             RELATED  ACCOUNTS
(Dollar figures in thousands)
School Years

Total Expenditures'1'
Total Current Expenditures for
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Capital Outlays
Interest on School Debt
Total Pupil Transportation
Expenditures
Capital Outlays for Transportation
Vehicles and Equipment
Current Transportation Expenditures
Salaries'2'
Replacement of Vehicles'2'
Supplies & Maintenance for'2'
Buses and Garages
Other Transportation Expenses'2"3'
Total Pupil Transportation Expenditures
As % of Total Expenditures
Total Pupil Transportation Expenditures
As % of Total Current Expenditures
Salaries as % of Total Pupil Transportation Expenditures
Vehicle Replacement t, Capital Outlays for
Vehicles and Equipment as % of Total
Transportation Expenditures
Supplies and Maintenance as % of Total Transportation
Expenditures
Other Expenses as t of Total Transportation
Expenditures
1963-1964
$20,897
17,218
2,978
701
723
49
674
245
72
121
236
3.5%
4.2%
33.9%
16.7%
16.7%
32.6%
1965-1966
$25,600
21,053
3,755
792
812
25
787
310
77
137
263
3.2%
3.9%
38.2%
12.6%
16.9%
32.4%
1967-1968
$32,111
26,877
4,256
978
1,021
40
981
348
82
143
408
3.2%
3.8%
34.1%
11.9%
14.0%
40.0%
1969-1970
$40,048
34,218
4,659
1,171
1,268
49
1,219
445
88
185
501
3.2%
3.7%
35.1%
10.8%
14.6%
39.5%
1971-1972
$47,655
41,818
4,459
1,378
1,607
99
1,508
532
104
208
664
3.4%
3.8%
33.1%
12.6%
12.9%
41.3%
1973-1974
$56,518
50,025
4,979
1,514
1,955
97
1,858
625
132
271
830
3.5%
3.9%
32.0%
11.6%
13.9%
42.5%
Notes:  (1)  Excluding current expenditures for services not related to elementary and secondary
           education.

       (2)  Calculated on the basis of expense distribution of states which were consistent
           in their reporting methodology.  TJie following nine states were inconsistent for
           itost years of the analysis:  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Iowa,
           Montana, Ohio, and Texas.

       (3)  Includes constracted services, fares for public transportation, and payments in
           lieu of transportation.

Sources: Digest of Educational Statistics, 1975 Edition, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
        and Welfare, Education Division, Table 69.

        Statistics of State School Systems, various editions, U.S. Department of Health,
        Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statics, various tables.
                                                       7-78

-------
     Following the analysis of the previous subsections, the fact that bus

capital is a small fraction of total factor cost in the production of bus

service implies that a given regulation induced change in the price of new

buses has only a small effect on the total cost of transportation and there-

fore, on the "derived demand" for new buses.  The ability of the bus manufac-

turing industry to pass through the additional equipment costs without

severely reducing sales is thereby enhanced.

COST ESTIMATES
  FROM APPENDIX C

     Tables 7-C-5 and 7-C-6 summarize the pertinent estimates of technology

cost from Appendix C.  Expense estimates are in terms of 1976 dollars.  The

various proposed technology levels are also independent of one another.

     The estimates in the tables are "incremental" expenses, that is, addi-

tional expenses over and above the costs in 1976 of purchasing and operating

a typical bus that has no noise abatement equipment installed.  Incremental

fuel costs, a negative quantity in the case of gasoline powered conventional

school buses, are computed on the basis of a midpoint mileage estimate, as

described in the note for Table 7-C-5.

ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
           CAPITAL COSTS

     The formula for estimating incremental capital costs is:

                    dX/dR = (r + i) dK/dR,
                                    7-79

-------
                                                   o
                                                   CM
                                                  V)-
m
ro
            o
            vo
      o
      m
                                                                                               o x:
m

v
r^


1
o    in    m
      CM    CM
V>     I      I
                                                                    m
                                                                    CM
                                                                     I
                  in
                  CM



"to"
iH
to
<0
co x:
60 -o
P^ C
DJ (0
04 >i
"B
Cj


0)
4J
l4r> Hi
rtj c
4J
CO
ca


0
in


CO-

s
Q
^


x:

n
0


co-
in
f*.
CM
<0-


o
m
rH




0
rH
rH

O
in
cn



in
CO
CM




o
rH
CM

m
**f
o
rH


in
00




in
o
**J*

m
in
a\
rH


in
rH

rH


O
O


O

-------
                                                    o
                                                    CN
                         in
                         in
LT)

r-1

CN
vo

$
j^-
    CQ
   H
    CO
    (0

co x:
5 u
                                     ^3

                                  w m
8
i

"




1
HH
g
J,

1
1
4J
CO
w
!
0 0 O

o m m
m CN o
3 VO rH O
p-rj k ^
\JA ^
r) CN 00

i


^O ^i O
00 OO 00

o

o
00
m
rH
0
rH
o
rH
o
rH
OO

in

                                                    ro    o
                                                    oo    oo
                                                                      in
                                                    c_)

                                                    X
                                                    rl

                                                    'H
                                                          CN
                                                    0)
                                                    o
                                                    u
                                                    3
                                                    O
                                                    en
                                                       7-81

-------
where dX/dR is the incremental capital (equipment) cost associated with

regulatory level R, dK/dR is the dollar value of noise abatement equipment

installed on new buses, r is the rate of depreciation, and i is the rate of

interest. , A major difficulty arises in providing accurate estimates of the

rate of depreciation r.

     In the absence of satisfactory data summarizing fleet operators'

balance sheets and annual depreciation charges, two alternatives for estima-

ting r are discussed:  (1) estimates based on life cycle assumptions;  (2)

estimates based on observed used equipment prices.

     (a)   Estimates Based on
          Life Cycle Assumptions

     Table 7-C-7 demonstrates that the total population of school buses in

the United States has grown dramatically in the last decade.  Replacement

requirements, as indicated in the last column of the table, have constituted

a relatively modest proportion of the total population, roughly five percent

per year.

     This five percent figure is lower than the actual rate of depreciation

experienced, however, for two reasons.  First, a significant portion of the

observed population of school buses consists of relatively inactive, reserve

inventories that are used only occasionally during the year for emergency

purposes or special events.  Such buses, which have outlived their normal

lives as useful working capital, do not properly belong in the denominator

of the depreciation estimate.  Secondly, the fact that the bus population

has experienced growth means that production from previous years was smaller

than in recent years, hence that the rate of obsolescence of past years is

lower than the rate of depreciation of the total stock.


                                    7-82

-------
                            TABLE 7-C-7
Calendar     Bus
  Year    Inventory
  1968

  1969

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974
262,204

273,973

288,750

307,285

316,421

333,892

354,634
                     UNITED STATES SCHOOL BUS
                     INVENTORY AND PRODUCTION
                              1968-74
Bus
Shipments
29,015
28,064
27,408
28,358
30,635
30,039
29,561
Shipments as Percent
of Existing Stock
11.07%
10.24
9.51
9.23
9.68
9.00
8.34
a
Net Shipments
as Percent of
Existing Stock
6.58%
4.85
3.09
6.26
4.16
2.78

  Source:  Industry Sources.
  Note:     Net shipments are defined as gross shipments less
            replacement requirements to keep inventory at a constant
            level.
                                 7-83

-------
     A somewhat cruder estimate based on life cycle assumptions is the

industry estimate of an average useful life of 9-10 years for gasoline

powered conventional school buses (which comprise 85% of the total stock).

(See Table 7-C-4.)  The implied depreciation rate is 10-11% per year.

     (b)  Estimates Based on
           Observed Used
            Equipment Prices

     One major dealer in used school buses provided EPA with a repre-

sentative pair of prices for good condition conventional gasoline-powered

school buses built in the years 1976 and 1970.  Both buses are equipped

with five-speed transmissions:

         1976 new conventional school bus                      $14,100

         1970 good condition used conventional school bus      $ 5,500

The implied rate of depreciation over the 6-year period is estimated as

follows:

                                 1/6
               1 - (5,500/14,100)     = 14.52%
                    *

     (c)  Summary of Rate of
          Depreciation Estimates

     As with intercity and urban transit buses, conventional school buses

have potentially long service lives depending on routes traveled, main-

tenance, and mileage figures.  Estimates based on life cycle assumptions

indicate a minimum rate of depreciation of at least six percent per annum,

whereas observed market prices of old versus new buses imply a depreci-

ation rate as high as fifteen percent.  EPA's independent estimate for

conventional gasoline-powered school buses is twelve percent, somewhat

above the ten percent figure for transit and intercity buses.  For con-

ventional diesel powered school buses, EPA's estimate is ten percent

per annum.


                                    7-84

-------
ESTIMATES OF INCREMENTAL
              PRIME COST

     The technology cost estimates from Tables 7-C-5 and 7-C-6 for  incre-

mental equipment, fuel, and maintenance costs can be combined into  single

estimates of incremental cost per vehicle mile.  This is accomplished by con-

verting equipment cost increments into per annum capital costs (depreciation

plus interest), and then by dividing the sum of annual capital, fuel, and

maintenance cost by 10,000 vehicle miles per year.

     Tables 7-C-8 and 7-C-9 provide results of the calculations for conven-

tional gasoline-powered and conventional diesel-powered school buses,

respectively.  Sensitivity tests with respect to the assumption concerning

depreciation demonstrate relatively low sensitivity, and they are not repro-

duced here.

IMPACT ON QUANTITY
  OF BUS SERVICE DEMANDED

     On the premise that increments to prime cost are transmitted to tax-

payers, the political decision-making process will respond to increased

transportation costs by reducing service, by lengthening pupil riding times,

and by increasing the number of pupils riding in each bus.  Given that the

decision-making process is performing optionally, the equilibrium response

of ridership, equipment, and routes will be precisely the same as the res-

ponse that would occur in a market environment where a fare equal to average

expense including normal profit was charged to each pupil.

     The correspondence of market and non-market equilibria enables us to

obtain predictions concerning the effect of increments to prime cost on

equilibrium school bus ridership and the demand for school buses.


                                    7-85

-------
                               TABLE 7-C-8


               INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
                  ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED LEVELS OF NOISE
                   ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY, GASOLINE POWERED

                                                                              a
                                      Incremental CostCents per Vehicle-Mile
Technology  Exterior  Interior
  Level       dBA       dBA          High       Low           EPA Estimate


                                     0.805      0.200             0.310

                                     3.190      1.342             1.430

                                     3.649      1.812             1.977

                                     5.751      2.341             3.309

                                     9.068      5.790             6.769
Source:  Table 7-C-5.  Interest and depreciation are calculated as 22%
         of incremental capital cost (12% depreciation plus 10% interest)
         Estimates reflect an assumption of 10,000 vehicle miles per bus
         year.

        a
Note:    1976 dollars.
1
2
3
4
5
83
80
77
75
73
83
80
80
75
75
                                7-86

-------
                               TABLE 7-C-9
               INCREMENTAL PRIME COST PER BUS-MILE OF SERVICE
                  ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED LEVELS OF NOISE
                   ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY, DIESEL POWERED
                          CONVENTIONAL SCHOOL BUSES
                                                                              a
                                      Incremental CostCents per Vehicle-Mile
Technology  Exterior  Interior
  Level       dBA       dBA          High       Low            EPA Estimate


    1          83        86          1.500      0.530             1.460

    2          80        84          5.800      2.070             3.010

    3          77        80          8.160      3.950             5.110

    4          75        75         11.320      6.520             7.660
Source:  Table 7-C-5.  Interest and depreciation are calculated as 20%
         of incremental capital cost (10% depreciation plus 10% interest).
         Estimates reflect an assumption of 10,000 vehicle miles per year.
        a
Note:    1976 dollars.
                                    7-87

-------
     Statistics on average expense per vehicle mile for the United States

are provided in Table 7-C-10.  Average expense for 1974 may be adjusted to
                                                                            12
1976 dollars by applying the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index

(transportation) for 1974 to June 1976:

               (165.9/137.7) x .72 = 86.75$ per vehicle mile

     Calculations for the estimated percentage increase in average expense

are given in Tables 7-C-ll and 7-C-12.  These numbers are multiplied by the

demand elasticity estimate of -0.50 to compute the expected change in the

quantity of service demanded.  This elasticity is the same as that estimated

in Appendix D for urban transit.  It is probably high in absolute terms due to

imperfections in the political process, but the fact that pupils' marginal

cost of time is relatively low implies less sensitivity to service charges.

IMPACT ON QUANTITY
  OF BUS PR3DUCTION

     The foregoing analysis, and Tables 7-C-ll and 7-C-12, indicate that

the impact on equilibrium bus service is relatively small, particularly

compared to the three percent per annum projected growth rate of (baseline)

industry production.  Since it is unlikely that the technology of bus fleet

management permits substantial substitution between buses and other inputs

in the production of bus service, reduced ridership of three to five per-

cent resulting from noise abatement technology translates into a similar

reduction in long-run demand for new buses.

     Table 7-C-13 demonstrates the fact that school buses are utilized at

near capacity levels.  The ability of school bus fleet managers to reduce

equipment expenditures for a given level of pupil service is severely

limited, and it is doubtful that substantial factor substitution will occur

in response to a change in the relative price of bus capital.
                                    7-88

-------
                              TABLE 7-C-10
                   TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL
                        AND PER BUS MILE, 1963-74,
                            U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
School Average Cost Per
Year Pupil Transported
1963-64
1965-66
1967-68
1969-70
1971-72
1973-74
$46.53
50.68
57.27
66.96
77.43
87.04
Average Cost per
Bus Mile
$0.40
0.42
0.50
0.54
0.63
0.72
                                                      Vehicle Replacement and
                                                      Capital Outlays as % of
                                                        Transport Expenses
                                                               16.7%

                                                               12.6

                                                               11.9

                                                               10.8

                                                               12.6

                                                               11.6
Source:    Statistics of State School Systems,  various editions.   U.S.
           Department of Health, Education,  and Welfare,  National  Center
           for Education Statistics,  Table 41.
                                    7-89

-------
                          0)
                                   dP
                                  O
                                         CN

                                         00
                                          t

                                         O
                                               en
                                               oo
                   o
                   en
                                   o
                                   m

                                   00
                                    I
                ft -H        QJ
                W -M        W
                   CO    4J  (0
                   U    CQ  0)
m
ro
                oo

                vo
             en


             CN
              

             CN
                                                     00
                                                       

                                                     ro
ro
o
oo
                                   m
                                  0
                                         o
                                               O


                                               rH
                                                     CTl

                                                     ro
                         ro
                         ro

                         ro
                          I
                                                                               O
         U
                                   <*>
                                  ro
                                  CN
                                         m
             00
             o
                                               CN
                                                     fN
                         VO


                         vo
H
   Ed W
   Q C/l

                   I
                   EC
                                  vo
                                  o
                                   1
OP
00
CN
      en
      ro
      oo
                                         ro
                                               ro
                                               o
                                               CN
                                               o
                                               CN
                            m
                            rH
                            ro
                              
                            ro
                                                     cr>
                                                     CN
                         r-
                         CN
                         CN

                         m
                          I
                                   ro
                                   in
s-i

fl
c
                         i-l

                         O
                         a
ro
oo
                                  00
                                         o
                                         00
             O
             00
                                         o
                                         oo
                                                     m
                                                     m
                                                            m
                                                            ro
                                                                               fi
                                                                            VCN
                                                                            r-
                             81
                                         CN
                                               ro
                                                            in
                                                                         8
                                                                         s-i
                                                                         a
                                                                         o
                                                     7-90

-------


































CN
rH
CJ
,1

w
J
1
EH


































Si
a
M
S
IX
U
OH
n


S
1
^>
H"
[3 ^D
P 3
w cj
K33 S
M CJ
CJ fr3
co
W EH
*. j}> f
Q W
Q "*
^5 PQ
2
PQ W
P W
H
E~H 13
HH
p r fj.
z O
83
CL)
O Ea
r-3
PH
O P
w w
Cn O
W A
P 
*









c
H

CU





cS-S
Cd -U
W -P
w u
o
CJ









CO
U
CQ

J
8
nn
b^

^
S
CJ
M
Q
1
^5
CJ

0
3
^
2

j
U
CO
U
s




S

o
1

e
[S
s
4-1
U
o
CJ

c
rH

CU
Cn
rO
* 6
ffi
O
M
W 4->
CO
O
CJ



O
H
S
C
1 1

U
.3
VJ
5
X
w

*
ro
CO
VD

r-H





ro
c
i
n}
P

dy^
in
o
ro

o
1

C)
CO
(0

r-f
rH
O



TJ

S
Q



in
00
o


D
(0
CU
O
C
M

o
CN
r-

r-H



i


00




itf
^





ro
oo







in
ro
r*^

rH
1

O

^4

ro






ro
rH

rH
1


vo
00
ro
CM




ro
>*
ro
ro
1



&
00
^c*

^D



00





o
oo







in

OS

CN
1

rH
CTi
00

in






P*^
p^
CM

CM
1


ro
in
m





ro
o

1



vo
o

en



o
00





P







m
rH
^*

*
I

o
ro
00

oo






00
in

ro


vo
rH
in





CM
in
VO



CPl
0

ro
rH



m
r-





m
r-







**-
tn
r-

VO
oo
4J
<0

""O
m
-P

P
"rH
4J
W
Q)
CU
U
ro
vo
r~
en
rH
H

d)
rH
iH
e
1-1


W
4J
8
en
c
rl
4->
ro
S-l
JS-
O


O
rH
Y
r~
rB
cn
1
Y
r-
tn
0)
rH
X!
ro
H

O
m

o
1
x
01 M
e *
MIS
CU 4->
U ro
rH ^
l-l -H
Oj 4-)
W
Vj CD
CU

3 -H
w
C 'O
O C
CJ ro
CU
TJ
U,
M-l 14-1
O
CU >i
> 4?
H -H
>H U
 ^*
ro vo
rH r~
M-l O>
C rH
H
CU
to c
CU 3
3*
-P O
4J
0
rH 0)
iH1
T ro
^s
-^C
95
EH 4->
m
e 4J
O M
> 8)
U
CM r3
r- u
~EH
Q >
U
CU
            CN
                ro
                                 I
             7-91

-------
                     TABLE 7-C-13


       AVERAGE RIDERSHIP PER SCHOOL BUS,  1963-74


                                      Average Daily Attendance
                                      Transported/Total Number
School Year                           	of Vehicles	

  1963-64                                     72.06

  1965-66                                     84.09

  1967-68                                     80.67

  1969-70                                     76.77

  1971-72                                     76.75

  1973-74                                     82.07
 Source:  National Center for Education Statistics,
          Statistics of State School Systems, Table 25.
                            7-9?

-------
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON
   SCHOOL BUS USERS

     The proposed regulations may have adverse economic impacts not recorded

above in the "long-run" analysis if they prompt short-run financial disloca-

tions or have distributional effects.  Consider first the impact on tax-

payers and municipal and state financing authorities.

     The preceding analysis  (Tables 7-C-ll and 7-C-12) demonstrates that

increases of no more than ten-to-twelve percent (across all school bus types)

in pupil transportation expenditures are anticipated even at the most stringent

level of proposed noise attenuation.  This estimate can be combined with

statistics on public school finance to assess the extent of financial impact.

     Table 7-C-14 demonstrates the fact that total pupil transportation

accounts for only a small percentage of public school system expenditures,

and that this percentage increases significantly in smaller, non-metropolitan

systems.  For the purposes of estimation, a ten percent increase in total

pupil transportation expenditures translates into a 0.24 percent increase

in total pupil expenditures in central metropolitan areas as compared with

a 0.57 percent increase in non-metropolitan areas.

     Public school system finances are shared by local, state, and federal

sources as shown in Table 7-C-15.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON
  PRODUCERS, INCLUDING
  EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS
 1
     The above economic analysis puts an upper bound on the aggregate

percentage reduction in equilibrium demand for school buses at 5.4 percent
                                    7-93

-------
                              TABLE 7-C-14
                PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES EXPENDITURES
                          BY ENROLLMENT SIZE AND
                	METROPOLITAN STATUS, 1970-71	

                        (Dollar Figures in Millions)
                               (1)

                              Total
                             Current
                           Expenditures
                   (2)

                  Pupil
              Transportation
               Expenditures
                      (3)
                     Pupil
                 Transportation
                 As % of Total
                  Expenditures
All U.S. Public
  School Systems
$25,827.3
$1,376.7
3.84%
System Enrollment Size:
5,000 and Over
Less than 5,000
Metropolitan Status:
Central Metropolitan
Metropolitan, Other
Non-Metropolitan
Source: Statistics of
$23
$12

$10
$15
$10
,746.
,080.

,193.
,178.
,455.
Local Public
4
9

8
3
2
School
$
$

$


707.
668.

249.
523.
603.
Systems,
9
8

3
7
8
Finance,
2
5

2
3
5
.98%
.54%

.45%
.45%
.78%
1970-71.
         U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
         Of ice of Education
                                     7-94

-------
                    TABLE 7-C-15
      REVENUE AND NONREVENUE RECEIPTS OF LOCAL PUBLIC
             SCHOOL'SYSTEMS BY SOURCE OF FUNDS:
                  UNITED STATES, 1970-71

Total Receipts
Revenue Receipts
Local
Intermediate
State
Federal
(Millions)
$45,511
$42,424
22,851
504
15,784
3,285
(Percent)
100.0%
93.2%
50.2
1.1
34.7
7.2
Nonrevenue Receipts (Bonds)   $ 3,087              6.8%
Source:  National Center for Educational Statistics,
         Statistics of Local Public School Systems,
         Finance 1970-71, Table A-l.
                           7-95

-------
from baseline levels, with an independent estimate of 3.9 percent at the
                                       13
most stringent level of noise abatement.

     Figure 3-25, (Section 3) indicates a growth rate in baseline produc-

tion of 3.0 percent per year through the year 1990.  Given proposed lead

times of sufficient length for the various noise abatement levels studied,

no reduction in existing manufacturing capacity will be required, and at the

aggregate level no financial impacts on producers are foreseen.

     Two individual cases have been identified, however, for which the

estimated incremental cost impact of the noise abatement technology is

substantial.  These are the transit-style integral construction school buses

produced in relatively small numbers by Gillig Bros, and Crown Coach

Corporation in California.

     EPA's attempts to assess the cost impact on these producers has been

hampered by a lack of substantial information provided by the companies

involved.  Differentially higher costs of noise abatement do appear likely,

however, and further investigation by EPA of the specific problems involved

appears warranted.

     An important mitigating factor, not capable of accurate estimation from

an econometric viewpoint based on available data, is the fact that these

buses serve a significantly different market than the conventional school

bus market.
13
  These figures are computed as a weighted average from Tables 7-C-ll
  (85%) and 7-C-12 (15%).
                                    7-96

-------
They are long-lived  (20-30 years as opposed to 9-10 years), expensive

($50,000 as opposed to $14,000-$19,000), and intended primarily for

long-route, intensive use typical of the west-coast region in which

they are marketed.  It is clear that the "cross-elasticity" of demand

for these buses vis-a-vis conventional buses is substantially below

infinity, but the precise elasticity is not possible to estimate from

available data.

     Section 3 indicates that the vast majority of school bus chassis

and bodies are produced domestically and in Canada (which is virtually

equivalent, given the Automotive Pact Trade Agreement).  Finished school

buses are generally built according to customer specifications, so that

the producers already possess the necessary flexibility to treat the

noise reduction package as an optional item, not included on exports to

nonregulated countries.

     Since school buses are not imported in significant quantities to the

United States, no balance of trade or balance of payments effects are fore-

seen for the proposed technologies under consideration for regulation.

ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR
  SCHOOL BUS NOISE ABATEMENT

     Annualized cost calculations projected to the year 2000 for 15

regulatory schedules are presented in Appendix E.  Input variables for

school buses are listed in Table 7-C-16.
                                   7-97

-------
                TABLE 7-C-16
         DATA INPUT AND PARAMETER VALUES
        FOR ANNUALIZED COST CALCULATIONS
                  SCHOOL BUSES
Variable Description


Baseline Production Rate

Projected Production Rate

Incremental Operating Cost

Incremental Maintenance Cost

Incremental Equipment Cost

Depreciable Life  (years)

Price Elasticity of Demand

Rate of Discount
Source or Value


 Figure 3-25

 Figure 3-25

 Appendix C

 Appendix C

 Appendix C

 10

 -0.50

 0.10
                      7-98

-------
                      GENERAL REFERENCES

                           SECTION 7
1.   "An Econometric Model of Urban Bus Operations," Chapter IV
     of John D. Wells et al, Econometric Characteristics of the
     Urban Public Transportation Industry (Washington, D.C.:
     Government Printing Office, 1972).

2.   Hicks, John R., The Theory of Wages.  London:   MacMillan, 1932.

3.   Heightchew, Robert E., United States Transit Bus Demand.
     Highway Users Federation, Washington, D.C.:   June, 1975.

4    "A Study to Determine the Economic Impact of Noise Emission
     Standards in the Bus Manufacturing Industry,"  Draft Final
     Report submitted by A. T. Kearney, Inc. under EPA Contract
     No. 68-01-3512, prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement
     and Control, September, 1976.
                             7-99

-------
                               Section 8


                        MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY



     The choice of a procedure for measuring the noise emitted by buses

was based on several considerations:

     o  Existing bus noise measurement procedures

     o  Bus noise characteristics

     o  Work cycle of buses

     o  Enforcement requirements

        - Repeatability of measurement

1.   EXISTING PROCEDURES

     A number of existing and proposed noise measurement procedures

for buses and trucks were examined for applicability.

     For a number of years U.S. industry has been using the SAE J366b

measurement procedure (full throttle acceleration) for measuring the

exterior sound levels for heavy trucks and buses.  ISO recommendation,
                                       1
R362, which follows a similar procedure, is the basis for noise

measurement in some European countries.  Table 8-1 compares the main

features of these two procedures.
                                  8-1

-------



i^
g -0
3%
!*
IK


q
 2
TT rH
O -U
c- rt 2
5 ti 3
-a  *
C a) vJ
-l 0
<3

c
C*-( O
o ^3
O ri
fl d 5l
.2 w -2
-3 .,  l
i5 aJ
4-* w
"-S
* o
< 0
<
^-
J3
tuo

cq
s
0)
h
3
o
(U
U
o
h
ft.

JJ tl
CO 0)
0 ,-, 43
g1" ' 0
B^^"g
S^ * 3
* a*
bn *J DO tw
rt w C O
 X 3 M
Q, .3 ^ P9
>.SP 2*
< ft 1 CM
?
 Irt
JS .
^ 0
o n
So
3
O 00
CO rH
a i
a> ^ TJ
nj 	 , t3 S
 "S " S rH^
1 5!^
6 >  3 m fi
rf O (3 O CYJ 3
X M - 1 J3 " *
rt t ?P.t3  uo
co O C
CO DJO 0)
_"

if CM

* r-l
V.^
.?
ii CM
o .
* IS
*^^
XI
CO
CO
CO
1-3
H
cl

<
m
o
1
l
CO
I
o
n)
0>
k
1=3 2
< .2





a
o
M

o
<1)
3
o

to
4-*
O
&
Si
a c
 8
2 "0 0 
w o) w .c
 C -~^
o f* -a g
_ a> co Q
tS. ^ 01 *^
O^ t^ \U
m o o. o
c- bo 03 m
g

CM

r-l

S

t"


CM
CO
2

8-2

-------
     Both procedures require the use of high quality (Type I or "Pre-
cision") sound measuring equipment, background noise levels at least
10 dBA below the level produced by the test vehicle, and a flat, open
space free of reflecting surfaces.  The recommended test sites for per-
forming measurements are shown in Figure 8-1.
     The ISO recommendation includes a procedure for measurements with
stationary vehicles, with the engine operating at governed speed, or at
three-quarters of maximum rated speed if the engine is ungoverned.
     The MITRE Corporation, under contract to the U. S. DOT Urban Mass
Transit Administration, has developed a standard procedure specifically
                               2
directed at urban transit buses.  For exterior noise, two microphones
are required, one at a 15.2 m (50 feet)  distance and a 1.2 m (4 feet)
height and another at a 10.8 m (35.4 feet) distance and 12.0 m (39.4
feet) height.  The latter position corresponds to a slant distance of
15.2 m (50 feet) from the bus lane along a line 45 degrees to the road
surface, and is designed to insure controlled noise levels to apartment
dwellers.  A recommended test site area is shown in Figure 8-2.  A sta-
tionary starting point ahead of the microphone reference line is selected
such that, when the vehicle is accelerated from that point with rapid
application at wide open throttle, the chief vehicle noise source of
the test coach shall fall within a 32.8 ft. (10 m) region on either
side of the microphone reference lines when the vehicle reaches maximum
                                8-3

-------
                                     FIGURE 8-1
                            Recommended  Test Sites for
                              ISO  and  SAE Procedures
                                ISO R362  Procedure
     Microphone  o>
                7.5/77
7.5 m
      Microphone
                                                 Test area
                                                 perimeter
                                                                  CAR WITH OR WITHOUT
                                                                         TRAILER
 Measuring positions for measurement with vehicles in motion       Measuring positions for measurement with stationary vehicles
                               SAE  J366b  Procedure
                                                  Microphone Point
                                                  Measurement
                                                  Area
       Dimensions in
       Meters (Feet)
                                        8-4

-------
                      FIGURE 8-2
Minimum Acceptable  Test  Area  for  Urban Transit
          Buses,  MITRE Recommendation^  '
                                NO LARGE REFLECTING
                                SURFACES PERMITTED
                                WITHIN THIS PERIMETER 
                                                    CENTERLINE OF
                                                    VEHICLE PATH
         10.8M (35.4 ft.)	
                                MICROPHONE REFERENCE LINE
                         8-5

-------
governed speed for manual transmission models or shift point for auto-
matic transmission models.  Maximum vehicle speed during the test is
limited to 31 mph (50 km/hr).  Interior noise levels are measured at
the forwardmost passenger seat, the seat nearest the center of the bus,
and the rearmost seat.
     The Coach Noise Subcommittee of the SAE Vehicle Sound Level
Committee has also been preparing recommended procedures for exterior
and interior sound levels of motor coaches which include school,
transit, and intercity buses.  This subcommittee feels that for buses,
the "pull-away" or standing start mode of operation normally produces
maximum exterior noise levels.  They are also considering a shortened
end zone where the bus reaches maximum rated or governed speed between
tests.  Test conditions have also been established for interior noise
measurements.
2.   BUS NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
     If the noise characteristics are similar while the vehicle is
stationary and moving, stationary test procedures are to be pre-
ferred because of the resultant ease of testing.  Other considerations
are the consistency of noise levels between tests and the ease of
extrapolation of the measured level to actual noise levels experienced
in the community.  One of the difficulties with stationary procedures
is that if the engine is ungoverned, the maximum engine speed cannot

                                 8-6

-------
be precisely controlled.  In addition, sudden acceleration of gasoline
engines without load is considered damaging since excessively high engine
speeds would result.  The stationary procedure does offer the advantage
of removing one of the unwanted sound sources, namely tires, from the
overall sound measured.
     Existing bus noise level data (Section 4) include stationary
and acceleration noise levels.  The SAE Vehicle Sound Level Committee
has collected and analyzed noise data on various vehicle types using
stationary and acceleration procedures.  The data indicate that while each
of the procedures gives repeatable measurements for a given vehicle, and
about equal spread in levels between different vehicles, the correlation
between the two procedures is poor.  In other words, vehicles may or may
not emit higher levels during acceleration tests as opposed to stationary
tests.  Thus, there does not appear to be a simple method to predict which
of the two levels would be higher for a given vehicle.  Because of this
problem, most bus manufacturers have adopted the J366b procedure as the
standard procedure.
     Interior noise has not received much attention from bus manu-
facturers, except for intercity bus manufacturers.  They have dis-
covered mainly that the noisiest section of the bus is generally
around the seat nearest the engine.
                                 8-7

-------
3.   WORK CYCLES

     Buses are used for a wide variety of applications under different

road and traffic conditions.  The proportions of operating time spent

under acceleration, deceleration, cruise, and idle conditions vary

accordingly.  The work or duty cycles of buses are important considera-

tions in the development of a noise measurement procedure because the

measured level should be representative of one or more of the prominent

modes of operation of the bus.

     The school bus generally operates in a suburban environment as

opposed to the urban environment of the transit bus.  Metropolitan

transit buses generally operate in an urban environment picking up

and discharging passengers frequently along their daily runs.  As a

result work cycles consist mainly of accelerations and decelerations

with minimum cruise time at constant speeds.  The work cycle of an

intercity bus is comprised mainly of cruise time at high speed with

stops occurring only near bus terminal locations.

     A representative work cycle for school buses was estimated from

data obtained from the Radnor School District near Philadelphia,
            6
Pennsylvania.
     Number of Routes                             25
     Number of Stops                             541
     Total Time                                 1263 min.
     Total Distance Covered                      129 miles
                               8-8

-------
Assuming an average cruise speed of 27 mph and acceleration/deceleration

rate of 3.22 ft/sec/sec, the percentage of time under different conditions

was obtained:

     9%  of time under acceleration
     9%  of time under deceleration
    21%  of time at cruise
    61%  of time at engine idle

     A representative work cycle for urban transit buses was estimated from

data furnished by the EPA Mobile Source Air Pollution Laboratory, Ann
                                                              3
Arbor, and from the report on the California Steam Bus Project.  Urban

drive cycles vary widely.  An average work cycle for buses making seven

to ten stops per mile would be as follows:

     20% of time under acceleration
     20% of time under deceleration
     26% of time at cruise
     34% of time at engine idle

     Eagle International Inc., has furnished the following data for inter-

city buses:

     Average cruise speed of intercity buses - 60 mph

     Average acceleration and deceleration rates - 1.5 to 3,0 mph/sec

     Average cruise distances - 50 miles

     Average number of stops and starts per year - 5,000

     Typical drive cycles:  Acceleration -  5%
                            Deceleration -  5%
                            Cruise       - 85%
                            Idle         -  5%
                                 8-9

-------
4.   MEASUREMENT DISTANCE

     The location of the receptors of bus noise vary widely.

Pedestrians are possibly subjected to the loudest noise levels from

buses because of their close proximity to the bus.  CMC has reported

the existance of data showing that transit buses contribute measurably

to the background noise levels in downtown Detroit.  They argue that

urban transit bus noise should, therefore, be measured at a distance
                                             4
of 15 to 25 feet from the curbside of the bus.  Extrapolation to 50 ft.

measurements from closer distances than 50 ft., however, using the

standard 6 dB loss per doubling of distance would suggest levels lower

than those actually existing at 50 ft.  In addition, because buses can

be up to 40 ft. long, measurement distances shorter than 50 ft. place

the microphone in a closer proximity to the acoustic nearfield of the

bus, an undesirable position for repeatable results.

5.   ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS

     All available bus noise level data are in A-weighted decibel units.

All standard and recommended test procedures also recommend that measure-

ments be iriade in A-weighted decibel units.  Available equipment for

measurement of sound directly in these units is reliable and readily

available.  Since sound levels measured in these units also approximate

human subjective response to noise, the A-weighted decibel unit is

recommended for any test procedure.

     The procedure should be such that repeatable test conditions can

be easily obtained.  Repeatability can be ensured by specifying engine

speeds, engine rpm, and test site surface and surrounding conditions.


                                    8-10

-------
6.   TEST MEASUREMENTS



     Noise measurements from 65 school, transit and intercity buses were



taken under various test procedures.  Exterior as well as interior noise



levels were measured during each test.



     The SAE J366b Standard procedure was used for measuring exterior



and interior noise for all buses with manual transmissions and for



those buses with automatic transmissions which could be manually held



in gear.  In addition, stationary noise measurement procedures were



also employed for all buses tested.



     A modified J366b procedure was used in the case of buses with



automatic transmission which could not be manually held in gear.  The



modified J366b procedure consisted of the bus accelerated under wide



open throttle from a predetermined stationary position.  The starting



position was selected to assure that the bus reached maximum governed



speed (i.e., upshift) in the end zone defined by the SAE J366b proce-



dure.



     A full throttle pull-away procedure was also examined for all bus



types with microphones in line with the front and rear bumpers of the



bus.  This test is not suitable for vehicles with manual transmissions



because of the non-repeatablity of the bus pull-aways.



     It should be noted that all interior bus noise measurements were



taken with all bus windows and doors closed and all interior fan



accessories (including air conditioner fans and/or heating fans)



operating.  Windscreens were utilized during all the interior measure-



ments to assure that no variation in sound level due to the movement



of air throughout the bus would occur.  In addition, in order to assure



that the interior microphone did not receive acoustic standing wave





                                 8-11

-------
sound propagation from any bus wall (i.e., the ceiling), the microphone
was tilted towards the front of the bus at a 20-30 degree angle from
the vertical for all interior bus measurements made.
SCHOOL BUSES
     The principal noise sources on conventional school buses, the
cooling fan, the engine, and the exhaust outlet, are separated by the
length of the bus.  Thus, two microphones, separated by the length of
the bus, were used simultaneously on one side of the bus as shown in
Figure 8-3.
     Two stationary test procedures were examined for school buses.
The IMI (Idle-Max. Governed Speed-Idle) procedure requires the engine
throttle to be opened at a rapid rate from idling condition to its
maximum governed speed and then closed to return it to idle speed.  The
maximum governed speed test requires the maximum governed speed to be
maintained for approximately ten seconds.  This test is not recommended
for ungoverned engines as engine damage might result.
     Measured noise levels for 29 new and in-use conventional gasoline
school buses under the stationary, pull-away and acceleration procedures
may be found in Section 4, Tables 4-1 and 4-2.  Maximum interior noise
levels were obtained during the J366b procedure at the seat (driver)
nearest the engine.
     Since microphones were used to record maximum noise exterior levels
with the front and the rear of the school bus as reference points, the
tests revealed which of the two ends of each bus was noisier.  Figure
8-4 shows that on the average, the front of the bus is louder by 3
decibels on the curbside.  Both ends of the bus are about equally loud
on the streetside.
                                8-12

-------
                            FIGURE 8-3
                    Bidirectional Test Site  for
                    School Bus Noise Measurement
  Curbside
  Starting
   Point,
 Automatic
Transmission
    Buses
            -50'-

         -40'
                    END ZONE
   50'
  Curbside
Acceleration '
    Point
                            10'
-20'-
^20'*
                          10'
                         MIC  1
40'-
                             ENDZONE
                                            Streetside
                                             Starting
                                              Point,
                                            Automatic
                                           Transmission
                                               Buses
50'-
                                                               Variable
             Streetside
          1Acceleration
                Point
                                  8-13

-------
                          FIGURE  8-4
               Differences in Sound Levels of
               Conventional School Buses  with
                      the front and rear
                      used for reference
EXHAUST
  \	
  I
         -40'-
         MIC.
ENGINE
TEST NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
AVERAGE
M2)-L(1)
CURBSIDE
2 dB
3
3.25
3.67
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.06 dB
L(2)-L(1)
DRIVERSIDE
0.75 dB
0.25
-1.25
0
0.25
-0.33
-1.0
-0.167 dB
                             8-14

-------
TRANSIT BUSES



     Exterior and interior noise levels for 24 diesel powered transit



buses are summarized in Table 4-10  (Section 4).  During the testing,



difficulty was encountered in maintaining uniformity of procedure when



performing maximum acceleration (modified J366b) and pull-away testing.



In the case of the maximum acceleration procedure the buses would not



always shift at the same point in the end zone.  In the case of the pull-



away procedure, although the buses were accelerated at wide-open throttle



the run-up of the engines to the maximum governed rpm was not always



consistent.  Most of the variation in the bus operations was felt to be



due to the age of the buses tested.



     It is interesting to note that in correcting for the variability in



the bus operation, it was found that it was easier to correct for the



variation in the shift point location by changing the starting point



location than for the variation in the engine run-up.



INTERCITY BUSES



     Tables 4-19 and 4-21 (Section 4)  display summaries of exterior and



interior noise level data measured from 12 newly manufactured intercity



buses.  Data was recorded using a modified J366b sound measurement proce-



dure  (both acceleration and deceleration modes were tested), a pull-away



procedure (for automatic transmission vehicles) and a stationary IMI



procedure.  Interior noise level data was taken using all procedures.



7.   SUMMARY



     Exterior Procedures



     The standard SAE J366b procedure was found acceptable for school



buses and intercity buses with standard transmissions and automatic





                                8-15

-------
transmissions that can be manually locked in gear to prevent upshifting



above desired gears.



     For transit buses with automatic transmissions which cannot be



manually locked in gear, the modified J366b procedure was found acceptable



for exterior sound measurement testing.



     Interior Procedure



     The selection of an interior measurement procedure is closely



linked to the selection of an exterior procedure.  This leaves the



location of the microphone as the most salient question.  To this end,



it has been found that in all EPA bus noise measurements, as displayed



in Section 4, the noisiest location in the bus is the seat location



nearest the main body of the engine.  Thus, it may be concluded that



measurements at this seat location  (nearest the main body of the engine)



characterize the loud extreme of the noise environment inside a bus.
                                  8-16

-------
8.   RECOMMENDED TEST PROCEDURE FOR MEASUREMENT OF EXTERIOR SOUND LEVELS

     (a)   Instrumentation.  The following instrumentation shall be used,

     where applicable.

          (1)  A sound level system which meets the Type 1 requirements

          of ANSI SI.4-1971, Specification for Sound Level Meters or a

          sound level system with a magnetic tape recorder and/or a

          graphic level recorder or indicating meter, may be used providing

          the system meets the Type I performance requirements of ANSI

          SI.4-1971, Specification for Sound Level Meters.

          (2)  A sound level calibrator.  The calibrator shall produce

          a sound pressure level, at the microphone diaphragm that is

          known to within an accuracy of _+ 0.5 dB.  The calibrator shall

          be checked annually to verify that its output has not changed.

          (3)  An engine-speed tachometer which is accurate within +2

          percent of meter reading.

          (4)  An anemometer or other device for measurement of ambient

          wind speed accurate within +10 percent at 19.3 km/hr (12 mph).

          (5)  A thermometer for measurement of ambient temperature
                            o
          accurate within 4-1C .

          (6)  A barometer for measurement of ambient pressure accurate

          within +1 percent.

          (7)  A windowscreen must be employed with the microphone during

           all sound measurements.  The windscreen shall not affect the

           A-weighted sound levels from the vehicle in excess of +_ 0.5 dB.

     (b)   (1)  The test site shall be such that the bus radiates sound

          into a free field over a reflecting plane.  This condition


                                 8-17

-------
may be considered fulfilled if the test site consists of



an open space free of large reflecting surfaces, such as



parked vehicles, signboards, buildings or hillsides, located



within 30.4 meters (100 feet) of either the vehicle path



or the microphone.



(2)  The microphone shall be located 15.2 + 0.1 meter  (50  feet +



4 inches) from the centerline of vehicle travel and 1.2 +  0.1



meters (4 feet + 4 inches) above the ground plane.  The micro-



phone point is defined as the point of intersection of the



vehicle path and the normal to the vehicle path drawn from



the microphone.



     The microphone shall be oriented with respect to the



source in a fixed position so as to minimize the deviation



from the flattest frequency response characteristic over the



frequency range 100 Hz to 10 kHz for an accelerating vehicle



traversing through the end zone.



(3)  For vehicles with manual transmissions or with automatic



transmissions which can manually be held in gear, an acceleration



point shall be established on the vehicle path 15.2 meters (50



feet) before the microphone point.



(4)  For vehicles with automatic transmissions, which cannot



be manually held in gear, a starting point shall be established



as described in paragraph  (c) (2).



(5)  An end point shall be established on the vehicle path



30.5 meters (100 feet) from the acceleration point and 15.2



meters (50 feet) from the microphone point.





                             8-18

-------
(6)  The end zone is the last 12.2 meters  (40  feet) of

 vehicle path prior to the end.

(7)  The measurement area shall be the triangular-paved

(concrete or sealed asphalt) area formed by the accelera-

tion point, the end point, and the microphone  location.

(8)  The reference point on the vehicle, used  to  indicate

when the vehicle is at any of the points on the vehicle

path,shall be the front of the vehicle except  as  follows:
                          N,
     o  If the engine is front-mounted and the horizontal
        distance from the front of the vehicle to the
        exhaust outlet is more than 5.1 meters (200 inches),
        tests shall be run using both the front and rear
        of the vehicle as reference points.  The  two
        measurements may be made simultaneously by placing
        two microphones, the distance of the vehicle apart,
        as shown in Figure 8-3.

     o  If the engine is located rearward to the
        center of the chassis or at the approximate
        center (+1.5 meters + 5 feet) of the  chasis,
        the rear of the vehicle shall be used  as  the
        reference point.

(9)  The plane containing the vehicle path and the micro-

phone location (plane ABCDE in Figure 8-1) shall  be flat

within + .05 meters (+2 inches)

(10)  Measurements shall not be made when the  road surface

or the measurement area is wet, covered with snow, or

during precipitation.

(11)  Bystanders have an appreciable influence on sound

level meter readings when they are in the vicinity of the

vehicle or microphone; therefore, not more than one person,

other than the observer reading the meter, shall  be within
                             8-19

-------
15.2 meters (50 feet) of the vehicle path or measuring



instrument and the person shall be directly behind the



observer reading the meter, on a line through the micro-



phone and observer.  To minimize the effect of the observer



and the container of the sound level meter electronics on



the measurements, cable should be used between the



microphone and the sound level meter.  No observer shall be



located within 1 meter  (3.3 feet) in any direction of the



microphone location.



(12)  The maximum A-weighted fast response sound level



observed at the test site immediately before and after the



test shall be at least 10 dB below the regulated level.



(13)  The road surface within the test site upon which the



vehicle travels, and, at a minimum, the measurement area



(BCD in Figure 8-1) shall be smooth concrete or smooth



scaled asphalt, free of extraneous material such as gravel.



(14)  Vehicles with diesel engines shall be tested using



Number ID or Number 2D diesel fuel possessing a cetane



rating from 42 to 50 inclusive.



(15)  Vehicles with gasoline engines shall use the grade



of gasoline recommended by the manufacturer for use by



the purchaser.



(16)  Vehicles equipped with thermostatically controlled



radiator fans  (fan clutches) will be tested with the fan



engaged in a "lock up" mode such that the fan drive hub



and the fan are turning at the same speed or as near the





                       8-20

-------
     same speed as is possible within the design limits of the

     particular fan clutch design.

(c)   Procedure

     (1)   Buses equipped with manual (standard)  transmissions

     or buses with automatic transmissions which can be manually

     held in gear  (governed or ungoverned engines.).   Full

     throttle acceleration and closed throttle deceleration tests

     shall to be used.   A beginning engine speed and proper gear

     ratio must be determined for use during measurements.

          o  Select the highest rear axle and/or transmission

             gear  ("highest gear" is used in the usual sense;

             it is synonymous to the lowest numerical ratio)

             and an initial vehicle speed such that at wide-

             open  throttle the vehicle will accelerate from

             the acceleration point:

                Starting at no more than two-thirds
                 (66 percent)  of maximum rated engine
                speed, if the vehicle is not equipped
                with an engine governor, or of
                governed engine speed, if the vehicle
                is equipped with an engine governor.

                Reaching maximum rated or governed
                engine speed within the end zone.

                Without exceeding 35 mph (56 k/h)
                before reaching the end point.

          o  Should maximum rated or governed rpm be attained

             before reaching the end zone, decrease the approach

             rpm in 100 rpm increments until maximum rpm is

             attained within the end zone.
                                 8-21

-------
o  Should maximum rated or governed rpm be attained



   before reaching the end zone, decrease the approach



   rpm in 100 rpm increments until maximum rpm is



   attained within the end zone.



o  Should maximum rated or governed rpm not be



   attained until beyond the end zone, select the



   next lower gear until maximum rated or governed



   rpm is attained within the end zone.



o  Should the lowest gear still result in reaching



   maximum rated or governed rpm beyond the permis-



   sible end zone, unload the vehicle and/or increase



   the approach rpm in 100 rpm increments until the



   maximum rated or governed rpm is reached within



   the end zone.



o  For the acceleration test, approach the accelera-



   tion point using the engine speed and gear ratio



   selected in paragraph  (c)(1) of this procedure and



   at the acceleration point rapidly establish wide-



   open throttle.  The vehicle reference shall be as



   indicated in paragraph  (b)(8) of the recommended



   exterior noise measurement procedure.



   Acceleration shall continue until the entire vehicle



   has vacated the end zone.



o  Buses equipped with governed engines must be held



   at wide open throttle until the entire vehicle is



   out of the end zone.  Buses equipped with ungoverned



   engines must not be allowed to drop more than 100





                   8-22

-------
        rpm below maximum rated engine speed until the



        vehicle is out of the end zone.



     o  Wheel slip which affects maximum sound level



        must be avoided.



     o  If the vehicle being tested is equipped with an



        engine brake, it must also be tested as follows:



        Approach the microphone point at maximum rated



        or governed engine speed in the gear selected



        for the acceleration test.  When the vehicle



        reference point reaches the microphone point,



        close the throttle and immediately apply the



        engine brake fully and allow the vehicle to



        decelerate to one-half of maximum rated or of



        governed engine speed.  The vehicle reference



        shall be as indicated in paragraph (b)(8)  of



        the recommended exterior measurement proce-



        dure.  The engine brake must be full on during



        this test.



(2)  Buses equipped with automatic transmissions which cannot



be manually held in any gear.  Full throttle acceleration



tests are to be  employed.



     o   Select the highest rear axle and/or transmission



         gear (highest gear is used in the usual sense;



         it is synonymous to the lowest numerical ratio)



         to accelerate the bus under wide open throttle



         from a stationary position.





                      8-23

-------
o   A starting point along the test path at which the

    vehicle shall begin the acceleration test shall be

    determined by the following procedure:

    -  The vehicle's reference point shall be placed
       at the midpoint (+0.3 meters, +_ 1 foot) of
       the end zone with the front end of the vehicle
       facing back along the test path in the opposite
       direction of travel that is used for the sound
       measurement tests.

    -  The vehicle shall then be accelerated as rapidly
       as possible to establish a wide open throttle,
       until the first transmission shift point is
       reached.

    -  The location along the test path at which the
       front end of the vehicle is passing when the
       first transmission shift point occurs shall be
       the designated starting point.

    -  The vehicle's direction of travel shall then
       be reversed for sound testing.

   o   For the acceleration test, accelerate the vehicle

       from a standing position with the front of the

       vehicle at the selected stationary starting point,

       obtained by using the procedure outline above,

       as rapidly as possible to establish a wide open

       throttle.  The acceleration shall continue until

       the entire vehicle has vacated the end zone.

   o   Wheel slip which affects maximum sound level

       must be avoided.
                                                  ;
   o   If the vehicle being tested is equipped with an

       engine brake, it must also be tested as follows:

       Approach the microphone point at maximum rated

       or governed engine speed, in the gear utilized
                 8-24

-------
          during the acceleration test.  When the vehicle's



          reference point reaches the microphone point,



          close the throttle,  immediately  apply the engine



          brake fully and allow the vehicle to decelerate



          to one-half: of governed engine speed.  The vehicle



          reference shall be as indicated  in paragraph (b)(8)



          of the recommended exterior measurement procedure.



          The engine brake must be full  on during the test.



(3)  Measurements.



      o   The meter shall be set for "fast response" and the



          A-weighted network.



      o   The sound .meter shall be observed during the period



          while the vehicle is accelerating.  The applicable



          reading shall be the highest sound level obtained for



          the run.   The test is to be rerun if unrelated peaks



          should occur due to extraneous ambient noises.



      o   Sound level measurements shall be taken on both sides



          of the vehicle.  The sound level associated with a side



          shall be the average of the first two pass-by  measure-



          ments for that side, if they are within 2 dBA  of each



          other.  Average of measurements  on each side shall be



          computed separately.  If the first two measurements



          for a given side differs by more than 2 dBA, two



          additional measurements shall  be made on each  side,



          and the average of the two highest measurements on



          each side, within 2 dBA of each  other, shall be





                            8-25

-------
              taken as the measured vehicle sound level for that
              side.   The reported measured  vehicle sound level
              shall be the higher of the two averages.
(d)   General  Requirements
     (1)   Measurements shall  be made only when wind velocity
     is below 19.3 km/hr (12  mph).
     (2)   Proper usage of all test  instrumentation is essential
     to obtain valid measurements.   Operating manuals or other
     literature furnished by  the  instrument manufacturer shall
     be referred to for both  recommended operation of the instru-
     ment and precautions to  be observed.   Specific items to be
     adequately considered are:
          o   The effects of  ambient weather conditons on the
              performance of  the  instruments; (for example, tempera-
              ture,  humidity, and barometric: pressure).
          o   Proper signal levels, terminated impedances, and
              cable lengths on multi-instrument measurement systems.
          o   Proper acoustical calibration procedure,  to include
              the influence of extension cables, etc. Field calibra-
              tion shall be made  immediately before and after each
              test sequence.   Internal  calibration means is acceptable
              for field use,  provided that  external calibration is
              accomplished immediately  before or after  field use.
 (3)  A complete calibration  of the instrumentation and external acous-
 tical  calibrator over the entire frequency range of interest shall be
 performed at least annually  and  as frequently as necessary during the

                         8-26

-------
          yearly period to insure compliance with the standards cited in



          American National Standard SI.4-1971 "Specifications for Sound



          Level Meters" for a Type 1 instrument over the frequency range



          100 Hz - 10,000 Hz.



               o  If calibration devices are utilized which are not



                  independent of ambient pressure (e.g., a pistonphone)



                  corrections must be made for barometric or altimetric



                  changes according to the recommendation of the instru-



                  ment manufacturer,



          (4)  The vehicle shall be brought to its normal operating tempera-



          ture prior to commencement of testing.  During testing appropriate



          caution shall be taken to maintain the engine at temperatures



          within the normal operating range.



8.  RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR MEASUREMENT OF INTERIOR SOUND LEVELS



     Interior sound levels shall be measured using the same vehicle operation



and measuring equipment as described in the Recommended Procedure for Measure-



ment of Exterior Sound Levels.



     (a)  Instrumentation.  The following instrumentation shall be used,



     where applicable.



          (1)  A sound level system which meets the Type I requirements of



          ANSI SI.4-1971, Specifications for Sound Level Meters.



          (2)  A windscreen must be employed along with the microphone



          during all measurements.  The windscreen shall not affect



          the A-weighted sound levels from the bus in excess of j^ 0.5 dB.



          (3)  A sound calibrator.  The calibrator shall produce a



          sound pressure level, at the microphone diaphragm, that is





                               8-27

-------
     known to within an accuracy of + 0.5  dB.   The calibrator shall

     be checked annually to verify that its output has not changed.

     (4)   An engine speed tachometer which is  accurate to

     within + 2 percent of the meter reading.

     (5)   A thermometer for measurement of ambient temperature
                        o
     accurate within + 1C.

     (6)   A barometer for measurement of ambient pressure accurate

     within +1 percent.

(b)   Microphone placement.

     o   The microphone shall be located next  to the seat location

         closest to the main body of the engine at a height of 1.25

         meters (4.1 ft.)  from the bus floor.   In addition, the

         microphone shall be placed at least 0.5 meters (1.6 ft.)

         from the nearest vehicle wall.

     o   For front engine buses  the microphone shall be placed

         next to the vehicle operator's seat,  at a height of

         1.25 meters (4.1 ft.) from the floor  and at least 0.5

         meters (1.6 ft)  from the nearest  vehicle wall.

     o   The microphone shall be tilted towards the front of
                                     o     o
         the vehicle at an angle of 20  -  30  from the vertical.

     o   The test site shall be  such that  the  bus radiates sound

         in a free field over a  reflecting plane.  This condition

         may be considered fulfilled if the test site consists of

         an open space free from reflecting surfaces, such as

         parked vehicles, signboards, buildings or hillsides,

         located within 30.4 meters (100 ft) of the vehicle.


                          8-28

-------
(c)   Vehicle operation.



     o    The vehicle shall be operated in the same manner as



          stated in the recommended exterior noise measurement



          procedure.  The same axle ratios, gear ratios, along



          with the same procedure as modified by transmission



          type shall be utilized.



     o    All windows and doors shall be closed on the vehicle



          and all interior fan accessories (including air con-



          ditioning fans and/or heating fans)  turned on.



(d)   Measurements.



     o    The meter shall be set for "fast response" and the



          A-weighted network,



     o    The meter shall be observed during the period while



          the vehicle is accelerating.  The applicable reading



          shall be the highest sound level obtained for the



          run.  The observer is cautioned to rerun the test if



          unrelated peaks should occur due to extraneous ambient



          noises.



     o    The average of the two highest levels within 2 dB



          of each other shall be reported as the interior



          level of the bus.



(e)   General requirements.



     (1)   Bystanders have an appreciable influence on sound level



     meter readings when they are in the vicinity of the microphone;



     therefore, not more than one person, other than the observer



     reading the meter and the driver shall be in the vehicle at



     the time of measurement.





                          8-29

-------
(2)   The maximum A-weighted fast response sound level observed



in the test vehicle immediately before and after the test



shall be at least 10 dB below the regulatory level.



(3)   Proper usage of all test instrumentation is essential to



obtain valid measurements.  Operating manuals or other literature



furnished by the instrument manufacturer shall be referred to



for both recommended operation of the instrument and precautions



to be observed.  Specific items to be adequately considered are:



     o  The effects of ambient weather conditions on the



        performance of the instruments (for example, tempera-



        ture, humidity, and barometric pressure).



     o  Proper signal levels, terminating impedances, and



        cable lengths on multi-instrument measurement systems.



     o  Proper acoustical calibration procedure, to include



        the influence of extension cables, etc.  Field calibra-



        tion shall be made immediately before and after each



        test sequence.  Internal calibration means is acceptable



        for field use, provided that external calbration is



        accomplished immediately before or after field use.



(4)   o  A complete calibration of the instrumentation and



        external acoustical calibrator over the entire frequency



        range of interest shall be performed at least annually



        and as frequently as necessary during the yearly period



        to insure compliance with the standards cited in



        American National Standard Si.4-1971 "Specifications



        for Sound Level Meters" for a Type 1 instrument over



        the frequency range 100-Hz - 10,000 Hz.





                      8-30

-------
     o  If calibration devices are utilized which are not



        independent of ambient pressure (e.g.,  a pistonphone)



        corrections must be made for barometric or altimetric



        changes according to the recommendation of the instru-



        ment manufacturer.



(5)      The vehicle shall be brought to a temperature within



        its normal  operating range prior to the commencement



        of testing.   During appropriate caution shall be taken



        to maintain the engine temperature within the normal



        operating range.
                               8-31

-------
                           REFERENCES
                           SECTION 8
1.    ISO Recommendation R362-1967 (E),  "Measurement of Noise
      Emitted by Vehicles," February, 1964.

2.    Swetnam, G. W. and Murray, W.S.,  "Proposed Standard Noise
      Measurement Procedure for Diesel Transit Buses,"  Report
      No. UMTA-VA-06-0028-75-1, Prepared by  MITRE Corp., for
      U. S. Dept. of Transportation,  Washington, D.C.,  July
      1975.

3.    "California Steam Bus Project Final Report," Prepared by
      The Assembly Office of Research ,  Sacramento, Calif.,
      January 1973.

4.    "A Status Report of an Environmental Noise Study  of Transit
      Buses," by the Environmental Activities Staff (Vehicular
      Noise Control), General Motors Corp.,  December 1975.

5.    Oswald, L. J. and Hickling, R., "An Overhead Microphone
      Facility for Recording Vertically-Radiated Vehicle Noise,"
      Research Publication GMR-1944,  GM Research Laboratories,
      November 1975.

6.    "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement,"
      Draft Final Report submitted by Booz-Allen Applied Research,
      under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3509, prepared for the Office
      of Noise Abatement and Control, June 22, 1976.
                            8-32

-------
                             Section 9






                            ENFORCEMENT








     A.  GENERAL.  The EPA enforcement strategy will place a major



share of the responsibility on the manufacturers for pre-sale testing



to determine the compliance of buses with the regulation.  This approach,



besides relieving EPA of an administrative burden benefits the manufac-



turers by leaving their personnel in control of many aspects of the



compliance program and imposing only a minimum burden on their business.



Therefore, monitoring by EPA personnel of the tests and manufacturers'



actions taken in compliance with the regulation is advisable to insure



that the Administrator is provided with the accurate test data necessary



to determine whether the vehicles distributed in commerce by manufacturers



are in compliance with the regulation.  Accordingly, the proposed regul-



ation provides that EPA enforcement officers may be present to observe any



testing required by the regulation.  In addition, enforcement officers



under previously promulgated regulations  [40 CFR Part 205 Subpart A] are



empowered to inspect records and facilities in order to assure that manu-



facturers are carrying out their responsibilities properly.



     The enforcement strategy in the proposed regulation, applicable



to both exterior and interior standards consists of three parts:  (1)



Production Verification (PV), (2) Selective Enforcement Auditing  (SEA),



and (3) In-Use Compliance Provisions.






                                  9-1

-------
     The manufacturer who assembles the completed bus, as in the case



of intercity and transit buses, is responsible for satisfying the PV,



SEA and in-use requirements of the regulation for both the interior



and exterior standards.  In the case of vehicles which are assembled by



two manufacturers, such as many Type I school buses, the chassis manu-



facturer must comply with the PV, SEA and in-use provisions of this



regulation with respect to the vehicle exterior noise emission standard.



The body assembler/mounter of such a bus which is assembled by two manu-



facturers is responsible for compliance with the provisions with respect



to the vehicle interior standard.  In addition, the body assembler is



prohibited from causing the vehicle exterior noise emissions to exceed



the standard and is subject to SEA provisions of the regulation for the



exterior standard.



     B.  Production Veritiicatign.  Production verification is testing



by a manufacturer of selected early production models of a configuration



intended for sale, to verify a manufacturer has the requisite noise con-



trol technology in hand to comply with the standard at the time of sale



and during the Acoustical Assurance Period (AAP), and is capable of



applying the technology to the manufacturing process.  The first pro-



duction models of a configuration tested must not exceed the level of



the standard minus that configuration's expected sound level degradation



(Sound Level Degradation Factor, SLDF) before any models in that config-



uration may be distributed in commerce.  Any testing shall be done in



accordance with the proposed test procedures.



     Production verification does not involve any formal EPA approval



or issuance of certificates subsequent to manufacturer testing, nor is





                                  9-2

-------
any extensive testing required of EPA.   The proposed regulation would



require that prior to distribution in commerce of any model of a config-



uration, as defined within the regulation, the configuration must undergo



production verification.  All testing is performed by the manufacturer.



However, the Administrator reserves the right to be present to monitor



any test (including simultaneous testing with his equipment) or to require



that a manufacturer supply him with vehicles for testing at EPA's Noise



Enforcement Facility in in Sandusky, Ohio, or at any other site the



Administrator may find appropriate.



     The production unit selected for testing is a vehicle configuration.



A vehicle configuration is defined on the basis of various parameters



including the exhaust system, the air induction system, the cooling fan



type, horsepower, and, where applicable, certain interior design charac-



teristics, and any additional parameters that a manufacturer may select.



     A manufacturer shall verify production vehicles prior to sale by



one of two methods.  The first method will involve testing any early



production vehicle intended for sale of each configuration.



     A vehicle configuration is considered to be production verified



after the manufacturer has shown, based on the application of the sound



measurement tests, that a configuration does not exceed a sound level



defined by the new product standard minus that configuration's expected



sound level degradation during its defined acoustical assurance period.



     The second method allows a manufacturer, in lieu of testing vehicles



of every configuration, to group configurations into categories.  A



category will be defined by basic parameters such as engine and fuel





                                  9-3

-------
type, engine manufacturers, engine displacement, engine configuration,



manufacturers, engine displacement, engine configuration, engine



location, and bus body style.  Again, the manufacturer may designate



additional categories based on additional parameters of its choice.



Within a category, the configuration estimated by the manufacturer to



be emitting the greatest A-weighted sound pressure level at the end of



the Acoustical Assurance Period is determined either by testing or good



engineering judgment.  The manufacturer can then satisfy the production



verification requirements for all configurations within that category



by demonstrating that that configuration complies with the applicable



standards.  This can eliminate the need for a substantial amount of



testing.  However, it must be emphasized that the loudest configuration



at the end of the acoustical assurance period must be clearly identified.



     The proposed regulation also provides that the Administrator may



test vehicles at a manufacturer's test facility using either his own



equipment or the manufacturer's equipment.  This will provide the



Administrator an opportunity to determine that the manufacturer's test



facility and equipment are technically qualified for conducting the



required tests.  If it is determined that the equipment and/or facil-



ities are not technically qualified, he may disqualify them from fur-



ther use for bus testing. Procedures that are available to the manufac-



turer, subsequent to disqualification are delineated in the proposed



regulation.



     A production verification report must be filed by the manufacturer



performing the required production verification test before any vehicles



of the configuration represented are distributed in commerce.





                                  9-4

-------
     A vehicle configuration is considered to be production verified



when the manufacturer has shown, based on the application of the noise



measurement test, that a configuration does not exceed a level defined



by the standard minus the SLDF, and a timely report indicating such



compliance has been mailed to EPA.



     If a manufacturer is unable to test due to weather conditions, the



production verification of a configuration is automatically waived by



the Administrator for a period of up to 45 consecutive days without the



manufacturer's request provided that he tests on the first day that he



is able.  This procedure will minimize disruptions to manufacturing



facilities.  The manufacturer may request an additional extension of up



to 45 days if it is demonstrated that weather or other uncontrollable



conditions prohibited testing during the first 45 days.  However, to



avoid any penalties under the proposed regulation, the manufacturer



must test for purposes of production verification on the first day that



he is able.



     If a manufacturer plans to add a new configuration to his product



line or change or deviate from an existing configuration with respect



to any of the parameters which define a configuration, the manufacturer



must verify the new configuration either by testing a vehicle and sub-



mitting data or by filing a report which demonstrates verification on



the basis of previously submitted data.



     Production verification is an annual requirement.  However, the



Administrator, upon request by a manufacturer, may permit the use of



data from previous production verification reports for specific vehicle



configurations and/or categories.  The considerations that are cited in



                                  9-5

-------
the proposed regulation as being relevant to the Administrator's deci-



sion are illustrative and not exclusive.  The manufacturer can submit



all data and information that he believes will enable the Administrator



to make a proper decision.  It must be again emphasized that the manu-



facturer must request the use of previous data.  If he fails to do so,



then he must production verify all categories and configurations for



each subsequent year.



     The manufacturer need not verify configurations at any particular



point in a year.  The only requirement is that he verify a configuration



prior to distribution in commerce.  The inherent flexibility in the scheme



of categorization in many instances will allow a manufacturer to either



verify a configuration that he may not produce until late in a year based



on representation or else wait until actual production of that configura-



tion to verify it.



     If a manufacturer fails to properly verify and a configuration is



found to be in non-conformity with the regulations, the Administrator



may issue an order requiring the manufacturer to cease the distribution



in commerce of vehicles of that configuration.  The Administrator will



provide the manufacturer the opportunity for a hearing prior to the



issuance of such an order.



     Production verification performed on the early production models



provides EPA with confidence that production models will conform to the



standards and limits the possibility that non-conforming products will



be distributed in commerce. Because the possibility still exists that



subsequent models may not conform, selective enforcement audit testing



of assembly line vehicles is made a part of this enforcement strategy





                                  9-6

-------
in order to determine whether production vehicles continue to comply with



the standards.



     C.  Selective Enforcement^ Auditing.  Selective Enforcement Auditing



(SEA) is the term used in the proposed regulation to describe the testing



of a statistical sample of production vehicles from a specified vehicle



category or configuration selected from a particular assembly plant in



order to determine whether production vehicles comply with the noise



emission standards including the in use standard and to provide the basis



for further action in the case of non-compliance.



     Testing is initiated by a test request which will be issued to



the manufacturer by the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement or his



authorized representative.  A test request will address itself to either



a category or a configuration.  The test request will require the manu-



facturer to test a sample of vehicles of the specified category or



configuration produced at a specified plant.  An alternative category



or configuration may be designated in the test request in the event



vehicles of the first category or configuration are not available.



     Upon receipt of the test request the manufacturer will select the



sample as specified in the test request in one of the following ways:



         (1)  Random selection from the first batch of vehicles of the



specified category or configuration by sequentially numbering all vehicles



in the batch and using a table of random numbers to select the proper



number of vehicles or;



         (2)  Selection by the manufacturer using his own random selection



plan, if it is approved by the Administrator; or





                                  9-7

-------
         (3)  Consecutive selection from the batch, if the test request



does not specify random selection; or



         (4)  Selection of vehicles from the batch in a manner specified



by the EPA Enforcement Officer.



     Generally, a batch will be defined as the number of vehicles produced



durinij a time period specified in the test request.  A batch defined in



this manner will allow the Administrator to select batch sizes small enough



to keep the number of vehicles to be tested at a minimum and still enable:



EPA to eventually draw statistically valid conclusions about the noise



emission performance of all vehicles of the category or configuration which



is the subject of the test request.



     One important factor that will influence the decisions of the



Administrator not to issue a test request to a manufacturer is the evidence



that a manufacturer has to demonstrate that his vehicles comply to the



applicable standard.  If a manufacturer can provide evidence that his



vehicles are meeting the noise emission standards based on testing results,



the issuance of a test request may not be necessary.



     The Selective Enforcement Audit plan is designed to determine the



acceptability of a batch of items for which one or more inspection criteria



have been established.  As applied to vehicle noise emissions, the items



being inspected are buses and the inspection criterion is the noise emission



standard, taking into consideration the sound level degradation estimated



to occur during the acoustical assurance period (See Part G., In Use



Compliance of this section)



     Once the sample of a batch has been selected, each item is tested



to determine whether it meets the prescribed criterion; this is generally





                                  9-8

-------
referred to as inspection by attributes.  The basic criteria for accep-



tance or rejection of a batch is the nurabe-r of  sample vehicles whose



parameters meet specification rather than  the average value  of some



parameter.



     The particular type of inspection  plan which has been adopted for



SEA of buses is known as sequential b;atch  sampling.  Sequential batch



sampling differs from single sampling  in that small test samples are



drawn from sequential batches rather than  one large sample being drawn



from a single batch.



     This sampling offers the advantage of keeping the  number of



vehicles tested to a minimum whe-n  the  majority  of products are meeting



the standards.



     The sampling plans are arranged according  to the size of the batch



from which a sample is to be drawn.  Each  plan  specifies the sample size



and acceptance and rejection number for the established acceptance quality



level (AQL).  As applied t.o bus  noise  emissions, this AQL is the maximum



percentage of failing vehicles that for purposes of sampling inspection



can be considered .satisfactory.  A vehicle is considered a failure  if  it



exceeds the noise emission standard minus  its SLDF.  An AQL  of 10% was



chosen to take into account some test  variability.  The; number of failing



vehicles in a sample  is compared to the acceptance and  rejection numbers



for the appropriate;  sanpling plan. If the number of failing vehicles  in



the sample is grea,ter than or equal to the rejection number, then there



is a high probability that the percentage  of non-complying vehicles  in



the batch is greater  than the AQL  and  the  batch fails.   On the other



hand, if the number  of failures  is less than or equal to the acceptance





                                   9-9

-------
number, then there is insufficient  evidence  to  conclude that the per-
centage of non-complying vehic.les in the  batch  is greater  than the
AQL, and the batch is accepted.
     Since the sampling strategy involves a  sequential  batch sampling
plan, in some instances the number'  of failures  in a  test sample may not
allow acceptance or rejection of a  batch  so  that  continued testing may
be required until a decision can be imade  to  either accept  or reject a
batch.
     Regardless of whether a batch  is .accepted  or rejected,  failed
vehicles would have to be repaired and/or adjusted and  pass a retest
before they can be distributed in commerce.,
     The proposed regulation establish two types  of  inspection criteria.
These are normal inspection and 100% testing,.   Normal inspection is used
until a decision can be made as to whether a batch sequence is accepted
or rejected.  When a batch sequence is tested and accepted in response
to a test request, the manufacturer will not hx= required at that time
to do any further testing pursuant to that test request.   When a batch
sequence is tested and rejected, the Administrates may  then require 100
per cent testing of the vehicles of that category or configuration pro-
duced at that plant.  The Administrator will notify  the manufacturer of
the intent to require 100 per cent testing.  The manufacturer can request
a h'earing on the issue of non-compliance of  the rejected category or con-
figuration.
     The proposed regulation also discusses  the situation  where batches
consist of four or less vehicles.  The proposed regulation requires
that each vehicle in that batch be tested and comply with  the noise
                                  9-10

-------
emission standards.  This will allow testing to take place within a more



reasonable period of time when a test request is issued for particular



categories or configurations which are not produced in a sufficiently



high volume for the normal SEA scheme to be applicable.



     Since the number of vehicles tested in response to a test order may



vary considerably, a fixed time limit cannot be placed on completing all



testing.  The proposed approach is to establish the time limit on a test



time per vehicle basis, taking transportation requirements, if any, into



consideration.  The manufacturer would be allowed a reasonable amount of



time for transport of vehicles to a test facility if one were not avail-



able at the assembly plant.



     The Administrator estimates that the manufacturers can test a



minimum of five (5) vehicles per day.  However, manufacturers are



requested to present any data or information that may affect a revision



of this estimate.



     D.  Adjninistratiye 0_rder_s.  Section ll(d)(l) of the Noise Control



Act of 1972 provides that:



     "Whenever any person is in violation of section 10(a) of this Act,



the Administrator may issue an order specifying such relief as he deter-



mines is necessary to protect the public health and welfare."



     -Clearly, this provision of the Act is intended to grant to the



Administrator discretionary authority to issue administrative orders to



supplement the criminal  penalties of section ll(a).  If vehicles which



were not designed, built, and equipped so as to comply with the noise



emission standard, including the in-use requirement, at the time of sale



to the ultimate purchaser were distributed in commerce, such act would





                                  9-11

-------
be a violation of section 10(a) and remedy of such non-compliance would
be appropriate.  Remedy of the affected vehicles shall be carried out
pursuant to an administrative order.
     The proposed regulation provides for the issuance of such orders
in the following circumstances:  (1) recall for the failure of a vehicle
or group of vehicles to comply with the applicable noise emission stan-
dard, (2)  cease to distribute vehicles not properly production verified,
and  (3)  cease to distribute vehicles for failure to test.
     In addition, the proposed regulation provides for cease to distribute
orders for substantial infractions of the regulation requiring entry to
manufacturers' facilities and reasonable assistance.  These provisions do
not limit the Administrator's authority to issue orders, but give notice
of cases where such orders would in his judgment be appropriate.  In all
such cases, notice and opportunity for a hearing will be given.
     E.  Compliance Labeling.  The proposed regulation requires that buses
subject to it shall be labeled to provide notice that the product complies
with the exterior and/or interior noise emission standards.  The label
shall contain a notice of tampering prohibitions.
     F.  Applicability of Previously Promulgated Regulations.  Manufac-
turers who will be subject to the proposed regulation must also comply
with the the general provisions of 40 CFR Part 205 Subpart A.  These
include the provisions for inspection and monitoring by EPA enforcement
officers of manufacturers' actions taken in compliance with the proposed
regulation and for granting exemptions from the proposed regulation
for testing, pre-verification vehicles, national security reasons,
and export vehicles.
                                   9-12

-------
     G.  In-Use Compliance.  The manufacturer is required to design,



build, and equip vehicles subject to the regulation so that the degra-



dation of emitted noise levels is minimized provided that they are properly



maintained, used, and repaired.



     In-use compliance provisions are included in the proposed regulation



to insure that this obligation is satisfied.



     EPA does not specify what testing or analysis a manufacturer must



conduct to determine that his vehicles will meet the standard during the



Acoustical Assurance Period  (AAP) of the regulation.  However, the pro-



posed regulation requires the manufacturer to make such determination and



maintain records of the test data and other information upon which the



determination was based.  This determination may be based on information



such as tests of critical noise producing or abatement components, rates



of noise control deterioration, engineering judgements based on previous



experience, and physical durability characteristics of the product.



     An SLDF is the degradation  (sound level increase in A-weighted



decibels) which the manufacturer expects will occur on a configuration



during the period of the one year in-use standard.  The manufactuer must



determine an SLDF for each of his vehicle configurations.



     To ensure that the vehicles will meet the noise standard throughout



the acoustical assurance period, they must emit a sound level at the time



of sale less than or equal to the standard minus the SLDF.  A vehicle is



in compliance only if its measured dBA level, is less than or equal to



the applicable standard minus the SLDF.  Production verification and



selective enforcement audit testing both embody this principle.
                                   9-13

-------
     All vehicles must emit a sound level that is less than or equal to



the standard at the time of sale, so a negative SLDF cannot be used.



A vehicle that becomes quieter during Acoustical Assurance Period must



still meet the standard on the day of sale; an SLDF of 0 must be used



for that configuration.



     As stated above, the Agency is not requiring durability testing as



a matter of course, however, should it be necessary, section 13(a) of



the Noise Control Act authorizes EPA to require the manufacturer to run



such tests on selected vehicles.



     These provisions also include a requirement that the manufacturer



provide a warranty to purchasers [required by section 6(d)], assist the



Administrator in fully defining those acts which constitute tampering



[under section 10(a) (2)(A)], and provide retail purchasers with instruc-



tions specifying the maintenance, use, and repair required to minimize



degradation during the life of the bus, and with a log book to record



maintenance and repairs performed.



     In the case of a bus which is assembled by two manufacturers such



as the Type I School Bus, the manufacturer who assembles the chassis must



satisfy these requirements with respect to the exterior standard.  The



manufacturer who then assembles the body must satisfy these requirements



as they relate to the interior noise emissions standard.



     Section 6(d)(1) of the Act requires the manufacturer to warrant to



the ultimate and subsequent purchasers that the buses subject to the



proposed regulation are designed, built, and equipped to conform at the



time of sale with the applicable Federal noise emission standards.  The
                                   9-14

-------
proposed regulation requires that the manufacturer furnish this time-of-



sale warranty to the ultimate purchaser in a prescribed written form.



The proposed regulation also provides for EPA review of the written



warranty and related information furnished to purchasers, dealers, zone



representatives, etc., in order that the Agency can determine whether



the manufacturer's warranty policy is consistent with the intent of the



Act.



     The tampering regulations require the manufacturer furnish the



Agency a list of those acts which in the manufacturer's estimation might



be done to a vehicle and result in that vehicle emitting sound levels



above the standards.  The Administrator will respond to the manufacturer's



list within 30 days by developing a list of specific tampering acts that



the manufacturer must include in the owner's manual for each product.



It is stressed that the Administrator's list is not all inclusive; any



act of tampering is unlawful and subject to Federal penalty.



     The provisions dealing with instructions for proper operation, use,



and repair are intended to assure that purchasers know exactly what is



required to minimize any degradation of the vehicle's emitted noise level



during use.  The instructions are necessary to minimize degradation and



also must be reasonable in the burden placed on the purchaser. A record



or log book must be provided to the ultimate purchaser to assist pur-



chasers in demonstrating proper maintenance should a record be necessary



at any time during the life of the vehicle.  The instructions may not



contain language which tends to give manufacturers or their dealers an
                                   9-15

-------
unfair competitive advantage over the after-market manufacturers.
Finally, the proposed regulation provides for Agency review of the
instructions and related language.
                                   9-16

-------
                              SECTION 10

                 EXISTING NOISE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE
                               TO BUSES
A.        INTRODUCTION

          Federal noise regulations applied to any particular product

are developed primarily on the basis of the assessment of available

technology together with associated economic and health and welfare

impacts as required by Section 6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972.  In

most cases, actions by the EPA in proposing and finalizing new product

noise regulations will not be the first cases of regulatory action, but

will have been preceded by various state and local regulations.  These

state and local regulations refer, in some cases, to the noise emissions

of the product at the time of sale, and in others cases to the control

of noise produced during the product's operation.  It may be expected

that the scope and stringency of state and local noise standards will

differ from place to place in a way that is dependent on the degree of

annoyance, local citizen pressures and the amount of work put into the

development of the regulation.  The results of these regulations will

also probably differ considerably based on the degree of enforcement

and compliance.

B.        REVIEW OF EXISTING NOISE ORDINANCES

          The increased interest in noise brought about in recent years

by the wider understanding of its potential effects on people has resulted

in the development of a large number of state and local noise ordinances.

Many of these ordinances can be classified as "nuisance" laws that make

                                  10-1

-------
it unlawful to conduct certain acts that would disturb the peace of "a



reasonable person of normal sensitivity."  However, there are an increasing



number of state laws and local ordinances that refer quantitatively to



specific noise sources in the community.



          The first motor vehicle noise regulations were introduced in



the State of California in 1967, which established noise standards for dif-



ferent types of vehicles, including trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle



Weight Rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 Ibs.  The regulations were appli-



cable both to the sale of new vehicles and the operation of vehicles on the



highway.  Since 1967, a number of other states and cities have introduced



such regulations, many of them identical to regulations applicable to trucks



and buses operated by interstate motor carriers.  Again, the lower limit on



the GVWR was 10,000 Ibs.



          In each of the many regulations applicable to medium and heavy



vehicles described above, there is no distinction in noise standards be-



tween the various classes.  Thus the category of vehicles having a GVWR



in excess of 10,000 Ibs. includes not only trucks but inter-city buses,



transit buses and school buses.  In other words, buses are combined with



trucks in every case.  There are therefore no separate noise regulations



for buses in the United States.  A summary of state and local noise



standards applicable to buses and trucks is given in Reference 10-1.



Since the publication of this referenced document, many of these regula-



tions have been preempted in part by the issuance of federal regulations



for new medium and heavy trucks and for new and in-service interstate



                                  10-2

-------
motor carriers, the latter also including in-service inter-city buses.


However, there has been no federal preemption of newly manufactured

inter-city, transit, or school buses, so these standards remain as

stated in Reference 10-1.


          The situation concerning the nonspecificity of buses in noise


regulations is similar in the vehicle noise regulations of many other

countries.  A distinction between buses and trucks is made in Australia,


Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as by ECE  (Geneva) and EEC

(Brussels), but in each case the noise standards are identical.  It appears

that only one country, Portugal, has a different set of noise standards for


new buses and trucks.  A summary of the foreign noise standards applicable


to buses is given in Table 10-1.

C.        ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATIONS

          In view of the fairly uniform approach taken towards the


regulation of medium and heavy vehicles, it is interesting to determine

the reasons for not separating buses from trucks.  A review of the deci-
                  

sion criteria for noise regulations adopted at the state and local level

reveals the following information:

          o    Many considered that buses and trucks exhibit very similar

               noise characteristics.  It is true that the two vehicles

               use the same type of engineswhether diesel or gasoline

               and some of the same auxiliary components, but the

               conclusion that their noise emissions are the same must

               be taken advisedly because of the lack of available data.

          o    Whereas there was a considerable amount of data on the

               noise characteristics of heavy trucks, the same was not



                                  10-3

-------
                          Table 10-1
                 Summary of Noise  Standards*
          Applicable to Buses in  Foreign Countries
Country
Australia
Sweden
W. Germany
Yugoslavia
Belgium

Canada
Czechoslovakia



Denmark


ECE (Geneva)

EEC (Brussels)
Type of Regulation
and Effective Date
 New vehicles manuf'd
after 1975

 New vehicles manuf'd
after 1968
 Operation
 New vehicles manuf'd
after 1970
 New vehicles manuf'd
after 1969


 Operation
 New vehicles

 Operation
 New vehicles

 New vehicles
Applicability
 > 3.5 Mg w/engine
< 200 HP
 > 3.5 Mg w/engine
< 200 HP
 diesel engine
> 200 HP DIN

 Heavy Duty Vehicles
 >3.5Mg
 >220BHP
engine power

 > 3.5 Mg
 > 200 HP DIN

 >3.5Mg
> 9 Seats
 > 200 HP DIN
> 9 Seats
As for ECE
Max. Noise
Level (dBA)
89
92
92
2 dB greater
than above
88
88
89

2 dB greater
than above
89
92
3 dB greater
than above
89
91

"Measured according to ISO R362 at 25 feet.
                             10-4

-------
Table 10-1 (cont.)
Country
Finland
France

Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands

Portugal

Great Britain

Type of Regulation
and Effective Date
 New vehicles
 New vehicles
 Operation
 New vehicles manuf d
after 1968
 New vehicles manuf d
after 1973
 Operation
 New vehicles

 New vehicles
 Operation
Applicability
 > 200 DIN HP
 Public Service
Vehicles

 >1500cc
 >3.5Mg
 > 200 HP DIN

 <5Mg
 >5Mg
 > 12 passengers,
excluding
driver

Max. Noise
Level (dBA)
92
90
2 dB greater
than above
93
88
92
2 dB greater
than above
85
88
89
92
       10-5

-------
               true of buses.  Hence, the two vehicles were combined into



               one category in the absence of reasons to do otherwise.



          o    Some states not having the resources to perform their own



               background studies have incorporated the results of testing



               done in other states.



          o    As an aid to enforcement, it was considered unwise to have



               a large number of vehicle categories with different noise



               standards.



          o    At the state level, the enforcement activities are often



               restricted to highways outside of the cities.  In these



               areas, buses were not considered to pose significant



               problems.



          o    There are indications that some agencies did not consider



               buses at all, but were mainly concerned with heavy trucks.



In no case has there been reported any impetus to treat buses separately



from heavy trucks.  Furthermore, many State and local officials have



indicated they do not now believe that such a separation is required,



although some indicate that a special case might be made for transit



buses.
                                  10-6

-------
                              REFERENCES
                              SECTION 10
1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  "Noise Source  Regulation
     in State and Local Noise Ordinances,"  Report No. 550/9-75-020,
     February 1975.

2.   Society of Automotive Engineers,  "Exterior Sound Leveil for Heavy
     Trucks and Buses," SAE Standard J366b.

3.   "Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards," Federal
     Register, Vol. 38, No. 144,  July  27, 1973.

4.   "Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission StandardsFinal
     Regulations on Compliance,"  Federal Register, Vol. 40, No.  178,
     September 12, 1975.

5.   "Existing Noise Regulations  Applicable to Buses," Draft Fina.l
     Report submitted by Wyle Laboratories  under EPA Contract No.
     68-01-3516, prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement and
     Control, June 24, 1976.
                                 10-7

-------
                              APPENDIX A





                      FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY BUSES





     Two European bus manufacturers currently produce urban transit



buses that claim to be considerably quieter than any available in



the United States.



1.  SAAB SCANIA CRlllM BUSES



     In 1971, Scania-Bussar AB, Katrineholm (Sweden) presented a bus



in which the noise level had been effectively reduced.  The bus is



an integrally constructed city bus, the Scania CRlllM, with a suburban



version, the CRlllMF.



     Scania CRlllM and CRlllMF, the "quiet buses," have a reduced noise



level as low as 77 dBA for buses with automatic transmission and 80 dBA



for buses with standard transmission when measured in accordance with



the ISO R362 procedure for noise measurement.   Other non-quieted modern



Swedish buses (CRllO) generate noise levels of 86 to 87 dBA (ISO R362).



     The reduction in noise level on the Scania CRlllM (see Figure A-l)



has been achieved primarily by insulating the engine compartment and



relocating the cooling system.  The engine compartment is lined with



sound-insulating materials attached directly to the exterior panels.



Within this sound-insulating wall is a thicker covering of sound-



absorbent glass fiber which in turn is covered with perforated aluminum



sheet.  Insulated belly pans are mounted underneath the engine.  The



engine, consequently, is almost entirely encased in sound-absorbent



material.



                               A-l

-------
                         Figure A-l
            Comparison of Scania CR111M City Bus
                 and  the  CR1110M Standard Bus
1.   Insulated Engine Compartment
2.   Fan for Engine Compartment Ventilation
3.   Belly Pan
4.   Air Intake for Radiators, One on Each Side
5.   Engine Air Intake
6.   Ventilation Air Intake
7.   Radiator Air Intake (Standard Version)
8.   Bottom Opening
                            A-2

-------
     As a result of this insulation, problems arise in disposing of

the heat generated by the engine.  The bus has, therefore, been equipped

with a water-cooled exhaust manifold and heat-insulated exhaust pipe

up to the silencer.  A special fan located on the roof provides the

engine compartment, by way of a channel through the bus rear section,

with effective ventilation.
                                              2
     The CRlllM has two radiators (each 0.42 m  in area), instead of

the one as is normal on U.S. transit buses.  The radiators are mounted

in front of the insulated engine compartment to cope with the increased

cooling requirements caused by the insulation.  By using two fans of

480 mm diameter, a lower peripheral speed is achieved than if only one

fan was used for cooling.  The fans are thermostatically controlled

in three steps up to 1400 rpm.  If required, the fans can run at full

speed even while the engine is working at a minimum speed.  For cross-

country operation, 10 to 15 percent larger radiators are employed.

     Noise levels within the bus vary in relation to the distance

from the engine.  The noise level at the driver's seat is as low as

68 dBA under acceleration.  Levels of 78 dBA are reported at the rear

seat.  Further reductions are expected from development work currently

in progress.

     Due to the relocation of the radiators and a change in design

of the rear overhang, the number of seats has been increased by four

in comparison with other versions of the same bus type.  The number

of seats in the "quiet bus" is 36 to 41 depending on the type of

bus.
                                A-3

-------
     The Scania CR111M is designed specifically as a city bus and is



equipped with air suspension and power steering.  The engine is a



transversely mounted diesel providing 151 KW (205 hp), ISO 2534 gross.



     The Scania CRlllM is 11.55 m long (37.9 feet) and carries 36



seated and 45 standing passengers.  As a comparison, the 35-foot CMC



45 series transit bus seats 45 passengers and the 40-foot CMC 53 series



seats 53 passengers.  It is not known whether the reduced seating capa-



city of the CRlllM is due to compromises made for noise reduction, such



as the fully encapsulated engine and remote cooling packages, or for



other reasons.  The cost increase due to engine encapsulation for noise



reduction purposes is given to be 2% by Scania Engineers.



     The CRlllM engine is derated for urban operation on request.  This



is a compromise in performance that may not be acceptable in the U.S.



On the other hand, derating the engine may cut down on maintenance and



increase the life of the engine.



     The cooling system of the CRlllM is designed for an air-to-boil



temperature of 85-90  F.  This would not be acceptable for buses oper-



ating in the U.S.



     Air-conditioning is not offered on Scania Buses, even as an option.



Exclusion of air-conditioning reduces horsepower requirements and engine



cooling requirements significantly.  In contrast, almost all transit



coaches in this country are air-conditioned.



     There are a total of 360 single-decker and 300 double-decker CRlllM



Buses operating in the following:



     Sweden:  Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo, Vasteras, Orebro, and



              Uppsala



     Norway:  Oslo





                                  A-4

-------
     Finland:  Helsingfors



     England:  London, Leeds, Glasgow, New Castle, and Liverpool



2.  BRITISH LEYLAND SUPER QUIET BUS



     Research versions of a Super Quiet Leyland National were shown  in



December 1972 and April  1974.  work on developing this bus centers around



modifications to the bus interior with prime advantage to the passengers,



backed up by exterior modifications aimed at improving the acceptance of



the bus in-quiet suburban environments where background noise is vastly



lower than in typical city centers.



     These changes combine to obtain an external noise level of 76 dBA



on a British standard 3425 "pass-by" test.  Alteration of the torque



characteristics of the turbocharged 510 engine to an alternative form



achieves a more silent running power unit without detriment to avail-



able torque.  A reworked engine air intake and exhaust system further



contribute to noise attenuation.



     A major item of the noise reduction treatment of the Super Quiet



Leyland National is the  structural enclosure around the engine, which



is of laminated sheet metal construction spot welded in a way that



permits the inner skin to reflect noise back to the engine.  The outer



skin of the bus is designed with an air gap to reduce the transmission



of noise.  Fitting of this enclosure involves the provision of an



electric fan mounted in  an aluminum duct on the left hand rear valance
i


door with cooling air exiting around the flywheel housing.  The radiator



cooling fan features a fluid drive coupling effecting a maximum fan  speed



reduction and hence a lowering of fan noise.  As a safety requirement, a
                                A-5

-------
thermostatically controlled fire extinguishing system is a safety



measure incorporated in the specification of the engine enclosure.



     Noise generated by the transmission of the bus has also been



reduced by the specification of final drive gears designed to minimize



whine on drive and over-run.  The hot shift pneumocyclic gearbox is



replaced by a fully automatic transmission involving reduced gear noise



and jerk-free up-changing.



     Reduction of "road noise" entering the structure is achieved



by a more compliantly mounted Vee-frame rear axle location assembly



tuned to isolate road vibration inputs.



     Hatches to the engine compartment feature improved sealing.  To



this end, the hatches and the vehicle floor are lined with Revertex



noise insulant.



     Regarding the maintenance difficulties generally encountered with



engine enclosure technology the semi-monocoque construction of the engine



enclosure allows for acoustic panel suspension from brackets welded onto



the engine support longitudinals.  Panels are secured with quick-release



fasteners for easy service access to the engine; a single panel gives



access to inner and outer sump drain plugs and the oil filter.  Vertical



walls (panels) of the enclosure are fitted where possible with sheets



of glass fiber "wool" held in position by perforated sheet aluminum.



     Toward interior noise reduction, seats are fully upholstered and



have squab backs trimmed in foam based moquette in the interests of



covering any large reflective surface.  The seat squab upper rails are



shrouded by an enveloping safety crash pad and the vertical "grab"



stanchions in the bus are nylon covered.  Another aspect of interior





                                A-6

-------
noise control applies to the redesigned heater recirculation duct which



has provided a "spin-off" of considerably improved air circulation.



The noise reduction achieved on the vehicle is so considerable that



"canned music" is provided in the vehicle to alay the uncanny feeling



of sitting in what has been stated as virtually an anechoic chamber.



     Subtle changes to the interior specification include stapling



of a 25-mm closed cell pvc foam to the top of the floor over the rear



saloon only; at the edges this is compressed between the lower stain-



less cover panel and the body side.  Beneath the whole floor, aluminum



trays enclosing glass wool insulant are suspended between floor support



members.  Teroform sheeting is bonded to the front of the saloon access



step riser channel; similar treatment applies to the rear wheel arches



and rear seat box.  Interior trim panels have their 25 mm polyether



heat insulating backing panels replaced by 66.5 mm expanded polyethylene



foam with heat and very adequate noise insulation.  Backing the rear



corner cove panels are Teroform moulded shapes around the heater piping



and air ducting entry points; these are overlaid with flexible polyether



foam to a depth of 6 inches.
                                A-7

-------
                             REFERENCES
                             Appendix A
1.  "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement,"  Draft
    Final Report submitted by Booz-Allen Applied Research,  under EPA
    Contract No. 68-01-3509, prepared for the Office of Noise Abate-
    ment and Control, June 22, 1976.
                                    A-8

-------
                                 APPENDIX B






                           NEW TECHNOLOGY BUSES






1.   TRANSBUS




     The Transbus program is a federally funded competitive development



project aimed at the next generation of transit buses.  The final



Transbus design specification vehicle was intended to replace currently



produced, 40 ft transit buses.  The first prototype vehicles from each



of three bus manufacturers were delivered in mid-1973.  The final Trans-



bus design was to enter full production in the last half of this decade



as part of a program to reduce urban traffic congestion, improve urban



air quality, and revitalize urban mass transportation.



     The Transbus program is a major element of UMTA's  (DOT) overall



bus technology effort.  Competitive prototype vehicle development sub-



contracts were awarded to three bus manufacturers:  AM General Corp.,



Rohr Industries, and General Motors Truck and Coach Division.  Each



manufacturer developed a prototype bus.  At the conclusion of testing



and evaluation, a final design was to be selected for further develop-



ment.  The standard design was to be the property of the government,



but the bus itself could be built by any qualified bus manufacturer.



The three prototype bus designs currently built were selected from ten



proposed designs.
                               B-l

-------
(A)  Transbus Specification

     It was an objective of the Transbus program to develop an

advanced bus design that can be used to stimulate an increase

in bus ridership.  Consequently, the specifications change many

of the traditional priorities in bus design.

     Some of the features required by the Transbus specifica-

tion are listed for five key areas in Table B-l.  The require-

ments shown were selected primarily on the basis of appealing

to the passenger, while maintaining total vehicle cost/mile

consistent with the increased benefits.  This reverses tradi-

tional priorities on vehicle operating economy factors, such

as fuel economy and low maintenance costs, which often result

in a reduced level of passenger amenities.

(B)  Transbus Sound Levels

     The sound levels for Transbus were specified as follows:


     1)   Interior Noise Level

          The vehicle-generated noise level experienced by

     a passenger at any seat location in the bus shall not

     exceed 75 dBA, and shall be designed to not exceed

     75 dBA, under the following operating conditions:

          o  Acceleration of O.lOg (3.2 ft/sec/sec) at vehicle
             G.V.w.R.

          o  Constant speed of 65 mph on level road at vehicle
             G.V.w.R.

          o  Constant speed of 10 mph on level road at vehicle
             G.V.w.R.

          o  Deceleration at O.lOg (3.2 ft/sec/sec) at vehicle
             G.V.W.R. engine operating and engaged.

                           B-2

-------
                                   Table  B-l
              Original  Transbus  Specifications
Performance

    Design Factor

Top speed
Acceleration

Gradeability

Boarding Time
                 Design Improvement Required

Increased from 60 to 70 mph to be comparable with freeway traffic
Increased to 2.2 mph/s for greater maneuverability, the greatest
  desirable without sacrificing passenger comfort
Increased from 40 to 55 mph on a 2-1/2% grade for increased travel
  rates in hilly terrain
Halved from 3 to 1.5 s/passenger for expeditious ingress and egress
Passenger Comfort and Convenience

    Design Factor
Interior noise level

Air conditioning
Ventilation

Interior lighting

Seat width
Knee room
Passenger information
Window area

Jerk


Emissions

   Design Factor

Gases and smoke
                 Design Improvement Required
Odor
Exterior noise
Reduced to a maximum of 75 dBA under all operating conditions
  and at all passenger locations, 30% of the level of current vehicles
To be standard equipment on all vehicles
Circulated air will consist of 25% fresh outside air, an increase over
  present vehicles in order to improve interior environmental quality
A 100% increase in intensity at reading position over presently used
  lighting systems
Increased from 16 to 18 in/passenger
Increased from 8 to 10 in
Destination sign letter height increased from 4  to 5 in.vvith a mini-
  mum of three intermediate destinations per sign and 200 sign
  storage capability
A 100% increase in side window area for increased visibility for
  both seated and standing passengers
Kept to a maximum of 3 mph/s^ to provide smoothness of accel-
  eration comparable to modern rail transit
                 Design Improvement Required

Compliance with proposed 1973 California heavy-duty standards,
  and 1974 Federal standards.  A target of the 1975 California
  standards.
Reduced by 50%
Reduced over 30% of noise levels from present vehicles
Service Life and Maintenance
    Design Factor
Interior cleaning

Glazing material

Bumper impact

Exterior panel replace-
  ment
                 Design Improvement Required
Interior cleaning costs reduced with conversion from supported to
  cantilever seating
High-strength tempered glass and acrylic materials increase impact
  strength in order to reduce breakage caused by vandalism
Withstand a 5 mph impact by a 4000 Ib automobile without incurr-
  ing damage to bus
Exterior panels to be quickly repairable or replaceable within 30 min
                                        B-3

-------
                              Table  B-l  (Continued)
            Original  Transbus  Specifications
Service Life and Maintenance
   Design Factor
                Design Improvement Required
Brake friction material


Safety

   Design Factor

Floor height

Boarding steps


Passenger windows


Crashworthmess


Emergency egress
A 100% increase in friction material life from an average 50,000 to
  100,000 miles for a reduction in brake maintenance costs
                Design Improvement Required

Reduced 50% from 34 to 17 in. above road surface to reduce
  boarding accidents, especially involving the aged
Step from street reduced from 14 to 10 in, with interior step
  height reduced from 10 to 7 in, and number of interior steps
  reduced from two to one
Converted from operable type to permanently fixed and sealed to
  insure that passenger limbs do not protrude from bus envelope
  and to protect passengers from flying objects
Interior dimensions to be altered by no more than 6 in in typical
  rollover and 3 in in side impact crashes for improved passenger
  protection
Hatches in roof and side windows which can be opened in an
  emergency for rapid egress in event of rollover and fire
                                      B-4

-------
2)  Sound Insulation



    The combination of inner and outer panels and any material



used between shall provide sufficient sound insulation such that



a sound source with a level of 80 dBA measured at the outside



skin of the bus will have sound level of 65 dBA or less at any



point inside the bus with the doors closed, engine and auxiliaries



switched off.  The use of sound deadening materials within the bus



may contribute to this.



3)  Exterior Noise



     Bus airborne noise shall not exceed 75 dBA under the following



conditions when operated at or below 30 mph at G.V.W.R.:



     o  Acceleration of O.lOg (3.2 ft/sec/sec)



     o  Deceleration of O.lOg (3.2 ft/sec/sec)



     o  Constant speed at 30 mph and full accessory load



     o  Constant speed at 10 mph and full accessory load



     The maximum noise level at a constant 65 mph shall not be



greater than 3 dBA higher than the noise level under coast-by con-



ditions with none of the operational equipment in operation.  All



noise readings shall be taken at 50 feet from, and parallel to, the



center line of the bus.



4.  Exhaust Location



     The exhaust gases and waste heat shall not be discharged



on the right-hand side of the bus, and shall be directed so



that it may not cause discomfort to pedestrians.



     The actual measured noise levels for the three prototype



Transbuses and a present day CMC Coach are summarized in Tables



B-2 and B-3.



                      B-5

-------
                                                            Table  B-2
                                               Interior  Noise  Test Summary
         s,
         O in
         (0 o
           ) r-
       id
       U
            O
            as
CQ
O
          o in
          10 o
          O r
          o
         m in 00
         r- r- r-
o
q
       to
       o
       On

       O
       0>
       .U
       10
       HI
       U)
u


I
        i  Or
        '  U
                     ^a1 in o>
                     r- r- r-
                                                  00 fs) CTl
                                                  r- QO oo
       O
       CM
       D
        c
        10
            'O
            DS
                                  rH CN in
                                  r- r- r^
                                                                            o in oo
                                                                            oo r- r-
                                                              oo o n
                                                              r- co oo
       4J
       a
        ai
       a
        in
        01
       E-i
            01
         p f-i
         C TJ >J
         O T3 lU
       J3 M -H )
       ah  
    0>
 P r-t

 O T3 (0
: u -H ai
ufc  
     01
  4-1 iH
   C "D kJ
   O -D 10
.C U --H H
                                         TJ
                                                                            10
                                                                            4J
                                                                            W
                                                                                              .
I
I
in
m
                                                                                                         a,
                                                                                                         u
                                                                                                         V4
                                                                                                         ID
                                                                                                         HI
                                                                                                         tO 4J
                                                                                                         0) C
                                                                                                         04 01

                                                                                                         O tl
                                                                                                         01 O
                                                                                                         -H i-H
                                                                                                         -H 01
                                                                                                         a >
                                                                                                         cu 01
                                                                                                         < a

                                                                                                         C T3
                                                                                                         01 C
                                                                                                         ^H <0
                                                                                                         N -H
                                                                                                         O 0)
                                                                                                         O 01
                                                                                                         ca a
01
U
tJ
3
O
cn
                                                                    B-6

-------
            Table B-3

  Exterior Noise Test Stannary















_^
CQ
' 
rH
0>
o>
J

01
VJ
D
05
to
0)
VJ
cu

D
C
D
O
CQ






























JJ
W
0)
EH
0>
o
H
JJ
01
01
VJ
JJ
en









jj
W
0)
EH

0)
T3
H
cn

.Q
^J
3
CJ










C
O
>rJ
JJ
(X
H
VJ
CJ
to
0)
Q

JJ
(0
0)
EH
.C
O m
(0 O
OP-
O



U
.C
0




C3

je
^


r^
u m
(0 O
O P-
u



VJ
rj
O
04




3g
O
s
*

|
i






i
i



i
i

i
i



p-
p-






3*
00





ro
CO
 rH
*O "^ Vl
rl JJ 01
s o c
VJ ij
J3 JS O
QjEn U
g

m 01 (0
i a a*
o O 
           rOOOP-rHVOP-^l'^'

           P*P*-OOOOOOP-COOO
en
p-
00
   0)
 0> rH
O JJ
rl 4J
SOU
   VJ O
JC JS O
 g
   C VJ
m o> n)
 I  dj 0)
o O 04
rH
?!
o
VO
10
00
Oi
V0
V0
V0


ca
01
rJ
VJ
Q
DJ
e
o
rH
P-
V0
r--
rH
00
(N
ro
p-
p-
(N
CO


OQ
0)
H
VJ
Q
g
O
ro
o
00

p-

(0
o>
o>
>p^
i-H
a
<
c
o>
rH
rH
<
N
0
s
Source;







Lopment
i  i
01
>
Q
O
m
c
CP
H
to
01
Q

                 B-7

-------
2.   GAS TURBINE ENGINE APPLICATIONS



     Gas turbine engines are currently being field tested as the prime



power source for such applications as on-highway trucks, urban transit



and intercity buses, and industrial and marine electrical generator sets.



     The heaviest concentration of these engines is in trucks and buses.



Turbine engine sizes, shapes, and weights, (such as the GT-404 engine)



have ideal envelope dimensions for installation in a space that is



designed for a diesel engine.



     Only a few companies manufacture turbine engines with a rating below



500 brake horsepower (bhp) suitable for city and intercity bus and coach



application.  The turbine engine is higher in cost than a comparable



diesel engine.  However, it burns almost any type fuel, requires less



maintenance and will have an extremely long life expectancy.



     The gas turbine uses very little oil compared to a diesel engine.



This difference is on the order of magnitude of a thousand to one;



or 0.3 quarts for turbines to 300 quarts for diesels per 1000 hours of



operation.  Gas turbine engines are lighter and smaller than diesel



engines.  This is offset somewhat, however, by the requirement of the air



or a filtration system and a regenerator unit in the turbine installation.



     The gas turbine requires less maintenance than a diesel engine



because of fewer wear parts and less vibration.  The precise amount



has not been established in commercial vehicles; however, under military



conditions, the gas turbine engine costs approximately 25 to 40 percent



less to maintain than a comparable diesel engine where the cost reflects



labor, oil, repair parts, minor accessories, but not overhaul.  Signifi-



cant technological improvements in terms of reliability and life-cycle



ownership costs are expected during the next three years.



                                  B-8

-------
The favorable influencing factors for the gas turbine engine are:



o    Cleaner exhaust emissions.  Major pollution elements



     are minimized because of the turbine's highly effi-



     cient, low-pressure, continuous combustion.



o    Good serviceability.  Gas turbines are simple in



     design.  Cast iron one-piece blocks have the char-



    ,acteristics of a traditional industrial configur-



     ation.  Engine components can be easily handled,



     maintained or replaced because of their modular design.



o    Smooth-powerhigh torque rise.  The two-shaft



     turbine produces a torque curve that increases as



     output speed decreaseslike a torque converter.



     The result is a high performance engine with high



     torque for load starting and fast acceleration.  The



     two-shaft turbine torque characteristic provides a



     broad power curve in the operating speed range.



o    Effective engine-dynamic braking.  Outstanding



     engine-dynamic braking is achieved in the GT404/



     505 design because of the unique Power Transfer



     feature.  Braking effort equal to full rated



     engine output can be achieved by the automatic



     engagement of the Power Transfer clutch, which



     causes the compressor to act as a dynamic brake.



     This results in major cost saving in service brake



     maintenance in vehicles andmore importantgives



     the inherent safety of controlled engine braking.



                             B-9

-------
     o    Simplified transmission requirements.  Turbine

          equipped vehicles can utilize either a standard or

          an automatic transmission.  A fewer number of gear

          ranges are required because of the inherent torque

          characteristics of the turbine and its broad power

          ranges.

     o    Superior cold weather starting.  The gas turbine's

          ability to start at low temperatures quickly is

          superior to any conventional power plant.  The

          engine has demonstrated the ability to start

          without aid in temperatures well below freezing.

     o    Lower weight.  The gas turbine provides a 25 percent to

          45 percent reduction in installation weight as compared

          to diesel engines in the 250 to 300 bhp power class.

     o    Simple cooling system.  Gas turbines do not require

          a water jacket cooling system.  Only lubricating oil

          requires cooling through a simple oil heat exchanger.

          This contributes to less maintenance and downtime.

     The diesel engine with its ancillary components (cooling system,

exhaust system, converter)  weighs approximately 50 percent more than

the comparable gas turbine and is 75 percent larger in cubic feet of

volume.  The favorable influencing factors for the diesel engine are:

     o    Lower fuel costs
     o    High reliability
     o    Lower mean time to overhaul
     o    Lower skill required to overhaul
     o    High altitude performance
     o    High durability
     o    Heat source (at no additional cost) for coach heating
     o    Lower fuel consumption when idling.

                                 B-10

-------
     Pilot models of the gas turbine engine began going into service



in 1972 for extensive field evaluation.  The test engines have logged



nearly two million miles in 24 trucks from 10 manufacturers; eight motor



coaches from MCI-Greyhound and CMC Truck and Coach Division, and various



watercraft and industrial applications.



     Consignment engines currently are operational with Greyhound on the



East and West Coasts; Binswanger Trucking in Los Angeles, California;



Freightliner Corporation and Consolidated Freightways in Portland, Oregon;



Acadian Marine Rentals in New Orleans, Louisiana; Terminal Transport in



Atlanta, Georgia; Gardner-Denver in Quincy, Illinois; CMC Truck & Coach



Division of General Motors in Pontiac, Michigan; and Detroit Diesel



Allison in Indianapolis, Indiana.



     The turbine is quiet and virtually vibration-free, and offers the



added advantages of low air emissions, reduced maintenance costs, and



excellent cold-weather starting performance.  It appears to be a likely



power source of future intercity buses if target reductions in fuel



consumption and improvements in durability are realized.



3.  BATTERY POWERED BUSES



     This type of bus has seen several applications for urban revenue



transit service as well as demonstration services in the United States,



Canada, and France.  These buses claim as their principal advantage low



air emissions and noise levels.



     In the U.S., Electrobus Division of Otis Elevator Co. and its



successors are marketing a bus with two models.  Model 20 has a curb



weight of 13,500 Ibs., is 25 ft. in length and seats 21 passengers.



Model 26 has a curb weight of 14,300 Ibs., is 30 ft. in length and



seats 30 passengers.



                                 B-ll

-------
     The bus is driven by a single, separately ventilated 50 HP, 72 volt



DC traction motor, mounted under the floor ahead of the rear axle.  The



motor was specifically developed for this bus with a long, small diameter



(14") frame to provide adequate road clearance with an unusually low



floor height (22").



     The application of motor power is controlled by low voltage electro-



mechanical switching in an eight step contactor controller designed for



maximum simplicity and reliability with quiet operation.  A timed sequence



of battery and motor field switching in response to power pedal position



regulates motor power and speed.  No transmission or clutch is used.



     A single unit, 72 volt, 36 cell, 880 AH at 6h, 4,250 Ib. lead acid



storage battery is used for propulsion power.  The battery is fitted



with fork lift slots.  Rapid battery exchange is aided by a quick dis-



connect feature, allowing full transfer in five minutes or less.  Re-



charging is done on or off the bus by automatic charging equipment.



     A separate 150^AH, 12 volt battery provides' power for accessories



and controller.  This battery is recharged from the traction battery



by a dynamotor, which also drives the motor cooling and coach body



ventilation blower.



     The foot controlled service brake initially reconnects the DC



traction motor as a three phase AC generator to provide dynamic braking.



Secondarily, the brake pedal applies air-assisted tandem hydraulic drum



service brakes.  Even if the air supply should fail completely, a mechani-



cal override would still operate these service brakes.  A separate,



mechanically actuated disc parking brake is also furnished.





                               B-12

-------
     Dashboard instruments, in addition to the conventional speedometer



and air pressure gauge, include a voltmeter, ammeter and battery condi-



tion meter.



     Outside of the electric traction motor and controller, the elec-



tric bus running gear and mechanical components are standard heavy



service truck and bus types.



     The electric traction motor and control system are similar to



trolley coach or railway types except for being designed for lower



voltages to suit storage battery operation rather than higher voltages



needed for distribution efficiency on wire fed, fixed power systems.



4.  ARTICULATED AND DOUBLE DECK BUSES



     Articulated and double deck buses have been and are being used in



transit bus applications to maximize the capacity of a public service



vehicle suitable for use on existing roadways.  In the United States,



double deck buses were in use through the mid 1950's in New York and



Chicago while articulated buses have been only used experimentally.



Declining bus ridership since the 1920's has discouraged use and



development of these unique forms of road transport, leaving the 40 ft.



rigid single deck vehicle as the backbone of the North American transit



fleet.



     Now with the growing importance of economic and environmental



pressures and concerns about energy consumption, the use of larger



public service vehicles is being seriously considered.  Negotiations



for the joint purchase of at least 300 such vehicles is currently under-



way by a consortium of operators representing several large American



cities. This bus will be a single operator, articulated vehicle having





                                  B-13

-------
at least one and one half times the capacity of the 40 ft. standard



coach with greater maneuverability and equal fuel consumption.   The



vehicle will undoubtedly be based on current European designs which



have a pancake engine under the floor of the front section.  There are



significant drawbacks to this arrangement in considering its use in



transit fleets in America.  An upright engine at the rear has become



established as the industry standard regardless of vehicle manufacturer.



In addition, the present design trend is to lower the coach floor which



is a major goal of the principal funding agent, the U.S. Department of



Transportation.



     Some development work (notably that which took place in Germany)



with a low floor, rear engine, articulated vehicle is currently being



undertaken, but production of such a vehicle is far in the future.



Research in the U.S. has been conducted in areas that might benefit from



the use of the larger buses.  A recent study indicated that at least seven



major U.S. cities had specific routes that could effectively now use



articulated vehicles.  With further development of priority bus lanes,



greater acceptance by the ridership, and more improved accommodations, the



number of articulated vehicles in the U.S. Transit fleet can be expected



to increase rapidly in the not to distant future.
                                  B-14

-------
                           REFERENCES

                           APPENDIX B
1.  "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus Noise Abatement," Draft
     Final Report submitted by Booz-Allen Applied  Research, under
     EPA Contract No. 68-01-3509,  prepared  for  the Office of Noise
     Abatement and Control, June 22, 1976.
                                  B-15

-------
                               APPENDIX C

                        BUS NOISE ABATEMENT COSTS

     Presented in this appendix are the estimated cost increases
(decreases) required to manufacture quieter buses as compared to cur-
rently produced buses for the various technology levels discussed in
Section 5.  This appendix is organized as follows:
     I.     Introduction
            .  Methodology
            .  Bus Classification
    II.     Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses
            .  Manufacturing Process
            .  Estimated Costs
   III.     Diesel Powered Conventional SchooJ  Buses
            .  Manufacturing Process
            .  Estimated Costs
    IV.     Forward Engine Forward Control School Buses
            ..  Manufacturing Process
            .  Estimated Costs
     V.     Diesel Powered Integral Urban Transit Buses
            .  Manufacturing Process
            .  Estimated Costs
    VI.     Diesel Powered Integral Mid-Engine Buses
            .  Manufacturing Process
            .  Estimated Costs
                                   C-l

-------
 VII.      Diesel Powered Integral Rear Engine School Buses
           . Manufacturing Process
           . Estimated Costs
VIII.      Diesel Powered Integral Intercity Buses
           . Manufacturing Process
           . Estimated Costs
  IX.      Parcel Delivery and Motor Home Chassis Buses
           . Manufacturing Process
           . Estimated Costs
   X.      Enforcement Costs
           . Introduction
           . Methodology
           . Estimated Costs
                              C-2

-------
                             I - INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY
     Using information developed by Booz-Allen Applied Research under
EPA contract number 68-01-3509, technology packages were developed and
distributed to bus manufacturers and bus component suppliers.  These
packages described study levels of bus noise abatement and recommended
approaches to achieve those study levels.
     Bus manufacturers were asked to provide on a level-by-level basis,
cost estimates to achieve the proposed levels of bus noise abatement.
In addition to the technology packages each manufacturer received:
     .  Cost estimating forms
     .  Lead time estimating forms, and
     .  Enforcement scenarios necessary for assessing costs attributable
       to compliance testing by manufacturers
     Telephone contacts were made with all manufacturers receiving the
technology packages.  In addition, visits were made by EPA personnel and
EPA consultants to various manufacturers in order to gain a better under-
standing of the .different manufacturing processes used throughout the
bus industry.
     Component manufacturers were contacted and supplied with a copy of
the technology packages that pertained to their product.  These manufac-
turers were asked to furnish cost information for their products based
on the recommendations in the technology package.
     Cost information requested from the manufacturers was based on a
manufacturing tolerance of 2 1/2 - 3 dBA.  For example, if the proposed
study level was 83 dBA, the design level for manufacturing would be
80-80.5 dBA.
     When submitting cost estimates, the manufacturers were asked to
break the costs into:
                                  C-3

-------
     .  Product cost
     .  Channel Cost
     .  End-user cost
     For each bus category,  manufacturers were asked to identify each
type of cost.  The different types of costs were used to determine the
impact on labor, material, quality control, investment and burden cost.
No manufacturer supplied this information totally.   A.M. General was the
only manufacturer that provided some information on end-user costs, chan-
nel costs and product costs for transit buses.
     Quality control and testing procedure costs were not broken out by
any responding manufacturer.  These costs were said to be built into
their responses.  For the automotive-truck industry, costs related to
quality control and testing normally represent 5% - 8% of product cost.
The estimated costs in this report include quality control and testing
procedure costs.
     A.M. General was the only responding company to indicate the addi-
tional investment required to meet the proposed study levels of noise.
On a level-by-level basis the investment required 3% - 21% of total esti-
mate cost.  Typically, for the automotive-truck industry, for every dol-
lar of investment three dollars of revenue are generated on an annual
basis.  The estimated costs in this report include investment cost.
     The school bus body builders visited, except for Wayne Corp., have
equipment and tooling that lend themselves to high flexibility.  Many
operations on different part configurations are possible.  Wayne by using
roll forming equipment have, to some extent, limited their flexibility.
     Integral bus builders  (intercity, transit, and school) have flexi-
bility in their assembly process.  No information was supplied by any
integral bus manufacturers as to the impact of engine encapsulation on
bus design.
     Operation and maintenance estimated costs were based on interviews
of end-users, industry supplied information and component vendors.
                                  C-4

-------
     Estimated costs in this report are associated with levels of bus
noise abatement.  By initiating the actions outlined in the technology
study, the corresponding level of noise was assumed to be achieved.  The
first study level for each bus type is designated as Level 1, the second
study level is Level 2, etc.  Levels do not mean years.
     The development of the EPA estimated costs was based, as much as
possible, on manufacturers' knowledge of the industry, cost structure
and technology.  Component costs received from vendors were used to cross-
check manufacturers' data and to provide a basis for estimating costs
when required.
     Guidelines followed in the construction of EPA cost estimates were:
     . Manufacturers' data was used as much as possible.
     . Final costs were rounded to the nearest five dollars.
     . An hourly rate of $15 per hour was used to cover direct labor and
       all burden charges.
     . Labor hour changes were estimates.
     Low and high estimated costs were, in most cases, based on manufac-
turer-supplied data.  The basis for EPA cost estimates were outlined
above.
     Response to requests for cost estimates were slow with varying levels
of participation by the companies.  Companies that had chosen not to
respond at all were:
     . Chrysler Corporation
       Detroit, Michigan
     . Blue Bird Body Company
       Fort Valley, Georgia
     . Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
       High Point, North Carolina
     . Gillig Brothers
       Hayward, California
                                  C-5

-------
     .  Ward School Bus Manufacturing, Inc.
       Conway, Arkansas
     The remaining companies provided some information.

BUS CLASSIFICATION
     Buses are normally classified into three major categories:
     .  School Buses
     .  Transit Buses
     .  Intercity Buses
     Within each category various configurations of buses are possible.
To estimate the cost impact of bus noise abatement buses were classified
as follows:
     .  Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses
     .  Diesel Powered Conventional School Buses
     .  Forward Engine Forward Control School Buses
     .  Diesel Powered Integral Urban Transit Buses
     .  Diesel Powered Integral Mid-Engine School Buses
     .  Diesel Powered Integral Rear-Engine School Buses
     .  Diesel Powered Integral Intercity Buses
     .  Parcel Delivery and Motor Home Chassis Buses
     The definition of a bus used in this study was a vehicle with a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 Ibs. and a capa-
city of transporting 10 passengers or more, other than the driver.  The
vehicle's primary design is to transport passengers, not material,
driver, etc.
                                  C-6

-------
             II - GASOLINE POWERED CONVENTIONAL SCHOOL BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     A completed conventional school bus is assembled by mounting a body
onto a chassis.  The chassis and the body are produced by two separate
manufactures.  The school bus chassis is equipped vith an engine located
forward of the driver and passengers, a completed drive train, a com-
pleted steering mechanism and an engine cowl.  The chassis itself is not
a completed vehicle, per Federal specifications, that can be driven on a
street or highway.
     A conventional school bus chassis is similar to a medium duty truck
chassis.  As a result, school bus and truck chassis are/can be manufac-
tured on the same assembly line utilizing many of the same components
and manufacturing equipment.  The primary differences between conventional
school bus and truck chassis are the locations of the fuel and air tanks,
the chassis rail configurations, the brake systems and the vehicle oper-
ator enclosures.
     A typical assembly sequence for a bus chassis is:
     . assemble frame and braces
     . install front and rear axles
     . mpunt engine and transmission
     . locate chassis wire
     . locate fluid lines
     . bleed and test hydraulic system and air check
     . paint frame
     , install exhaust system
     . mount tires
     . hook up chassis wiring to lights and engine
     , connect all chassis lines
     . mount and hook up cowls
     , install radiator
                                   C-7

-------
     ,  mount front end and bumper
     .  mount temporary driver seat
     .  install steering wheel
     .  add coolant to radiator
     .  add gas
     .  inspect
     .  deliver to shipping lot
     Normally the front and rear axles, engine and transmission, tires,
cab trim, and front end are off line assemblies.   Conveyor systems move
these subassemblies to the main line to match the chassis used.
     This assembly sequence is the same as truck assembly.  An individual
not familiar with the two chassis configurations or standing away from
the assembly line cannot differentiate between the two.
     After assembly the chassis is shipped to a body builder.   Each
chassis is accompanied by an incomplete vehicle document which states
the Federal Standards to which the vehicles comply as built by the
chassis builder,
     The body builder mounts the body shell to the chassis and completes
the interior of the shell.  Body builders do not alter or change the
chassis as received.  Chassis builders maintain service representatives
at the body builder's location to inspect the chassis after the body is
mounted and to make repairs if required.
     A typical assembly sequence for body builders is:
     ,  fabricate, build and mate
       - floor
       - backend
       - side frames
       - front end
       - roof
       - interior side panels
       - exterior side panels
       - ceiling
                                   C-8

-------
     .  undercoat
     .  mount exterior trim
     .  paint exterior and interior
     .  install floor coverings
     .  mount shell to chassis
     .  install
       - seats
       - windows
       - lights
       - heater, etc,
     .  letter
     .  inspect
     .  road test
     .  deliver to shipping lot
     Normal subassembly operations are:  seats, lights, flooring, and
frames.  Subassembly operations are as close to the assembly line as
practical.
     High flexibility is present due to the variation in bus lengths,
in chassis designs between manufacturers and in specifications from
each buyer.  Normally no two buses are identical on the assembly line.
     Federal Certification tags are placed on the completed bus by the
body builder.  Chassis builders furnish tags and specification sheets
listing what standards the chassis will meet as long as components are
not changed.
     Both chassis and body manufacturers have a high degree of flexi-
bility in their assembly sequence primarily due to the various require-
ments for a bus.  Federal, State and local governments plus each school
district and school have individual standards that a school bus must
meet.  These standards can and do vary from state to state, local
government to local government and school district to school district.
                                 C-9

-------
ESTIMATED COSTS

     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise

abatement for gasoline conventional school buses are shown in Figure C-l.

These costs are for a typical conventional school bus with a 60-66

passenger capacity.  The costs are based on information supplied by

chassis builders, body builders, component vendors and estimates.

Table C-l summarizes the estimated costs to reduce bus noise.  Note

that all costs are rounded to the nearest 5 dollars.


                               Table C-l

                       Estimated Cost to Achieve
                   Bus Noise Abatement for Gasoline
                   Powered Conventional School Buses
     Level

       1
       2
       3
       4
       5

Source:  Figure C-l
Exterior
   dBA

    83
    80
    77
    75
    73
Interior
   dBA

    83
    80
    80
    75
    75
     EPA
Estimated Cost

    $   50
       150
       285
       845
     1,145
     These costs are typical and variation between engine, transmission,

drive train and shell construction will change the cost,  For example,

the CMC 350-V8 engine currently meets the 83 dBA level.  The CMC 366-V8

and International Harvester MV442 engine do not.  In order to meet an

83 dBA standard for school buses using these engines, CMC will add a

viscous fan drive and International Harvester will add a wrapped muffler,

fan spacer and absorption material for the splasher panels.  Both

actions, while different, cost approximately the same.

     Body builders Thomas, Carpenter, Wayne and Superior have indicated

that chassis changes will not increase their costs or change their
                                 C-10

-------
O  O H ^>
M  c_> co r-~
Pn     O  W
H
J3 4J 
W) CO 4J
H O CO
33 0 W
K. ^ '
& CO 4-1
o o co
hJ U W
>> 4J 
<3 TJ M 4-1
fU O O CO
W pq o W
>>
*t!

0)
C
%
&
*
*
P.
M
cd
o
CO
1-1
 O
S to
O f">
U vO
S vo
O ro
T3
M
O
P*
s
rl
3
M PQ
CU T)
4-1
C
H
M
O
rl PQ
CU T3
4J
X
W
rH
SI
cu
hJ
O
m
co-
in
r~-
CNl
CO-
I
o
I

o
co-
in

o
o
.H
<0-
0
m
co-
in
CO
CO-
CO
1
CO-
o
m
CTi
-*
co-
in
r^
rH

rH
O
CTi
rH
ft
CN
O
0
r^
m
rH
-*
C/3
&
O
m


4-1

CU
0
O
ex
d
0










rH
cu
cu
rH
T)
CU
4-1
cd
rH
60
CU
M
T)
OO
cd
o
M-l
cu
*
'rj
CU
4J
U
H
d

"3
co

CO
4-1
CO
O
0

^
M
4-1
CO
3

C
H
*


O
(3
M

*
CO

M
0
J"^

^>
^3
O
pq

M
cu
U
C
cu
p,
rl
cd
U
*
*
costing information pertaining to this study level was supplied
0
C

4J
cd

4J

4-1
O
cd


cu

4J

CO
CU
4-1
O
c
cu
T)

en
J3
                                             C-ll

-------
methods of assembly.  They feel interior noise is directly related to
chassis noise, and as chassis noise is reduced, interior noise will be
reduced.
     The cost increase estimates for body builders are for installing
an acoustical barrier between the engine compartment and driver for
about $25.  The change in body mounting to the chassis for this installa-
tion is estimated at $150.  This cost is comparable to the installation
of a plywood floor.
     The'introduction of a viscous fan clutch will have the positive
impact of increasing gas mileage by an estimated 5%.  Current miles per
gallon average 3-5 miles or with viscous fan clutch 3.2-5.3 for an
average increase of 0.25 miles per gallon.
     Maintenance costs will increase with the changes suggested in each
study level,  The cost increases are due to more parts and increased
labor.  The labor costs are impacted not only by the parts increase but
decreased access to the engine due to the installation of shielding for
noise control.
     The dollar amount of maintenance costs is dependent on bus usage,
manpower costs and component costs.  Each bus system's cost varies from
another system.  Based on information supplied by bus manufacturers and
users, cost increases for maintenance are shown in Table C-2.

                               Table C-2
                          Maintenance Cost for
               Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses
                                        EPA
                   Level      Estimated Cost Per Year
                     1                  $ 20
                     2                   135
                     3                   160
                     4                   170
                     5                   450
Source:  User Interviews
         CMC
                                 C-12

-------
     Based on industry interviews, lead time for noise levels should
correspond to the truck regulation.   International Harvester has
indicated that a level could be reached every 20-24 months as an ongoing
process to the 73 dBA study level.
                                 C-13

-------
            Ill - DIESEL POWERED CONVENTIONAL SCHOOL BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Diesel Powered Conventional School Buses are basically the same as
Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses except for the engine.  The
same definitons of conventional school bus, chassis and body assembly
methods can be used for the diesel bus.  For the descriptions refer to
Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses.
     Diesel and gasoline engine chassis are mixed on the chassis assembly
line.  Differences between the two engines normally impact the subassembly
area of engine and transmission.  Work content may vary on the assembly
line, but production lines are balanced to account for these variations.
     Body builders, as in gasoline powered buses, mount the body to the
chassis.  The type of engine does not impact their work methods.
     Vehicle certification procedures are the same as gasoline powered
buses.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
are shown in Figure C-2.  These costs are for a typical conventional
diesel school bus with a 60-66 passenger capacity.  The costs are based
on information supplied by chassis builders, body builders, component
vendors and EPA estimates.
     Table C-3 summarizes the estimated costs to reduce Diesel Powered
Conventional School Bus noise.
                                   C-14

-------
cn
H

g
pq
^1

8
cn
i-l 4-1 

Pn 4J O CO
w o u w
H

,C 4J 
60 CO 4-1
H O CO
IB U W


4-J 
|S CO 4-1
O O CO
r4 U H
>, 4J 

o
in
vO

co-
in
VO
i {

<0-
rH
-*
co-

in



0
o
rH
co-

in
r-]
CS|


co-
VO
CS|
si"

O
in
co-
oo
00
csi

co-

vo
00
CO
oo

rH
O
CO



m
CS|

CN

o
VO
CM


m
rH
s

O
O
CSl

O
m
rH


m
H
CO



O
m
oo

CM
rH

O
oo
CO



CO
00
o
oo

CN
o
oo

A
rH
m
o
o
co"

O
o



m
rH


O
o
CM

O
m
rH


in
rH
O
\
rH


cn
Jg5

cn
25

O
vO
CM
i-T


o
00
*
r-

CO
o
00
m
^
rH
O
rH

CO

O
rH
O
ff\
rH
m
rH



cn
*

o
m
st


m
vO
rH
n
rH


cn
3

g

in
rH
^
rH


O
00
in
r^

-



*^3
0)
4-1
CO
H

CO
0)
H
a
(0

s
Q



0)
0
M
3
O



CO
H
O

(3
0)

4-1
ff
0)

O
P.

O









were for a 78 dBA regulated level.

-o

4-1
4J
H
1
3
CO

CO
4-1
CO
O
0
>~.
^4
4-1
CO
3
13
G
M
*


O
C
H

n
1
0


^*>
*^
o
pq

01
4J
G
01

^|
cfl
U
*
*
costing information to this study level was supplied
o
{3

4J
CO
4-1
4_l
O
cfl
14-1

0)
^J
M
CO
0)
4-1
O
C
0)
*"O

cn

                                   C-15

-------
                               Table C-3
                       Estimated Cost to Achieve
                    Bus Noise Abatement for Diesel
                   Powered Conventional School Buses
     Level
       1
       2
       3
       4
Source:  Figure C-2
Exterior
dBA
83
80
77
75
Interior
dBA
86
83
80
80
     EPA
Estimated Cost
   $  630
      730
    1,480
    1,580
     These costs are typical costs.  Thus, variations of the type of
engine, transmission drive train and shell construction can change costs.
For example, concerning shell construction, Wayne uses a roll forming
method to produce the panels for a bus.  These panels are interlocked
and fasten to the frame with "huckbolts."  Carpenter fabricates each
panel and fastens it to the frame by riveting and/or welding.
     Body builders Thomas, Wayne, Carpenter and Superior have indicated
that chassis changes will not increase their costs or change methods of
assembly.  They feel interior noise is directly related to chassis noise
and as chassis noise is reduced interior noise will be reduced.  Actions
taken by the body builders to reduce noise will be based on the interior
noise level at the exterior level.
     At present diesel powered buses represent 3% - 4% of the school bus
market.  The market share is increasing.  To offset the higher initial
purchase price of diesel buses versus savings in operating costs, the
bus must be driven an estimated 40,000 miles per year.  The operating
savings result primarily from increased fuel mileage and longer life.
Estimated fuel mileage for diesels s 5 - 6 miles per gallon as compared
to the 3-5 miles per gallon for gasoline engines.
     No increase or decrease in fuel costs is expected with the addition
of noise control technology to diesel powered conventional school buses.
                                  C-16

-------
     The cost of maintenance affected by changes outlined in the tech-
nology packages.  As with the gasoline powered conventional school bus,
the cost changes are due to material and labor changes.
     Based on information supplied by manufacturers and users, cost
increases for maintenance are shown in Table C-4.

                               Table C-4
                      Maintenance Cost for Diesel
                   Powered Conventional School Buses

                      Level         Estimated Cost
                        1                $ 20
                        2                 155
                        3                 215
                        4                 450
Source:  Industry Interviews

     The sharp jump in maintenance costs after Level 1 is caused by
the use of noise shields and belly pans causing increased labor time to
gain access to the engine.
     Based on industry interviews, the lead time for noise levels should
correspond to the truck regulation.   International Harvester has indi-
cated that a level could be reached every 20 - 24 months in an ongoing
process to tlie 75 dBA study level.
                                 C-17

-------
            IV FORWARD ENGINE FORWARD CONTROL SCHOOL BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Diesel Powered Forward Engine Forward Control School Buses,
Gasoline Powered Forward Engine Forward Control School Buses and Forward
Control Buses, gasoline and diesel, are being combined for cost estimat-
ing purposes.  These types of buses have many of the same characteristics,
construction methods and technology packages for noise abatement.  A
primary difference between these buses is the interior layout of the
bus.  The layout changes with the use, such as a transit coach, school
bus, luxury bus, etc.
     These types of buses are not of integral construction.  A body
shell is mounted onto a chassis with two manufacturers involved.  The
buses are produced by companies that manufacture school buses.   For
descriptions of the assembly sequence, refer to the Gasoline Powered
Conventional School Bus.
     It is important to remember that this type of bus is normally built
on the same body assembly line as the conventional school bus.   Extra
work required is performed off the assembly line.  Flexibility is present
in the assembly process.
     Federal Certification procedures are the same as for the conventional
school bus.
     Both manufacturers must be able to meet not only the Federal require-
ments but also State and local government as well as school district
requirements.  The State and local government and school district require-
ments can and do vary among themselves.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
are shown in Figures C-3, C-4, and C-5.  These costs are for a typical
bus.  The costs are based on information from component vendors and

-------
CO

u
g
H
     CO
     H
     oo

     pq

     iJ
     O
     O
     W
     u
     w

     iJ

     
     O
     u
Crt C/l
& &
pq <
     o
     pH PS.
        w
     W PH
     O 01 r~-
     ^! O 0>
     W U rH
     I
     O
     o
     PM
     W
     crt
     W
     M
     O
4J
CO
rH O

H CO
ffi w
4J CU
CO 4-1
O Cfl
o 6
^J
ri
& 4J
O CO
hJ W
o
H -





K
t*. m
r^. r^




CO *^"


CO
3 co
pq 3
co pq
4J 3
rl pq rH
co o
C rH O
Cfl O ,fi
MOO
H ,C en
a
C 00 rH
Cfl Cfl
& H a
rl Cfl O
C3 d -H
O 4-1
rH -H C
Cfl 4J CU
M d >
bO Q) C
<^) > O
4J a u
c o
H U T3
CU
'rj 'rj ^4
cu cu cu
cu cu o
!3 S PH
0 O
PH CH CU
C!
rH rH -H
CU CU rH
Cfl CO O
CU CU CO
H "rl Cfl
O 0 O

cu
0
3
o
oo
cu
cu
rH
r?
o
4 i
cfl
rH
3
00
cu


^
pq
T3

00
r-

cfl
M
o
<4H

cu
^
CU
^

T3
cu
4J
4-1
. I
rl
jo
3
CO

CO
4-1
CO
O
O

rt
CO
3
C
H
*
                                                   C-19

-------
hJ
W
en
w
H
O
4J
CO
rH O
<3 td u
P-i 4-J
Ed O 
H 4J
CO
W
4-1
CO
o

*^C 'O
pL( Q 
W M 4-i
CO
W
CO 4-1
H CO


vo co o m
oo oo oo r-

*
co o r^ m
oo oo r- r-




rH CN CO >*

                                                    cu
                                                    CJ
                                                    rl


                                                    O
                                                   W
rH
 0)

 &
                                                         f>
                                                         r<
                                                         O
                                                         4J
                                                         n)
                                                         rH


                                                         S,
                                                         0)
                                                         rl



                                                         P!
                                                        CO
                                                        r~-
                                                         u
                                                         o
                                                        IM

                                                         cu
                                                         rl

                                                         si
                                                        "O
                                                         (!)
                                                        I
                                                         co
 en
 O
 O

 >>
 P
 4-1
 co

T3

3
K
                                                     C-20

-------
CO
rH O
*, u
P4 TJ
W O 
PQ 4J
CO
W
CO 4-1
H CO
< CO W
P4 CO
W Cfl 4J
r CO
cj o
CJ
u
co at
O 4J

r* B_j
ri- 'rl
60 4-1
H CO
W W
4J CU
CO 4-1
O cfl
o 6
rl
O 03
._*! frT
o
r( PQ
CU T3
fi
M
O

M PH
CU Tj
Ed
CU



in m m m
t-~ 
-------
estimates.   The chassis builders and body builders contacted did not

respond.

     Table C-5 and Table C-6 summarize the estimated costs for both

gasoline and diesel buses.


                               Table C-5

           Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise Abatement for
         Diesel Powered Forward Engine Forward Control School
            Buses and Diesel Powered Forward Control Buses

                   Exterior         Interior              EPA
     Level            dBA              dBA           Estimated Cost

       1               83               86              $  255
       2               80               83                 340
       3               77               80               1,090
       4               75               75               1,580

Source:  Figure C-3 and C-4


     Maintenance costs, operating costs and technology lead times are

estimated to be the same as shown for Diesel Powered Conventional School

Buses.


                                Table C-6

                   Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise
          Abatement for Gasoline Powered Forward Control Buses

                                       EPA
                   Level     Estimated Cost Per Year

                     1                $ 75
                     2                 145
                     3                 285
                     4                 995

Source:  Figure C-5


     Maintenance, lead times and operating costs changes are estimated

to be the same as shown for Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses.
                                 C-22

-------
            V - DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL URBAN TRANSIT BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Transit buses differ in their manufacture from conventional school
buses.  While conventional school buses are manufactured in a two-stage
process (body on chassis) by two separate manufacturers, transit buses
are manufactured by a single manufacturer who performs the entire assembly.
For transit buses the floor, sides, ends and roof are joined into a one-
piece construction to form the bus shell.  The advantage to this type of
construction is more efficient use of material and space.  Intercity
buses, rear and mid-engine diesel school buses also employ this type of
construction.
     A typical assembly sequence for an integral transit bus is:
     . fabricate and assemble
       - understructure
       - right and left sides
       - front and back end
       - roof
     . join sections together
     . assemble exterior skin
     . assemble interior floor base and rubber covering
     . install interior wires, controls, etc.
     . mount undercarriage items
     . paint interior and exterior
     . mount wheels
     . install windows and doors
     . test for water leaks
     . complete interior
       - seats
       - lights
       - controls
                                  C-23

-------
       - flooring
       - trim, etc.
     .  install engine, transmission and drive train
       - heating and cooling system
       - gas lines
       - air and hydraulic lines, etc.
     .  inspect bus
     .  road test
     .  deliver to shipping lot
     Typical subassembly operations are:  seats, windows, engine and
transmission, front and rear axles, lights and air conditioners.  The
assembly sequency can overlap and many components not listed above are
installed throughout the process.
     High flexibility is present in the assembly process.  Every bus
order represents the specifications of that purchaser.  As with the
school buses, transit buses must meet Federal, State and local govern-
ment standards.  These standards can and do vary from state to state
and local government to local government.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
abatement are shown in Figure C-6.  These costs are for a typical tran-
sit bus either 35' or 40' long.   The costs are based on information
supplied by integral bus manufacturers, component vendors and EPA
estimates.
     Table C-7 summarizes the estimated costs to reduce bus noise.
                                  C-24

-------
   W
   C/3

   g
i
o

4-1 

H O CO
WOW
4-1 .
|S CO 4J
O O CO
iJ 0 W

rj
s
o


i-H
ct)
 >H
 C
< Q)
O
CO s^
CU CU
H rH
rl M 43
4: 4-> -H
q co X
Pi 3 01
13 rH
(3 Pn
I-H ^^
i-l
o
H 
o- m co
oo o o
rH -st

CO-




1 1 1
o o o
1 1 1
CO-




-st co co
oo oo oo




VO CO rH
oo oo oo




rH CM CO

in
ps.
00


o
o
CT*
*
CM
o
m
CO

o
o
o\
fl
CM

vo
o
CTi






o
m
CO




0
oo




o
oo




s3"

o
l-s.
vo
\
rH
O
O
CM
\

O
m
vO

O
o
CM
ft
st

rH
C7\
O
CM





O
in
vo




o
oo




t~s
p^




m

o
px.
CN
ft
CO
o
o
in
*
in
o
in
CTi

0
o
m
ft
in


oo
o
-st





i
o
i




00
ps.




m
PS.




vO








































CO
o
TJ
C
CU
^>

4J
c
CU
c
o

i"
5
o

TJ"
m
4-1
CO
H

CO
CU
H
G

a.
e
0



CU
o
M
o
en
CO
cfl
CO
4-1
CO
O
O
a
o
H
4->
O
3
13
CU
M

CU
CO
H
O
ti
j_i
O
H
rl
CU
4-1
C
H
0)
13
3
^H
0
c
*

CO
01
11
+-*
cd
e
H
1 1
CO
0)

4-1
CO
o
o

43
$
rf

a
C

CO

01
H-3
*>
O

II
/-s.
<


CO
oo
s~'
CO
13
c
cfl
CM

CO
i
r-1
a>
>
cu
hJ

fi
o
o>
ii
<
m
13

s^-
00

i-H

tH
cu
cu
I-J


 
cc
12
0
rH
H
O
UH


























































0^
0

0)
tJ





                                       C-25

-------
                               Table C-7

                       Estimated Cost to  Achieve
                    Bus Noise Abatement for  Diesel
                  Powered Integral  Urban  Transit  Buses

                   Exterior         Interior              EPA
     Level            dBA              dBA           Estimated Cost

       1               86              84               $   50
       2               83              83                  195
       3               81              83                  380
       4               80              80                  875
       5               77              80                1,670
       6               75              78                3,270

Source:  Figure C-3
     Rohr Industries has found that the maintenance of a bus plays a
significant part in noise control.   While performing tests for the Sound
Attenuation Kit for Diesel Powered  Buses (reference 1), a 35'  bus powered

by a Detroit Diesel 6V-71 engine was able to meet the first three study

levels with no modification.   Actions taken by Rohr were to tighten all

loose bolts, nuts,  clamps, etc.; to insure the specified parts were

used; and that these parts were functional.

     Rohr was able to meet Level 4  by using:

     . double wrapped muffler

     . two 3-inch diameter pipes into the muffler

     . one 4-inch diameter pipe out of the muffler

     . resonator

     . 4-inch diameter tail pipe pointing down to the left center rear
       of the bus

     . acoustical absorption material on inside of hood

     . isolated valve rocker covers on engine

This bus was also tested with a vertical, roof-level exhaust.
                                  C-26

-------
     In addition to the above, to meet Level 5, the following technology
was used:
     .  contoured cooling fan shroud
     .  partition on left-hand side of the engine
     These actions differ significantly from the technology study for
those levels as costed by A.M. General and by CMC.
     Level 4 was achieved by using parts of the technology from the
Sound Attenuation Kit for Diesel Powered^ Buses and a new radiator grill.
The costs associated with bringing the bus to the indicated Level 4 is
estimated at $350.  Using the Rohr Sound Attenuation Kit technology, an
estimated cost of $650 for Level 5 appears to be a reasonable
extrapolation.
     Two major impacts on operating costs for transit buses in reducing
bus noise will be reduced fuel mileage and reduced passenger capacity.
     Table C-8 shows the estimated impact for fuel usage by level.
                               Table C-8
                     Transit Bus Miles Per Gallon
                                            EPA
                 Level                 Estimated MPG
                Current                  3.8 - 4.8
                   1                     3.8 - 4.8
                   2                     3.8 - 4.8
                   3                     3.8 - 4.8
                   4                     3.6 - 4.6
                   5                     3.4 - 4.4
                   6                     2.8 - 3.8
Source:  A.M. General
         Industry Interviews
                                 C-27

-------
     Passenger capacity should not be affected until study Level 6 is
reached.  At this level an estimated one row, or two seats, will be lost.
This loss can vary by seating arrangement, bus length, and Federal Speci-
fications.  It is possible that buses, depending on the changes in design
at Level 6, could absorb the increased engine compartment size and still
maintain the same seating capacity.
     Maintenance costs will be impacted with the changes suggested in the
technology study levels.  The cost increases are due to increased labor
and some additional parts.  Labor costs are affected by decreased access
to the engine and replacement of additional parts.
     The dollar amount of maintenance will vary between transit companies.
Maintenance costs shown in Table C-9 are estimated costs for a typical
bus and transit system.

                               Table C-9
                  Maintenance Cost for Diesel Powered
                      Integral Urban Transit Buses
                                     EPA Estimated Cost
               Level                     Per Year	
                 1                         $-0-
                 2                           70
                 3                          140
                 4                          305
                 5                          520
                 6                          830
Source:  A.M. General
         Industry Interviews

     Based on industry interviews and on a continuous integrated program,
the six levels can be achieved in an estimated 30 months, or one level
every 5 months.
                                  C-28

-------
         VI - DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL MID-ENGINE SCHOOL BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Diesel Powered Integral Mid-Engine School Buses are constructed with
the same principles as the Urban Transit Bus.  The entire bus supports
the bus weight and provides strength.
     A typical assembly sequence for this type of bus is:
     .  Chassis assembly
       - drill side rails
       - weld cross bars to the side rails
       - mount front end and front axle
       - mount rear axle and rear suspension
       - install engine, transmission, exhaust, controls, cooling
         system, electrical system, etc.
     .  Body assembly
       - build roof, both exterior and interior
       - build left side
       - build right side
       - build rear end
     .  mate body and chassis
     .  weld outriggers
     .  assemble exterior skin on all sides
     .  run engine
     .  paint
     .  complete interior
                                 C-29

-------
       - skin
       - seats
       - floors
       - windows
       - steering
       - lights, etc.
     .  complete mechanical hookup
     .  final inspect
     .  road test
     .  deliver to shipping lot
     Typical subassemblies are:  seats, windows, engine and transmission,
axles,  and lights.
     Flexibility is present in the assembly process.  Each bus order is
built to the individual state specifications and individual local school
district specifications.  In all cases Federal specifications must be
met.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated cost to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
are shown in Figure C-7.  These costs should be considered costs for a
typical bus.  Costs are based on component vendors and estimates.
     Table C-10 summarizes the estimated costs to reduce bus noise.
                                 C-30

-------



r^
i
u

S
D
O
M
PH

INE SCHOOL BUSES
o
W
1
n
H
s

2
M
o
W
H


C/N,
j~i
PP


W
PH

H
to
O
0


C/3
pi

O CO
hJ W
CU
O cd
cd 0
O -rl
C_> 4J
co
C! W
g
O 4J
M CO
u o
o
o
H <$
M PQ
CU t3
c
M
VJ
O
H 
cu

1 oo r-~ r O
O -* CM iH O
1 CM O * CM
w * r>
cn *3* r^-
co-



o oo r^ o O
**O CM ON **O ON
CM 00 O 00 OO
*v \ r. A
CM m CM cn
r-l CM





I in o m o
o ON o oo r^
1 H 00 "3- CM
CO- r_| cn


1 00 (^ O O
O CM ON VO ON
1 oo o oo oo
s n rt r>
CM m CM cn
i-l CM
 cn o oo
oo oo oo oo r^



K
VJD cn o r^ in
oo oo oo t^ r^





i i CM cn 
cd
j
rl
4J
CO
CU

4J
CO
O
U

a
rl
r^3

*r3
cl


00
CO-

ll

X*s
<^
13
cn
00

cn

r-l
CU

CU


rt
O
^o

































ON
r^*
CO
f,
rH
CO- -CO-

ll

s-^

cu







II

s~*^
^J
PQ
13
00

V 	 /

m
H
CU
^
(U













.
r~\
cu

CU
I-l

K*N
^_l
o
4J
cd
r-H
3
00
cu
t-l
PQ

00


cd

^.j
o
M-l

CU

CU
13

TJ
CU
4-1

rl


CO

CO
4J
CO
0
0

r?
41
CD
3
*"U
d
H
*
                                 C-31

-------
                              Table O10

                  Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise
                     Abatement for Diesel Powered
                   Integral Mid-Engine School Buses

                   Exterior         Interior              EPA
     Level            dBA              dBA           Estimated Cost

       1               86               88                  -0-
       2               83               86               $  248
       3               80               83                3,027
       4               77               80                4,417
       5               75               78                7,200

Source:  Figure C-4
     A major cost impact for this type of bus is reduced fuel mileage

for the various levels.   Table C-ll,  shows the estimated impact for fuel

usage by level.


                              Table C-ll

                             Fuel Mileage

                                          EPA
                                      Estimated MPG
7
7
7
6.7
6.3
5.6
- 9
- 9
- 9
- 8.6
- 8.1
- 7.2
Source:  Crown Coach
         A.M. General
         Industry Interviews
     For the impact on maintenance refer to Diesel Powered Integral

Urban Transit Bus.
                                 C-32

-------
     Based on industry data and a continuous integrated program,  lead
time requirements for each level are:
                                        EPA
                  Level          Estimated Lead Time

                    1                  Current
                    2                 18 Months
                    3                 18 Months
                    4                 24 Months
                    5                 36 Months
                                 C-33

-------
         VII ~ DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL REAR ENGINE SCHOOL BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Diesel powered integral rear engine school buses have the same type
of construction as urban transit buses.  The floor, sides, ends and roof
are joined together into a one piece construction.
     As with the urban transit bus, the advantage to this type of con-
struction is more efficient use of material and space.
     A typical assembly sequence for this type of bus is:
     . assemble side rails and cross members
     . assemble to frame assembly
       - front and rear axles
       - suspension
       - side rails
       - fire wall
       - air piping
       - engine and transmission
       - radiator and fan
     . mount front platform for driver
     . install long half sections across frame
     . install flooring
     . mount side posts
     . assemble roof
     . assemble side panels
     . hook up connections
       - from engine
       - electrical
       - gauges
     . undercoat
     . remove temporary tires and mount permanent
     . paint bus
                                   C-34

-------
     .  install
       - windows
       - finished floors
       - seats
       - final trim, etc.
     .  final inspection
     .  road test
     .  delivery to shipping lot
     Typical subassemblies are:  seats, windows, engine and transmissions,
roof exterior and interior, axles and lights.
     Flexibility is present in the assembly process.   Each bus order is
built to the Federal, State and local government specifications.  The
specifications can and do vary from state to state and locality to
locality.  In addition, each school district can and does have their
own additional specifications.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
are shown in Figure C-8.  These costs should be considered costs for a
typical bus.  Costs were based on component vendors and estimates.
Gillig Bros, Inc., the builder of this bus, chose not to participate in
the study.
     Table C-12 summarizes the estimated costs to reduce bus noise.
                                 C-35

-------
































oo
I
u

H
o
H


















































CO
W
CO
l~~t
pq

i-4
o
o
8
CO


O
W co co
i :=> P4
^ H-
fJ Q^ .q
PS W O
PM Q
^ H vo
h 0 ^
W U rH
g
H

S
PH
M
s
o
PM

l_J
W
co
W
H
0
















CU
4-J
g
H
<3 4J
PH CO
W W

4J
CO
O
O






4-1
to cu
O 4J
O ctf
g
.d -rl
bfl 4-J
H tO
W W




4J CU
CO 4-J
O cpj
H

3 to
W




}_,
o
H <3
J-i Pq
CU T3
4-J
C
M







J_J
o
H <;
M pq
OJ TJ
4-1
X






H
0)

s
.
13
O
P-I in o m o o
c^ oo r^ ^* r^
4J rH CO 00 VO CM
C 
0) i-H ro
>-l -CO-
^i
j3
CJ








I in o in o o
O O rO ON CT\ CTi
i in vo m o o
\ ^ ^
rH CM O-
CO-






1 1 I 0 O O
o o o in m o^
i i i m vo m








* m
oo oo oo oo r^- i^-











rH CM CO * m VO
































to
3
pq
4-J
H
CO
c
2
H
fi
rt
"S
l*-\
H
n)

bO
0)
4-1
(3
M

t-rj
0)
1-1
0)

o
PH

rH

to
OJ
H
Q

01
a
f-l
3
O
CO











A
W rH
4J  CT\
C 0) O
>-{
O "
H 0 ||
M rH
0) -CO- /-N
4-1 <1
c u pq
H TJ
cu <3 oo
-d pq r^
3 -a v_^
rH
a co ^o
C oo
,_J ^J/ __J
ri ^"*" ^~i
0)
to ro >
0) 0)
4J T) i-4
a
rt >
H rH
4J CM ON
to -co-
ot CO
rH II
4-1 0)
tfl > /-N
o ai 
-------
                               Table CXL2

                  Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise
              Abatement for Diesel Powered Integral Rear
                          Engine School Buses
                   Exterior
     Level            dBA

       1               86
       2               83
       3               81
       4               80
       5               77
       6               75

Source:  Figure C-8
Interior              EPA
   dBA           Estimated Cost

    84        Currently building to
    83              $  195
    83                 380
    80                 875
    80               1,670
    78               3,270
     For the impact on operating costs, maintenance costs and lead times
refer to the Diesel Powered Integral Urban Transit Bus.
                                  C-37

-------
            VIII - DIESEL POWERED INTEGRAL INTERCITY BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     Diesel Powered Integral Intercity Buses utilize the same type of
construction as the Diesel Powered Integral Urban Transit Buses.  The
complete structure is load bearing and is a more efficient use of
material and space as compared to a conventional school bus.
     A typical assembly sequence for integral intercity buses is:
     . fabricate component parts
     . assemble floor structure
     . assemble front and back ends
     . assemble sides
     . assemble roof
     . joint floor, ends, sides and roof
     . install air lines, electrical interior
     . install insulation
     . paint
     . letter
     . complete interior of bus
       - lavatory
       - inside side panels
       - inside roof panels
     . install front and rear axles
     . install air conditioning
     . install cooling system
     . complete steering
     . complete instrumentation
     . install engine and transmission
     . install seats
     . install windows
     . complete air and electrical hookups
                                 CX38

-------
     .  inspect
     .  road test
     .  delivery to shipping lot
     Typical subassemblies are;  seats, windows, engine and transmission,
axles,  air conditioning, parts of cooling system, air lines and lights.
     Quality control checks are maintained throughout the manufacturing
process.  Before a bus is moved to the next work station the production
foreman and inspector must sign a check list.
     The CMC intercity coach is assembled on the same production line as
the CMC transit bus, starting with the paint operation,
     Flexibility is present in the assembly process.  Each bus is indi-
vidually ordered and normally unique to that purchaser.  The types of
assembly lines employed lend themselves to variety in production and
changes in mid-production.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
are shown in Figure C-9.  These costs should be considered costs for a
typical bus.  Costs are based on information from component vendors and
estimates.
     CMC, MCI, and Eagle International have not provided any cost
information.
     Table C-13 summarizes the estimated costs to reduce bus noise.
                                 C-39

-------
































CTi
1
U

W
2
CD
O
M
Fn




















































C/3
M
CO
CD
pa

t*
H
H

r^
H
H^
H CO CO
Co Pd
J pq <

rH CO Is-
o <^
P U rH
W
Pi
O
PH

E3
co
W
H
P





















CU
4-1
cd
B
H
<: -u
P-i co
W W

4J
co
o
o






4J
CO CU
0 4J
cj n)
3
^5 -rl
M 4-1
H CO
W W





4J CU
CO 4-1
o cd
CJ Fj
iH
& 4J
o co
rJ W





M
O
H 
cu
i-3




o m m o o
in o> t^> i- r~-
H 00 vO 
t5
p

H
cd
H
bO
cu
4-1
rl
13
cu
rJ
CU
s
0
PH

rH
cu
CO
cu
H


CU
O
M
3
O
CO

 
Cfl
& "
OrH
i-H CTv
rH-00-
O
M-l ||

CO /-*
cfl 
CO CU
H rJ
O
C "
0
M rH
O 
H
^ II
CU
4J /-^
C 
4J CU
cd i-J 
p CTN
H > O
4-1 O vO
CO  -CO-
cu
n n
4-1
CO x-v s-*.
O 
*H r r
P-I cu cu
W |-4 rJ

 
CU
4-1
O
K
C-40

-------
                              Table C-13

                  Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise
                 Abatement for Diesel Powered Integral
                            Intercity Buses
     Level

       1
       2
       3
       4
       5

Source:  Figure C-9
          Exterior
             dBA

              86
              83
              80
              77
              75
Interior
   dBA

    84
    83
    80
    80
    78
     EPA
Estimated Cost
   $
   50
  195
  875
1,670
3,270
     Table C-14 presents estimated impact for fuel mileage.
                              Table C-14

                             Fuel Mileage
                    Level

                   Current
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
Source:
MCI Ltd.
A.M. General
                               EPA
                          Estimated MPG
6
6
6
5.7
5.4
4.8
- 7
- 7
- 7
- 6.7
- 6.3
- 5.6
     Maintenance,  lead times and passenger capacity changes are

estimated to be the same as shown for Diesel Powered Integral Urban

Transit Buses.
                                 C-41

-------
             IX - PARCEL DELIVERY, MOTOR HOME CHASSIS BUSES

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
     These buses are similar to conventional school buses in that they
are not of integral construction.  The Parcel Delivery and some Motor
Home chassis are produced using a two-stage manufacturing process.
     The chassis may not be built on the same assembly line as conven-
tional school bus chassis, but the sequence of assembly would be the
same.  For a description of this sequence, refer to Gasoline Powered
Conventional School Buses.
     The body builder mounts the body shell onto the chassis and com-
pletes the interor of the shell.  Body builders do not alter or change
the chassis as received.  Typically this size bus is produced on the
same assembly line as the conventional school bus.  For a description
of this sequence, refer to Gasoline Powered Conventional School Buses.
     The CMC Transmode chassis is offered as a conversion of the CMC
Motor Home.  The Transmode chassis can be converted into a bus.  This
chassis includes the shell.  GMC currently does not have plans to offer
a bus built on this chassis.
     The actions required to reduce noise for the Parcel Delivery
chassis are considered identical to Conventional Gasoline Powered School
Buses except for some small details.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs to achieve the proposed study levels of noise
for Parcel Delivery chassis and motorhome chassis vehicles are shown in
Figure C-10.  These costs are for a typical bus.  The costs are based on
information from component vendors and estimates.  The chassis builders
and body builders contacted did not respond.
     Table C-15 summarizes the estimated costs for this type of bus.
                                  C-42

-------
rH
Cd -U 
<3 4J CD U
PM O O CO
W H U W
>> 4J .
<3 *d CO 4J
PM o o co
w M u w
CO
rl
^ co ^J 
PM co co -u
M cfl o co
60 CO 4J
H O CO
W CJ H
U 
13 CO -U
o o co
hJ CJ W
Interior
dBA
Exterior
dBA
cu
CU
o m in o m
m co vo CM co
rH CO 00 O
rH
O CM CM rH tf
o o m m o
m rH co o 
rH CO * U1
m o m m o
r^> m ^* in cr^
CM C7v O CTs rH
rH rH CM
CO-
I o o m m
O rH rH O ITI
1 rH CM >* v5
co-
co o o m in
oo oo co r^ r^
*
co o r~~ in co
oo co r^* r^* r^-
rH CM CO * m
            CO

            PO
            O
            O

            O
            cfl
            C
            O
            H
            4J
            c
            a)
            O
            U
            CU
            i-l
            CU
            >
            o
            PM

            01

            H
            rH
            O
            CO
            rt
            a
            co
            o
            O
            C/3   *
                  M
                  O
 00
 
-------
                              Table C-15
                  Estimated Cost to Achieve Bus Noise
                   Abatement For Parcel Delivery and
                       Motor Home Chassis Buses
                    Exterior     Interior         EPA
          Level       dBA          dBA        Estimated Cost
            1          83           83          $   50
            2          80           80             135
            3          77           80             360
            4          75           75             820
            5          73           75           1,055
Source:  Figure C-10

     The primary differences in costs between this bus and the gasoline
conventional school bus are:  this type of bus incorporates a mixture of
technology packages from the school bus and transit bus, and different
component noise level requirements.
     Maintenance cost, lead times and operating cost changes are esti-
mated to be the same as shown for the Gasoline Powered Conventional
School Bus.
                                  C-44

-------
                         X - ENFORCEMENT COSTS

INTRODUCTION
     Estimated costs for enforcement are included.in the cost estimates
presented in the preceding sections.  Manufacturers contacted would not
provide detailed information concerning enforcement costs,  other than to
say they are included in their cost estimates.
     To understand the potential cost/impact of enforcement requirements
the bus industry was divided into four segments:
     .  non-integral school buses
     .  integral school buses
     .  transit buses
     .  intercity buses
     An estimated cost per bus was developed for  each segment.   Since
some companies produce buses in more than one segment, each segment has
been treated separately.

METHODOLOGY
     The estimated costs have been based on the following points:
     .  Test requirements are based on an Enforcement Scenario developed
       by EPA, summarized in Figure C-ll.
     .  Tests are conducted for compliance testing only,  and not for
       gathering engineering data.
     .  When chassis and body tests are required,  each test  is considered
       a separate test.
     .  Construction of a test facility is not required.
     .  Cost per test for Product Verification or  Selective  Enforcement
       Auditing is $95 (Figure C-12).
     .  Equipment cost per year is $600 (Figure C-12).
                                 C-45

-------
      C/3
      H
W
O
H
oo
Pd
      JS
%
s
&
w

2S
Ed

x-s
^Sj
13
0
rH pq
cd ^
^
60 p!
cu o
4-J -H
H a
! 3
O 4J

(3
O
U

^
CO
H
to
CO
cd
rH 43
cd o
J-i ^-^
60
4J O
(3 -H
M 4-1
1 U
C 3
O J-l
S3 4-1
co
o






a
0
H
4J
O
3
4-1
CO
13
0
U

rH
cd
^J
60
CU
4J
5


-1-1 C*
to rj
cu
H 
<^ cd
Pd S
CO




CO
4-J
co
cu
H

^
PM

^
**s
60
H
S3


|jj
O
CO
1 1 ^^^
CO rH
0) O
H

PM

^
rH
N-^

60
H
W

Jj
O
CO
H X-S
CO rH
[V] x-/
H
*
^ X
Fd cd
co s






CO
4-1
CO
cu
H
>



y^y
H
*^x

*
60
H



O
tJ





CO
^
PQ
w
0
01
p.

4









O
m







o





o
rH





O







m
CN




o
rH













1
1





1

1
a
cu

13
o co
U 3
pq

CU rH
J-l 0
cu o
O 0
PM oo

CU rH
t3 d
H a
rH O
O i-t
CO 4-1
cd
o



o
in







o





o
rH





o
m







m
CN




o
rH













1
1





I



1
a
cu
> CO
(3 3
O pq
0
T3 O
 M
O E~i
PH
(3
rH Cd
CU 4=
co M
cu p
H
P



1







1





1





1







1




1





0
m






o
CN





OO


rH CO
cd 3
J-i pq
60
CU rH
4-1 O
C 0
M 43
CJ
13 CO
CU
J-l CU
CU 13
& -H
O 60
p [ rt
w
rH 1
CU 13
CO -rl
cu |sj
H
P



1







1





1





1







1




1





0
in






o
CN





00

CO
rH 3
cd pq
J-i
60 rH
cu o
4J O
(3 43
H O
CO
cu cu
U 60
O 13
PM W

rH J-l
CU Cd
CO CU
CU prf
H
P



1







1





1





1







1




1





0
m






0
CN





OO


rH
cd

60
CU
4-1
pj
1  |
co
TJ 3
cu pq
J-i
cu >-,
& 4J
O -H
PM O
J-l
rH CU
0) 4-1
CO pi
CU H
H
P



O
in







o
CN





O
rH





0
m







o
rH




m





i
i






i
i





I

o
4-J

5J^

a to
cd 3
pq
J-l CO
CU -H
> co
H CO
rH Cd
CU 43
P U

rH CU
cu 3
o o
cd
PM

                                                                                                                                                         CO
                                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                                         CO
                                                                                                                                                   o

                                                                                                                                                   ^
                                                                                                                                                   cu
                                                                                                                                                         fi
                                                                                                                                                         cu
                                                                                                                                                         c
                                                                                                                                                         cu
                                                                                                                                                   4-1
                                                                                                                                                   p.
                                                                                                                                                   cu
                                                                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                                                                         to
                                                                                                                                                         cu
                                                                                                                                                         co
                                                                                                                                                         cd
                                                                                                                                                         a
                                                                                                                                                         rt

                                                                                                                                                         13
                                                                                                                                                         CU
                                                                                                                                                         co
                                                                                                                                                         J-l
                                                                                                                                                         CU
                                                                                                                                                         I    <:
                                                                                                                                                          X    PM
                                                                                                                                                          td    PL)
                                                                                                                                                                CU
                                                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                                                J-l
                                                                                                                                                                3
                                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                               CO
                                                                                         046

-------
                             FIGURE C-12

           ESTIMATED COST PER TEST (EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR)
                            1976 DOLLARS
  I.   Manpower:

              2 Technicians @ $35/day each        $70
              1 Engineer @ $50/day each            50
                                                 $120

 II.   Time required to set up, run,  record and file
       necessary data                                         4  Hours

III.   Average miles driven:  20 @ cost of $1.75/mile
       which includes:

          -   Driver
          -   Gas and oil
              Other expenses related  to a test, e.g.,
              test site, etc.

 IV.   Cost per test:

          ($120 v 2) + $35 = $95

  V.   Equipment cost $6,000 with a useful life of
       10 years or a cost per year of $600.
Source:  General Motors Corporation
         A. M.  General
         International Harvester
         General Radio
                                C-47

-------
     Based on the above points,  a weighted average for each segment of
the bus industry was made to develop an estimated cost per bus for
enforcement purposes.

ESTIMATED COSTS
     The estimated costs per bus for enforcement are shown in Figures
C-14, C-16, C-18, and C-20.   These costs should be considered as typical
for a bus of that type.
     Table C-16 summarizes the estimated costs for non-integral school
buses.

                              Table C-16
                    Estimated Enforcement Cost for
                       Non-Integral School Buses
                                            EPA
                       Test             Estimated Cost
                Exterior (Chassis)         $ .46
                Interior (Body)              .73
                                          $1.19
Source:  Figures 14 and 16

     Table C-17 summarizes the estimated costs for integral school buses.
                              Table C-17
                Estimated Enforcement Cost  for Integral
                   School Levels  for All Study  Levels
                     Test            Estimated  Cost/Test
                Exterior and
                Interior                   $8.70
 Source:   Figure C-16
                                 C-48

-------
CO
rH

a

w
J \
i QJ
^J -*-1 P** t-4 qj
" j>' g
^-. 4J
13 0)
CO Q) ,. -X) ^i Q)
4J O 2 Q) J-l M
H 3 flj co cd cd

!=) o ** PQ en
M C
PL, 0
4J 0)
CU M rH
^ Cd "4-1 Cd
>-i J3 O 4J
cd c/3 O
S H
*- -H
rH " 4-> 
cd .,, co T)
4-1 ** 0) O
0 - B rJ
H .2 O On
r P




t-O
p^
c^
H











^
P^
OS







O
cS "o
I
4-1

O
P-i
w
rH
cd 'O
4J O
O M
H Pi
O
H .
4J Tj
to o
fll Lj
Si W
6 pn
O
P
S-l
o
P-
w
rH .
Ctf TJ
4J O
O !-i
H to










\
r*^  *t
si- CN oo m
rH


00 f* 1 OS VO
  CD  
CO 00 1 OO OO
rH CN Si"
m CN o vo
OO CN CN 00
m si- I os o
\ A CD ** M
oo m I t- o
H CO

8r*x. \5 -^
co I r-* m
vO LO ^D CtN vO
 1 
si- CM vO VO

rH r-* CO CO OS
in co co os si-
i^ sr o co
rH CN
rH Sf CO OS CO
in r^ co vo o
vO CN si" O O
V * ft * *
St CO rH OS f>-
rH
m m sr CN
oo oo I sr co
ON OO O ON -3"
CO CN o" CO
tH -H

in co co vo sr
rH m CN sr vo
CN rH ST CN CO
rH
O 00 CO O VO
O 00 CN Os Os
CN O -* rH r--
> M l *s
sr co CM co
rH -H
rH
cd
C
0 M
4-1 iH CD
0) 4J 4J
rH Cd CO
o d eu
H O CD C >
>  60 T3 
-------
W
M

fa
t>
0)
4J

s ^
4J ^s
W
W J-i
0]
rH O
Ctf O
U
O
H
CO
^^
CO 4J
CO
H
4J CO
05 3
o pq
CJ
rl
> cu
P^ PD
4-1
CO
.0)
H
>
PM
&
60
H
33
-d
H
S
&
O
iJ
43
bO
H

-d
3
S
O
hJ
43
60
H
S3
d
H
S
&
O
hJ
00
rl
W
13
H
a
&
O
iJ
43
 O -* CO
   
co-
vo r- oo O
ro in O rH H
   

rH vo CO CM
i-i c~ o in en
   
rH H

^ co r~ vo
in 00 O CM rH
   

a\ CM c^ rH
CO vO O i-H iH
   

CM in i-l v>
CM fO O iH O
   

m m m in
r^ t r-~ r-^
fo co o m n
s V. *i n
CM CM CM CM

cn ro ro co
vO vD ^D vO
vO vD O >>D >>O
f\ ft ft A
rH rH l-l rH
C/>
o o o o
m m o in in
O> CT\ CTi O*\
c/>
o o o o
m m in in
r-^ r^ O r-> i~-
*. w\ ^ ^
-3- st 
*
rH CM O O O
   
c/>
CTN 00 rH 00
r- cri vo vo
CM vd O CT\ O
* *  ft
 60 T) (U (8
0) S T3 M 4J S3
43  0 0 d
O O (3 Pn H
o
o
rH
CO-
vC
>a-

co-
CD
CM

-------
        >>  cu

            (0
        CO f,
        4-1 
        CO
        CU  4J
        H  CU
        CO
        VI
B
 I

w

pq
 o
H
4-1
 CO

I
Q
            0)
            O
                   vD   vO   in
                                         fO   CM
       VO
       O
       O
                                                                  en

4-1
 CU   0)
^   5-1
            a
            o
            U
                   CM    CM   i-l
                                          CM
                                                                  O
                                                                  O
                   13
                    5-1
                   M
                         5-1
                         O
                             CO
                             cfl
 bO
.-(
                                                                   O
                                                                   H
                                                                          c
                                                                          o
                                                                          I-l
                                                                          4J
                                                                          U
                                                                          CU
 0)
 o
 M
 3
 O
CO
                                                                                c
                                                                                ni
                                                                                 I
                                                                               o
                                                                        en
                                                                        w
                                                         C-51

-------
 I
O

cu
4J
H H
4-1 v-'
W 4J
to
cd u
4->
H

CO
3
pq
S 4-"
w en
H


cq
j-i
cu
4J
o
o
>
PM


CO
cu
H
>
PM

< 2
V)
4->
C H
CU 0)
d PH
H 4J
3 en
o* o
w o
en
4J -C
H t-

Company

H
a
nd
s

3
,C
H
W
13
il
&
O
hJ

H
W
T3
s
&
^
,C
60
W
T)
g
&
3
S
EC
en
S
H
CB
0)
^



d- o\

iriinsi-irisfvooO'*
iHrHiHiHrHr- IfO-d-

OOOOOOOO

v>vDrO(^OOO>X>vO
Lninr~-oocriro^or^
i-i r- oo

-3-
tninioiAu^iooo
iHi-HHiHiHHfOfO
^>vo
o> CT o^ o^ o* o^ r^- r^
co-
oooooooo
miOLOinmLom^
r^i^r^r^r^r^.r^r-
-sr*vr*cjNiHo-)iriocNvo
OOrHiHiHcN3- en CM
*0 M
MM 
0
m

0
t)
en
rrt
Average b<
CT>
rH
i-H
on
o
i-~
oo
o
oo
to















CD
60
CO
J-i
^
Urown
-a

60
H
tH
H
rn
Weighted (
                                                                                             en
                                                                                             cu
                                                                                             H
                                                                                             a    i
                                                                                             PH
                                                                                             4-)   CM
                                                                                             en   iH
                                                                                             O    I
                                                                                             o   u
                                                                                             cr1
                                                                                             en
                                                                                             0)
                                                                                             13
                                                                                             O

                                                                                             ti
                                                                                             M
 I
O

 CO
 cu
 t-i

 60
H
 CU
 0
 5-1
 3
 O
173
                                                           C-52

-------
            ,0  M
                n)
             to ^3
            4J CO
             CO
             0)  4J
            <
            w
            co
CO
CM
                      ON
                      St
                           \o
                           CM
CO
CTi
                            oo
                            t-l
                            00
                             *v
                            -3-
O
VO
vj
st
en
VD
CM
s
CM
CM
t*^ CO
CM st

                                                  O
                                                  O
                r~1

                9
                o
               a
                       CO
                       M
                       O
 n)
 ai
      cfl
      r<
      d)

      g
     u
                                 OJ
                O
                3
                                      cs
                                      60
 co
 M

5
       a
       4J
       o
       H
              CO

              (3
              O
              H
              4-1
              O

              CO
 OJ
 u

 3
 O
CO
      I
     u

     I
     o
                                                        C-53

-------
oo

T3
<
H
)
1

O O O 0 O
o oo oo r~~ m
xr LO VD m r^
in n

o o o o o
c^ 03 oo in o
^i CNI CN in iH
i-H iH

O O O O O
r T 1 ro u^i O
rH iH O r^
r-t

O O O O O
oo oo vt in vo
CN ro 
O O O O O
-
00000
^" \C P^ OS O
m m
40-
o o o o o
o o o o o
O*\ ^ 0s* O^ O^
t-H rH tt iH i |

O O O O O
vO vO ^O *iO \^
r^ t^ r^ r^- r^

O O O O O
m in in m m
i^ t-~ r~ r^ p~
-a- 
O O O O O
m m ^D vo M
 r~ os o ro
 r^ en os
rH CN O rH iH
CN tH rH
General Motors
A.M. General
Flxible
Highway Products
Others
o
00
r~-

O
o
ro

0
m
rH
-C/>












-------
 >% cu
.0  H
    cd
 CO  JS
 4J  CO
 cn
 cu  4-1
c/a
00   vO
           oo
           CN
O
in
CO
4J
H
c
!=>






6^
HI
5-1
cfl
C/}

J_)
(11
UJ
^
5-i










(^
1
&
O
O






-a- vo <) o v> o in
iH n cn CM -* in
CM -3" ^O CO vO
Oi
rH
II
CO
CU
H
c
cd
p.
o
o
5-1
cu
&
o in rH 01 in w
r-\ t^ ^ IT* V-) O
iH CO ^- O *
1 Jvo
rn ux
O
0
rH
II
rH
cd
4-1
O
H
.
H 5^
ct) (1)
0 J3
o g
rl 3
rt C
Cd
a TJ
^3 ft j! CU
O CU O /-^ i-l 4J
Cfl 4-1 Cd rH Cfl 3
O G 0s-' 4J ft
U H O 4J O S
CD EH O
C CU U 5-i O U
3 iH  0 >
O 60 S 4J CU /-v
5-1 cfl . O 5-1 H
U W O g CM ^
























rH
rH
m i
u
C
o w
H p^
a o
CU H
CO PH

 
01
o
5-i
3
O
CO
                                              055

-------
T3
0)
U
H rH
4-1 '
cn
W 4-1
CO
to o
4-1
O
H
CO
3
W ~4J
W CO
H
4-1 CO
cn 3
o M
U
> S
PM CM


co
 CT
Company
60
H
W
T3
rl
S
!5
O
rJ
a
H
a
T3
3
>
O
rJ
M
H
PS
T3
H
a
&
3
,c
U5
PC
T3
g

nJ
x:
bO
x
CO

~^
VJ
n)
0)
>->


ro \O CM ON rH
ro rH ^H -J- ro
CN rH

r- ro cs O vo
CTi CO
co-
in in oo m o
CTi rH C7\ CSJ

r- vf * * cn

o o o o o
co-
in o- 
o o o o o

cn rH rH cn cn
>* rH
co-
d- 
H cn CM tf cn

-------
Table C-18 summarizes the estimated cost for transit buses.
                              Table C-18

                Estimated Enforcement Cost for Transit
                      Buses for All Study Levels

                   Test            Estimated Cost/Test
                Exterior and
                Interior                   $3.00

Source:   Figure C-18
Table C-19 summarizes the estimated cost for Intercity buses.
                              Table C-19

               Estimated Enforcement Cost for Intercity
                      Buses for All Study Levels

                   Test             Estimated Cost/Test

               Interior and
               Exterior                 $11.00

Source:  Figure C-20


     Figures C-13, C-15, C-17, and C-19 provide backup information for

the Summary Tables.
                                  C-57

-------
                              Appendix C
                              References

1.   "Sound Attenuation Kit for Diesel Powered  Buses,"  submitted by
     Rohr Industries,  Inc., to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
     Report RII-SAK-402-0101,  February 1975.
2.   "A Study to Determine the Economic Impact  of Noise Emission
     Standards in the Bus Manufacturing Industry," Draft Final  Report
     submitted by A.  T. Kearney, Inc., under  EPA Contract No. 68-01-3512,
     prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement and  Control,  September
     1976.
                                 C-58

-------
                              APPENDIX D
              ESTIMATES OF DEMAND ELASTICITIES FOR URBAN
             BUS TRANSIT AND INTERCITY BUS TRANSPORTATION
     This Appendix reviews some of the pertinent econometric literature

and reports estimates made of the fare-elasticity of demand for both

intracity and intercity bus transit.  The estimating model is based on

one developed by Nelson.   The cross-sectional test of intra-urban

transit demand in a sample of U.S. metropolitan areas used in Nelson's

model is repeated for the year 1974.  Results are compared with Nelson's

estimates for the years 1960 and 1968, and some tentative explanations

for the observed lower fare elasticity in 1974 are offered.

     For intercity bus travel demand, the same model is applied to time

series of annual aggregate U.S. data.  The fits are generally quite

satisfactory, subject to the caveat that the time series sample may

overstate the significance of the results when substantial autocorrela-

tion is present.

     Both time series and cross-section estimates reveal fare-elasticities

of demand that are of the same order of magnitude, ranging from -0.20 to

-0.80.  This range is somewhat above the industry rule-of-thumb of -0.30,

but is by no means contradictory, given the nature of the approximations and

data involved.  The data also exhibit positive cross-elasticities with

respect to competing modes (auto and rail), though the precision of the

estimates is not adequate for predictive purposes.
                                  D-l

-------
     Part 1 of Appendix D reviews the econometric model and describes




the notation.  Parts 2 and 3 record the results of the statistical tests




for urban transit demand and intercity bus travel demand,  respectively.




These results are applied in Parts 7-A and 7-B of the Economic Impact




Analysis (Section 7).









             D - I   ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF TRANSIT DEMAND









     Consider a given geographical area, such as an urban center or the




United States intercity highway network.  Bus service B, defined as




vehicle miles of service provided per year, may be thought of as a factor




input in the production of transportation services to the population of




the given region.  Since passengers are to some extent flexible as to




trip schedules and destination points, but not perfectly so, bus service




B encounters diminishing returns in the production of transportation




services as saturation of the potential market increases.




     Demand D for bus service, defined as revenue passenger miles of




service obtained per year, depends both upon the quantity B of service




provided and upon other demand characteristics of the market served:




the age and income of the population, the availability of auto, rail,




and other competing modes of transportation, the fare per mile F charged




to revenue passengers  (and fares on competing modes), and other exogenous




factors which may differentiate one urbanized area from another or which




reflect changes in the demand for bus transit over time.
                                  D-2

-------
EQUILIBRIUM IN THE TRANSIT MARKET



     Transit firms experience total revenue equal to FD and total costs

equal to CB, where C is the average cost per mile of vehicle operation.

Nelson's paper  provides evidence that there are no scale economies in the

operations of bus transit firms, hence that a linear approximation of the

cost function does not misrepresent the empirical evidence.

     Since transit firms operate in a regulated environment, equilibrium

is not necessarily determined by the "competitive" condition that total

revenues less total costs (FD-CB) yield profits just sufficient to give

the firm a competitive return on its total invested capital.  Rather,

the regulatory authority imposes on the transit firm a constraint, such

as a rate of return criterion or a set ratio of revenues to costs, and

the firm responds accordingly.  Nelson summarizes the action of the

regulatory authority in terms of a target cost-revenue ratio k:

                              k = CB /FD.

     If k is treated as an exogenous, predetermined component of the

model, then equilibrium is determined by the condition CB = kFD.

     The full model may be written:

          Supply:  B = B (POP, AREA, D,C,k) + u
          Demand:  D = D (B, POP, F,F', Area, Auto, Hway, GNI) + v
          Equilibrium:  CB = kFD

     Here POP is the population of the given geographical region, AREA

its area, HWAY its highway capacity per capita, F1 the fare per passenger

mile on competing modes of transportation, and GNI the level of real per
                                  D-3

-------
capita income.  B (bus service supplied),  D (ridership demanded),  and F




(fare per passenger mile) are endogenous,  jointly determined variables,




while the remaining quantities, including C (cost per vehicle mile) and




k (cost/revenue criterion),  are exogenous (predetermined).   The symbols




u and v represent random, independent error terms.









DETERMINANTS OF THE COST/REVENUE RATIO K









     Urban bus transit systems have undergone a significant revolution




in ownership and profitability during the post World War II period, and




a general perspective is useful to understanding the nature of the




regulatory constraint, k.  Tables D-l and D-2 record some pertinent




statistics.  As indicated in Table D-l, there has been a persistent




decline in the operational profitability of bus transit operations, both




at a local level and in terms of national aggregates.  The assumption




that k is exogenous to the transit system is at best a crude approximation,




since other regulatory constraints on service B and the fare F certainly




come into play.




     Nelson finds that for the 1960 and 1968 cross-section samples of




urban bus transit systems, the variable k is better "explained" in terms




of regulatory variables such as private-versus-public ownership and the




locality of regulatory control than by the various operating character-




istics such as costs of operation, highway capacity, etc.   His finding




justifies treatment of k as exogenous, but it also suggests that conclusions
                                  D-4

-------
                              TABLE D-l
                TREND OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS, 1940-1975
Calendar
Year

1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
197 5p
Operating
Revenue
(millions)
$ 737.0
1,380.4
1,452.1
1,426.4
1,407.2
1,443.8
1,478.5
1,556.0
1,562.7
1,625.6
1,707.4
1,740.7
1,728.5
1,797.6
1,939.7
2,002.4
Operating
Expense
(millions)
$ 660.7
1,231.7
1,385.7
1,370.7
1,376.5
1,454.4
1,515.6
1,622.6
1,723.8
1,846.1
1,995.6
2,152.1
2,241.6
2,536.1
3,239.4
3,705.9
Cost-Revenue
Ratio

0.896
0.892
0.954
0.961
0.978
1.007
1.025
1.043
1.103
1.136
1.169
1.236
1.297
1.411
1.670
1.851
Source:  American*Public Transit Association, Transit Fact Book '75-'76
Table 4. p:preliminary.
                                  D-5

-------
of the empirical tests may be affected by the rapid increase in public


ownership of transit systems that has occurred during the past two decades


(Tables D-2 and D-3).





ESTIMATION OF THE ECONOMETRIC MODEL






     The above model is an example of an (over-)  identified simultaneous


equations model with endogenous variables B, D, and F, and exogenous


variables POP, HWAY,  C, k, AUTO,F', and GNI.  The standard technique for


estimating such models is two-stage least squares (2SLS), an adaptation


of ordinary least squares (OLS) wherein correlations between jointly


determined endogenous variables and the error terms u and v are eliminated


prior to estimation of the structural relationships.


     It should be noted, however, that the 2SLS technique is not neces-


sarily preferable to OLS, particularly where specification error is

         2
involved.   For this reason both methods of estimation are reported below.





REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES OF URBAN TRANSIT DEMAND





     Two significant studies have examined urban bus transit demand within


a given locale instead of for aggregate cross-section or time-series data.


Kraft and Domencich  use an origin-and-destination survey from the Boston


area to estimate travel demand elasticities with respect to both service


(time) and fare.  What small effects they determine fall mainly on the
                                 D-6

-------
                     ID
                     ro
                             co     co
                        ID
                        oo
                        no
                        CO
                O
                CO
        o\
        O
        O
        ro
        cn
        O
        O
            m
            r~-
            CTi
ro
ro
ro
cn
CN
CO
ro
                                                     U3
                                                     cn
                                                     in
ro
co
in
co
o
                                                                     Cn
CN
co
ro
O
                      CO
                             CO
                             co
                                     co
                                                     CTl
                                               o
                                               o
                                                       dP
                                                       O
                                                       O
            ro
            r-
            cn
                      co
                              co
                              in









CN
1
Q

W
3
EH








H
EH m
H r-
co i
S r-
to -
to co
; o
SI H
EH
 to
CO H
 EH
D <1
EH
PL, tO
O
H H
ffi U
CO W
W W
s to
O -
CJ S
H H
hi EH
m to
r-
cn
rH
^
rH


,  ,
dP
CN
rH

cn

                                ro
                                                             0\
                                CN
                                CO
                                cn

                                cn
                                CN
                                                             in
                                                             m
                                ro
                                O
                        ro
                        i-H
                        o
                                                             CN
                                dP
                                cn
                                ro
                r-
                CN
                m
                                        dP
                                        O
                                        o
                        in
                        CN
                        ro

                        cn
                                        dp
                                        o
                                        o
        ro

        m
                                                                     cn
                                                                     in
                                                                     cn
                                                                     cn
                                                                             cn
                r--
                rH
                                dP
                                o
                                cn
        o
        cn
                                                       cn
                                                       m
                                        CO
                                        co
                ro
                rH
                cn
                        dP
                        CO
                        CD
                                                                                     cn
                                        dP
                                        CO
                                        r--
                                                                                     cn
                                                                                                             tn
                                                                                                             (U

                                                                                                             cn
                                                                                                             tn
                                                                                                            -H
                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                            -H
H
rd
P
0

^
^
P
cn

C
H

ti
(U
-P
rd
6
H
P
cn
0)

5

p
o
0)
cn
o
M

o
0
ffl
-P
U
rd
EM

-P
w
C
rd
^_)
EH

>.
C
O
H
-P
rd
H
o
0
cn
cn
rt
i\
-f-t
r)
D)
fl
rd
            u
            H
            P
            U>
            H
            4J
            rd
            P
                              0)
                              rt
rH
p
 rd
 rl
 0)
&
                                      0)
                                     -p
                                      rd
                                      tn
                                      (U
                 u
                H
                                             ^      W
                                                      Q)
                                              tn     H       cn
                                              0)      U       CD
                                              Q)     -H       in
                                              &
                                                      0)
         Cn
         fi
         01
         M
         cn
         rd
        PL,
                                                             PQ
 o
4->
i
                                                -a


                                                rd

                                                Q)
                                               I
                                                3
                                                       H

                                                       &
                                                        0)
                                                        O
                                                        rd
                                                        10
                                                        cn
                                                        0)

                                                        u
                                                        rd
                                                        o
                                                        u
                                                        (U
                                                       rH
                                                       rH
                                                        O
                                                        cn
                                                        a)
                                                        Cn
                                                        d)
                                                        o
                                                        M
                                                        a>
                                                                                cu
                                                                               P

                                                                               
                                                                                        0)
                                                                                        u
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                             W
                                                D-7

-------
                               TABLE D-3


                   DATE OF INITIAL PUBLIC OWNERSHIP:
                    MAJOR U.S.  MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS
    Urbanized                 Population of                Date of
      Area                    Urbanized Area           Public Ownership
Seattle-Everett, WA              1,238.107                  1911
San Francisco, CA                2,987,850                  1912
New York, NY                    16,206,841                  1922
Cleveland, OH                    1,959,880                  1935
Boston, MA                       2,652,575                  1947
Chicago, IL                      6,714,578                  1947
Kalamazoo, MI                      152,083                  1957
Los Angeles, CA                  8,351,266                  1958
San Antonio, TX                    772,513                  1959
Dallas, TX                       1,338,684                  1960
Memphis, TN                        663,976                  1961
Grand Rapids, MI                   352,703                  1964
Wichita, KS                        302,334                  1966
San Diego, CA                    1,198,323                  1967
Source:  American Public Transit Association
                                 Dr8

-------
service variable, and their estimates of the fare elasticity are low,


between -0.09 and -0.33.  Notably, cross elasticities with respect to


automobile operating costs are neglible.

                                     4
     A more recent study by Schmenner  analyzes patronage data on a


route-by-route basis for the cities of Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford,


Connecticut.  Time series regressions for data provided by a local


bus company indicate an elasticity of demand with respect to fare per


mile of between -0.80 and -1.03.  Schmenner attributes his higher


estimates of fare elasticity to reduced error due to aggregation in his


sample.  His data also exhibit a positive cross-elasticity with respect


to automobile operating costs.


     The Nelson study (1972) is subject to Schmenner"s criticism that


the estimates are probably biased towards zero due to aggregation, since


the unit of observation is the transit system for an entire urbanized


area.  Information on a cross-section of transit systems (e.g., Table


D-4) is published annually by the American Public Transit Association


in its Transit Operating Report.  The sample each year consists of member


firms whose transit operations are devoted solely to bus transportation,


without competition from rail or trolley.  While the total sample size


(number of firms) has stayed relatively constant over the years, it is


subject to relatively high turnover from one year to the next, so that


cross-sectional comparisons for different years are not strictly


equivalent.  The 1974 sample for the present study contains 19 (of 52)


firms that were not present in either the 1960 or 1968 (Nelson) samples.
                                  D-9

-------
                                TABLE D-4
              1974 Sample of Bus Firms and Urbanized Areas
    Location
Akron, OH
Albany, NY
Albuquerque, MM
Amarillo, TX
Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD

Binghamton, NY
Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Charlotte, NC
Chattanooga, TN

Cincinnati, OH
Columbia, SC
Columbus, OH
Corpus Christi, TX
Dallas, TX
Duluth, MN
El Paso, TX
Fort Worth, TX
Greenville, SC
Harrisburg, PA
Hunt ing ton, WV
Houston, TX
Jacksonville, FL
Kansas City, MO
Lewiston, ME
Lincoln, NE
Madison, WI
Memphis, TN
Miami, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis-St. Paul,
  MN
Monterey, CA
Muskegon, MI
Nashville, TN
Norfolk, VA
Omaha, NE
Portland, OR
               Company Name

Metro Regional Transit Authority
Capital District Transportation Authority
Albuquerque Transit System
Amarillo Transit System
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Maryland Department of Transportation Mass Transit
  District
Broome County Transit
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company
Karawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority
Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.
Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation
  Authority
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company
Central Ohio Transit Authority
Corpus Christi Transit System
Dallas Transit System
Duluth Transit Authority
Country Club Bus Lines, Inc.
McDonald Transit, Inc. dba CITRAN
Greenville City Coach Lines, Inc.
Cumberland-Dauphin-Harrisburg Transit Authority
Tri-State Transit Authority
Houston Transit System/Rapid Transit Lines, Inc.
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority
Hudson Bus Lines
Lincoln Transportation System
City of Madison Department of Transportation
Memphis Area Transit Authority
Metropolitan Dade County Transit Agency
Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corporation

Twin Cities Area Metropolitan Transit Commission
Monterey Peninsula Transit
Muskegon Area Transit System
Metropolitan Transit Authority
Tidewater Metro Transit
Transit Authority of the City of Omaha
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
  of Oregon
                                  D-10

-------
                            TABLE D-4 (Continued)

     Location                            Company Name

Raleigh, NC             Raleigh City Coach Lines,  Inc.
Rochester, NY           Regional Transit Service,  Inc.
St. Louis, MO           Bi-State Transit System
San Diego, CA           San Diego Transit Corporation
Savannah, GA            Savannah Transit Authority
Springfield, MO         City Utilities of Springfield
Stockton, CA            Stockton Metropolitan Transit District
Syracuse, NY            CNY Centre, Inc.
Toledo, OH              Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority
Tulsa, OK               Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority
Waco, TX                Waco Transit System
Wichita, KS             Wichita Metropolitan Transit Authority
Wilmington, DE          Delaware Authority for Regional Transportation
Winston-Salem, NC       Winston-Salem Transit Authority

-------
                  D-II   CROSS SECTION ESTIMATES  OF  URBAN
                             BUS TRANSIT MODEL



     Nelson's results for 1960 and 1968 are presented in Tables D-6 and

D-7, along with parallel regression results for 1974.  Data sources

for the 1974 regressions are reviewed in Tables D-8  and D-9 for the

Urban Transit Bus model.



SUPPLY EQUATION ESTIMATES



     The supply equations for 1974 conform well to Nelson's previous

estimates, with the significant exception of variables C and k, both

related to the cost of operations.  As indicated in Table D-2, the last

decade has witnessed a significant increase in the number of publicly

owned and subsidized urban mass transit systems, particularly in

connection with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, which

subsidized both purchases of new equipment and conversion of private

transit firms to private ownership.

     Whereas the cost/revenue ratio k is negatively associated with

supply of service in 1960, the reverse appears to be true in 1974:

firms with greater service B, holding constant population, demand,

etc., experience higher ratios of cost to revenue.  This change

highlights the importance of the shift from private to public ownership.
                                  D-12

-------
                       TABLE D-6
Estimates of the Supply Equation
For Urban Bus Transit Service
Statistic
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Constant
(t-statistic)
In POP
In AREA
In D
In C
In R
R2
Standard Error
Number of Observations
Note: From Gary R. Nelson
Operations." Table
Characteristics of
1960a
(2SLS)
In B

-1.05
(-1.75)
.055
(0.42)
.008
(0.13)
.927
(7.08)
-.446
(-2.70)
-.511
(-2.09)
.971
.133
44
1968a
(2SLS)
In B

1.42
(1.41)
.248
(1.75)
.055
(0.76)
.727
(7.08)
-.601
(-3.66)
-.065
(-0.34)
.982
.170
51
1974
(OLS)
In B

.448
(1.68)
.193
(1.54)
.142
(1.36)
.648
(14.13)
-.043
(-0.26)
.230
(2.06)
.972
.217
52
1974
(2SLS)
In B

.359
(1.00)
.406
(1.73)
.151
(1.14)
-.007
(-0.03)
.490
(3.64)
.575
(2.03)
.958
.268
52
, "An Econometric Model of Urban Transit
4.5 of John D. Wells, et al, Economic
the Urban Transportation
Industry
(Washington ,
D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office,  1972).
                           D-13

-------
TABLE D-7
Estimates of the Demand Equation
For Urban Bus Transit Service
Statistic
Dependent Variable
Independent Variables
Constant
(t-statistic)
-(B/POP)"0'3
F
In POP
In AREA
In AUTOS
In HWAY
POURTYb
INC 15
AGE 18d
AGE 65S
1960a
(2SLS)
In D

NR
6.54
(5.84)
-4.52
(-3.70)
1.11
(17.34)
.002
(0.03)
-.106
(-0.96)

-1.61
(-1.49)
-0.40
(-0.33)
-1.74
(-1.53)
-0.87
(-0.54)
1968a
(2SLS)
In D

NR
8.81
(4.41)
-3.06
(-1.91)
1.10
(8.46)
.0208
(0.19)
-.175
(-0.44)
.156
(0.98)
-3.02
(-2.93)
-3.57
(-1.81)
-5.95
(-2.44)
-8.17
(-2.39)
1974
(OLS)
In D

7.412
(6.94)
6.81
(14.19)
-.669
(-1.25)
1.037
(6.51)
.0809
(0.52)
-.175
(-.51)
.784
(4.12)
1.215
(0.65)
.0798
(0.05)
-4.149
(-2.02)
-3.607
(-1.33)
1974
(2SLS)
In D

9.485
(3.31)
9.458
(2.91)
-0.183
(-0.20)
0.974
(4.36)
-.0069
(-0.03)
.0691
(0.13)
1.022
(2.68)
-.743
(-0.22)
-2.393
(-0.63)
-1.029
(-0.22)
-5.623
(-1.30)
   D-14

-------
                           TABLE D-7 (Continued)
Statistic

R2
Standard Error
Number of Observations
Fare Elasticity Evaluated
At Mean Fare
I9603
(2SLS)
.986
.113
44
-0.81
(-3.70)
1968a
(2SLS)
.976
.227
51
-0.67
(-1.91)
1974
(OLS)
.974
.270
52
-0.20
(-1.25)
1974
(2SLS)
.954
.356
52
-0.05
(-0.20)
Notes:  E"rom Gary R. Nelson, "An Econometric Model of Urban Transit
        Operations."  Table 4.6 of John D.  Wells et al,  Economic
        Characteristics of the Urban Transportation Industry (Washington,
        D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office,  1972).

        Percent of households below poverty level ($3,000 for 1960 and
        1968).

        Percent of households with income above  $15,000  ($10,000 in
        1960 & 1968).

        Percent of population under 18 years of  age.

        Percent of population over 65 years of age.
                                   D-15

-------
                                 TABLE D-8
Calendar
  Year

  1940
  1945
  1950
  1955
  1960
  1965
  1966
  1967
  1968
  1969
  1970
  1971
  1972
  1973
  1974
  1975p
Source:  America
         Table 13.  p: preliminary
TREND OF AVERAGE FARE, MOTOR
BUS URBAN TRANSIT, 1940 - 75
Average
Fare
6.87$
7.07
9.56
14.41
17.96
20.55
21.23
22.39
23.20
25.71
29.41
32.23
33.07
32.40
31.70
32.10
5ublic Transit
Consumer Price
Index (1967=100)
42.0
53.9
72.1
80.2
88.7
94.5
97.2
100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
Association, Transit Fact
Average
Real Fare
16.36C
13.12
13.26
17.97
20.25
21.75
21.84
22.39
22.26
23.42
25.29
26.57
26.39
24.34
21.50
19.91
Book '75-'76,
                                    D-16

-------
                                  TABLE D-9

                  Cross-Section Urban Transit Regressions:
                  Definition of Variables and Their Sources
Variable
Definition and Source
AGE 18       Fraction of Population Under Age 18 years in 1970.  U.S.
             Census of Population  (1970), Vol. I, Part 1, Table 66
              (Urbanized Areas).

AGE 65       Fraction of Population over Age 65 years in 1970.  U.S.
             Census of Population  (1970), Vol. I, Part 1, Table 66
              (Urbanized Areas).

AREA         Land Area of Urbanized Area.  U.S. Census of Population
              (1970), Vol. I, Part A, Section 1, Table 20.

AUTOS        Automobiles per Capita, by County, 1973.  Rand McNally & Co.,
             Commercial Atlas  and Marketing Guide, 107th edition.   (New
             York,  1976).

B            Line Service Bus  Miles.  American Public Transit Association,
             Transit Operating Report  (1974):  Section D, Operating
             Statistics, Item  3.

CPM          Operating Expense per Total Bus Mile.  American Public
             Transit Association, Transit Operating Report  (1974):
             Section D, Derived Statistics, Item 2.

D            Total  Re'venue Passengers.  American Public Transit Associa-
             tion.  Transit Operating Report  (1974):  Section D, Operating
             Statistics, Item  27.

F            Revenue per Revenue Passenger.  American Public Transit
             Association, Transit Operating Report  (1974):  Section D,
             Operating Statistics, Item 27 and Operating Revenues and
             Operating Expenses, Item 1.

HWAY  68      Population Per Unit of Highway Capacity, 1968.  Highway
             capacity estimated by the formula:
                                    8720x + 2500y,
             where  x is miles  of freeways and expressways and y is all
             other  road miles.  Federal Highway Administration, National
             Highway Needs Report, 1970  (91st Congress).  Washington,
             D.C.,  U.S. Government Printing Office:  49-840-0.
                                   D-17

-------
                           TABLE D-9 (Continued)

Variable                       Definition and Source

INC15        Fraction of Households with Income in Excess of $15,000 per
             year in 1970.  U.S. Census of Population (1970), Vol. I,
             Part 1, Table 183.

k            Ratio of Expenses to Revenues.  American Public Transit
             Association, Transit Operating Report (1974):  Section D,
             Income Statement, Items 1 and 2.

MPH          Bus Miles per Bus Hour (Line Service).  American Public
             Transit Association, Transit Operating Report (1974):
             Section D, Derived Statistics, Item 4.

POP          Population of Urbanized Area.  American Public Transit
             Association, Transit Operating Report (1974):  Section D,
             Operating Statistics, Item 1.

POVRTY       Fraction of Households Below Poverty Level in 1970.  U.S.
             Census of Population  (1970), Vol. I, Part 1, Table 183.
                                  D-18

-------
DEMAND EQUATION ESTIMATES









     The same phenomenon may explain the relatively poor performance of




the two-stage least squares fits for the demand equation in 1974.




Apparently, Nelson's sophisticated model is misspecified as applied to




the 1974 urban setting, and ordinary least squares estimation is probably




preferable  (that is, treating service B and average fare F as exogenous,




predetermined variables).




     The following results may be concluded from Table D-7:




          1)   Improved service levels B relative to population POP hold-




               ing constant the fare per mile F and highway capacity per




               capita HWAY, attract greater ridership.  This result has




               been found in virtually all empirical studies of urban




               transit.




          2)   Demand D is inelastic with respect to the fare F, and the




               fare elasticity has declined in absolute value since 1968.




               In part, this decline may be attributed to a fall in the




               real fare  (Table D-8) relative to rising real wages  (which




               measure the opportunity cost of travel time).  In the




               economic impact analysis covering transit buses  (Section 7,




               Part B) an average  (-0.5) of the three 2SLS point estimates




               (1960, 1968, 1974) in Table D-7 was used for the demand  (fare)




               elasticity estimate.




          3)   Bus patronage is unresponsive to measures of income dispersion




               (PVRTY and INC15), but is significantly increased in cities
                                  D-19

-------
              where the population in the 19 to 64 age group is greater.

              This result  is consistent with Nelson's finding that bus

              transit demand is determined primarily by trips to and from

              people's places of employment.

          4)   The coefficients on per-capita automobile ownership are not

              significantly different from zero, but they are mostly

              negative,  indicating a very slight positive cross elasticity

              with respect to the automobile mode of travel.
               D-III   TIME SERIES ESTIMATES OF INTERCITY
                        BUS TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
     Table D-10 records regression coefficients for the demand model as

applied to time series of intercity bus transportation statistics.   Data

sources are reviewed in Table D-ll for the Intercity Bus Model.

     The fits are generally satisfactory.   Due to the presence of signi-

ficant autocorrelation in the residuals of the log-log form of the regres-

sions  (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.31), a  first-difference formulation was

tried with somewhat better results (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.77).

     The following results are concluded from Table D-10:

          1)   Intercity bus patronage D is responsive to service B, as

               with urban transit.

          2)   The fare elasticity of intercity bus travel demand is

               about -0.50, holding constant the availability and fare
                                  D-20

-------
                              TABLE D-10
                   ESTIMATES OF THE DEMAND EQUATION
                   FOR INTERCITY BUS TRANSPORTATION,
                              1948 - 73
      Statistic
Dependent Variable
Independent Variables
  Constant
  (t-statistic)
  In B

  In POP

  In F

  F/FRAIL

  In AUTO

  In GNI

  In HWAY
R2
Standard Error
Durbin-Watson
Number of Observations
 OLS
 In D
-16.14
(-3.25)
   .953
(10.95)
   .493
 (2.08)
  -.448
(-3.10)
  -.026
(-1.14)
  -.693
(-3.25)
   .207
 (1.30)
  -.142
   .985
   .015
  1.31
    26
2SLS
 In D
OLS
A In D
-16.03
(-2.99)
.959
(6.90)
.501
(1.78)
-.446
(-3.00)
-.026
(-1.13)
-.685
(-2.61)
.201
(1.03)
-.135
.985
.015
1.31
26
.044
(1.72)
1.003
(8.12)
-.143
(-.13)
-17.47
(-3.30)
-.030
(-1.46)
-2.283
(-2.37)
.332
(2.34)

.919
.017
1.77
25
Note:  The 2SLS estimates treat In B as a jointly determined dependent
       variable, identified by the excluded variables In C and In K.
       aFirst-difference form of the demand equation:  the constant reflects
       a trend coefficient;  In F is replaced by the first difference in F;
       F/FRAIL is replaced by the first difference in F/FRAIL; all other
       variables are replaced by the first differences in natural logarithms.
       The coefficient AF implies a fare elasticity of -0.497, evaluated at
       the mean fare.
                                  D-21

-------
                              TABLE D-ll

            INTERCITY BUS TRANSIT TIME SERIES REGRESSIONS:
              DEFINITION OF VARIABLES AND THEIR SOURCES
VARIABLE
AUTO
B
               DEFINITION AND SOURCE

Passenger Car and Taxi Registrations,  U.S., per
capita.  Department of Transportation,
Summary of Transportation Statistics,  Table 9.

Vehicle Miles Operated.  Regular-Route Inter-
city Service, Class I Carriers.  National
Association of Motor Bus Owners, Fact Book,
Table 4.
                    Cost per mile of bus service.   Regular Route
                    Intercity Service, Class I Carriers.   Estimated as:
                       C = CPMB = (E-(TR-R))/B, where TR is total
                    operating revenues, R is passenger revenues on
                    intercity regular routes, E is total operating
                    expenses, and B is vehicle miles operated.
                    National Association of Motor Bus Owners, Fact
                    Book, Tables 3 and 4.  Deflated by the Consumer
                    Price Index (1967=1.00).
CPI
D
FRAIL=FPMR
GNI
Consumer Price Index, 1967=1.00.  U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Revenue Passenger Miles, Regular-Route Intercity
Service, Class I Carriers.  National Association
of Motor Bus Owners, Fact Book, Table 4.

Revenue per Passenger Mile, Regular-Route Intercity
Service, Class I Carriers.  F=R/D, where R is
passenger revenue on intercity routes and D is
revenue passenger miles.  National Association of
Motor Bus Owners, Fact Book, Tables 3 and 4.
Deflated by the Consumer Price Index  (1967=1.00).

Rail Fare Per Passenger Mile.  Class I rail, other
than commutation.  Department of Transportation,
Summary of Transportation Statistics, Table 1.

Real per Capita U.S. National Income.  U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

-------
                        TABLE D-ll (Continued)
VARIABLE                           DEFINITION AND SOURCE

HWAY                U.S. Intercity Highway Mileage per Capita.   Depart-
                    ment of Transportation, Summary of Transportation
                    Statistics, Table 8.

k                   Cost/Revenue, Intercity Buses.  Regular Route
                    Intercity Service, Class I Carriers:
                    k = CPMB/RPMB.

POP                 U.S. Total Population.  U.S. Department of  Commerce,
                    Bureau of the Census.

RPMB                Revenue per Mile, Buses.  Regular-route intercity
                    service:  revenue from Table 3 of National  Associa-
                    tion of Motor Bus Owners, Fact Book, Miles  Operated
                    = B.
                                   D-23

-------
     on competing modes (auto and rail).   A one percent




     increase in bus fares relative to  rail fares  results in




     an additional 0.03 percent decrease  in bus patronage.




     Automobile ownership per capita is significantly related,




     in a negative direction, to bus patronage.




3)    The income elasticity of intercity bus demand is small




     but positive (around 0.20), indicating that distributional




     impacts of fare increases do not necessarily  affect only




     lower income groups.
                         D-24

-------
                              REFERENCES

                              Appendix D


1.   Gary R. Nelson,  "An Econometric Model of Urban Bus Transit Operations".
     Chapter IV of John D. Wells et al, Economic Characteristics of the
     Urban Public Transportation Industry (Washington,  D.C.:   U.S.  Govern-
     ment Printing Office, 1972).

2.   J. Johnston, Econometric Methods, Chapter 10 (New York,  1963).

3.   G. Kraft and T.  Domencich, Free Transit, Boston,  Mass.:   D. C. Heath
     and Company, 1971.

4.   R. Schmenner, "The Demand for Urban Bus Transit",  Journal of Transport
     Economics and Policy (January, 1976) 9:68-66.

5.   "A Study to Determine the Economic Impact of Noise Emission Standards
     in the Bus Manufacturing Industry", Draft Final Report submitted by
     A. T. Kearney, Inc. under Contract No. 68-01-3512, prepared for the
     Office of Noise Abatement and Control, September,  1976.
                                   D-25

-------
                                APPENDIX E









             UNIFORM ANNUALIZED COSTS OF BUS NOISE ABATEMENT









     Equivalent annual cost or annualized cost as applied to the bus noise




regulation was calculated as the sum of the incremental operating and




maintenance 'costs due to the usage of additional noise abatement equip-




ment, the annual amortization of noise abating equipment, and the annual




cost of capital for this equipment as calculated using the prevailing




discount rate.




     Uniform annualized cost is precisely defined by the following formula:
     where A  =  uniform annualized cost




           Ci =  actual cost incurred in the i   year




           r  =  annual discount rate




           n  =  number of years which have elapsed from the




                 start to the end of the entire transaction






The uniform annualized costs presented in this Appendix utilized a discount




rate of 0.10 and the year 2000 as the end year of calculation.  The other




inputs, (projected changes in the number of buses produced and changes in




operating, maintenance and equipment costs)  may be found either in Section 3,




Section 7, or in Appendix C for the various types of buses considered.




     Uniform annualized costs for 15 exterior and 15 interior bus noise




abatement regulatory schedules are presented in this Appendix.  Tables E-l




                                    E-l

-------
and E-2 present the 30 exterior and interior regulatory schedules (respect-




ively) considered in these calculations.   It should be noted that Tables E-l




and E-2 are identical to Tables 6-1 and 6-2 respectively,  which were used




as keys to the presentation of Health and Welfare data in Section 6.




     Table E-3 shows the annualized cost figures across all buses for the




15 exterior noise regulatory schedules.  Table E-3 also presents the contri-




butions of operating, maintenance, and equipment costs to the total cost




figures.  Tables E-4 to E-6 show the annualized cost figures regarding the




15 exterior schedules for the three main bus types:  intercity buses,




transit buses and school buses, respectively.




     Table E-7 presents annualized cost figures for the 15 interior noise




regulatory schedules across all buses.  Table E-7 also indicates the break-




down of the interior schedule costs by bus type.  Note that only increased




equipment costs were considered for the interior regulatory schedules.




No increases  in operating or maintenance costs were projected as a  result




of the  implementation of any interior regulatory schedule.




      Regulation 15  for both the exterior and interior regulation schedules




 (Tables E-l and E-2, respectively) do not  have increased costs associated




with  them.  These schedules were used for  assessing the maximum health




and welfare benefits associated with bus noise abatement.  Since these




two schedules were  never under real consideration  as regulatory schedules,




except  in a theoretical vein, no attempt was made  to attribute costs to




them.
                                   E-2

-------
                                 Table E-l
Regulatory Schedules Considered
in the Health and Welfare Analysis of
Exterior Bus Noise
Exterior
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Not to Exceed Regulatory Level for All
Bus Types Unless Noted, (dBA)
Calendar Year
1979

83



83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
55
1981


83
80

80

80

80

80
__
80
55
1983




80

80

80

80
--
80

55
1984







78




-_
78
55
1985








78
77
77

--

55
1986











75
75
75CD
55
(1)
   Gasoline Powered School Buses 73  dBA
                                    E-3

-------
                                 Table E-2
Regulatory Schedules Considered
In the Health and Welfare Impact Analysis of
Interior Bus Noise
Interior
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Not To Exceed Regulatory Level For All
Bus Types Unless Noted, (dBA)
Calendar Year
1979

86
84

86
86
86
84
86
86
86
86
84
86
55
1981



83
83
83
83



83
83
83
55
1983





80

80
84
83
80

80
55
1984






80




80
80(1)
55
1985








80
80


 
55
1986










78
78
78
78C1)
55
(1)
   Gasoline  Powered  School  Buses  75 dBA
                                    E-4

-------
n
3
EH









U3
Q)
U)

M 01
0)
rH rH
rH 3
~-6
tn w
-P
tn s,
O H
*S
0) rH
N 3
H CJi
rH 0)
m PS
G 0
e 














O 0
rf -P
M Id
0) rH
X cr
i} 11)
H 01
rd -P
-P 01
EH U
Ti
G
rd 
-------
 I


 
CQ n)
O rH
CJ 3
T) <1>

< X
w
g

H
fl
D



>-
C
r-
^
a
4-
X
K























^^ ^
CO
c
-S
H
rH
H
S

{/>














&
0
4J
rt
rH
3
Oi
S
rH
nj 4J
4-1 (0
Of.
U
EH U

C
n) (U
O
tn fi
C at
H fi
4J Q)
*rt t i
TO -M
rl C
(U -H
o1^






(U
U
C
(0
C
(U
_l 1
+J
C!
H
(fl
S







CT1
3
rl
4J
m
ti
M
Q)
8-

8
H<
H
OJ
H
3
T3
(U
!
U
CO
.Siss^sSiSSSsS1
OOCOv>CO^>U->H^CND
-------
\f>
 I
3
EH
 to
 0)
 to
 3
pq
     to
P   i
 I i   l

 to   o
 0  -P
U   (0
    rH
a   3

 N   (U
H  rt
rH
 nJ   (H
 3   0
 C  -H
 C   ^l
<   0)
    -P

 ft  W
H
 C
                                 n)
                                 -P
                                 0
                                 EH
                               a
                                   0)
                                   o

                                v_ S
                                CT* TO
                                a  a
                               rH  0)
                               H   (U
        O   0  H
       H  JJ   3
        M   nJ  "O
        0)  rH     O
                                                                                   CN
                                                                                                          nron
                                                                                                    rHCNCSICN
                                                 !>
                                                                             CTiroooot^cTit^r^     i



                                                                                   H                     rH    rH    rH
                                                                                                                t-H    H
                                                                  E-7

-------
VO
              (0
              0)


              3  CO
              CQ  
-------
0)




en
0)
B5 rH
-P 3
M T3
O 0)
11
rH 0
ol 4J
fi rH
C 3
r< 0*
0)
jjj (*<
O >H
m o
-H -H
c >-
4J
H






>
(
f
,
<
4
!
h







"tn
o
H
rH
r-4
g
W-











D 0 r
H 4J
H  3 J
5 tn
j_l
^1
(0
4J
O
EH
O
O
O
w





4J
H
in

Vi
EH

4J
O
S-i
(U
4J
H
U
H
3
0
1)
-t
U
/)
OOlTiroOCNHrHcn VDCTiMflu')
OOOOHOroinoO Ho^OflvD
OCNrHHCSCNCNrH (NOOtNrH
tH rH H H
covOrHCOot-c^rs.^*^
OCMOHHrHCNrHiHoOCOOO
rH rH






rooomcoromminconco
1 1 OOOOlT)OrH'*'T1'rl^Jl4I^VOHoO
-------
            APPENDIX  F
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFOFMATION
               FOR
  HEALTH AND WELFARE ANALYSES
           (SECTION 6)

-------
                         Table F-l

Exterior Bus Noise Levels, by Operational Mode and Bus Type
           (Data from Reference 1 Unless Noted)
Bus Type
Transit
Range
Mean
School-Gas
Range
Mean
School-Diesel
Front Range
Engine Mean
Middle Range
Engine Mean
Rear Range
Engine Mean
Inter-City
Range
Mean
50 Ft. Maximum Passby Levels, dBA*
Acceleration
76-83
80
74-S42
80
83-92
87
81-84
83
81-84
83
81-86
84
Deceleration
and Cruise
30 mph
70-72
72
(72)
783
78
(75)
(75)
73-774'5
75
55 mph
78
78
(78)
(85)
(81)
(81)
79-804'5
80
Idle
6612
66
(66)
663
66
(66)
(66)
66?
*Data in parentheses extrapolated from transit bus data.
                          F-l

-------
                               Table F-2
Interior Bus Noise Levels Near Driver, by Operational Mode and Bus Type
                 (Data from Reference 1 Unless Noted)

Bus Type


Transit

Range
Mean
School-Gas
Range
Mean
School-Diesel
Front Range
Engine Mean
Middle Range
Engine Mean
Rear Range
Engine Mean
Inter-City
Range
Mean
Interior Noise Level Near
Driver, dBA*
Acceleration



78-79
79
2
80-90
85

88-95
92
87
87
87
87

70-78
74
Deceleration and Cruise
30 mph


74
74


(80)

803
80

(75)

(75)
4,5 6
69 ' -75
72
55 mph


78
78


(84)


(84)

(79)

(79)
4,5
73-75 '
74
Idle


f,
60b
60


(66)

703
70

(65)

65
7
60
60
  *Data in parentheses extrapolated from transit bus data.
                             F-2

-------
                               Table F-3
    Interior Bus Noise Levels in Rear Seat,  by Operational Mode and
            Bus Type (Data from Reference 1  Unless Noted)
Bus Type
Transit
Range
Mean
School Gas
Range
Mean
School Diesel
Front . Range
Engine Mean
Middle Range
Engine Mean
Rear Range
Engine Mean
Inter-city
Range
Mean
Interior Noise Level in Rear dBA*
Acceleration
80-90
84
77-S42
81
(87)
(87)
(92)
70-844'5
79
Deceleration and Cruise
30 mph 55 mph
81-848
83
(80)
753
75
(75)
(80)
69-7844;5'8
S3-858
84
(81)
(76)
(76)
81-8313
82
73-7S4'5
Idle
696
69
69-7S2
74
653
65
(65)
(70)
64-728
68
*Data in parenthesis extrapolated from transit bus data.
                          F-3

-------
                  Table F-4

Derivation of Percent of Traffic Composed of
    Bus and Non-Bus Vehicles,  by Land Use
       Billions of 1973 Vehicle Miles
Vehicle
Non-Bus
Transit
School - Gas
School - Diesel
Intercity
Total
Percent
Non-Bus
Transit
School - Gas
School - Diesel
Intercity
Total
Urban
Street
HD
223
1.20
.04

.01
224
99.4
.5
.1


100
LD
147
.41
.12

.01
147
99.6
.3
.1


100
Sub.
60.7
.13
.31
.01

61.1
99.3
.2
.5


100
Highway
HD
77.8
.06


.02
77.9
99.9
.1



100
LD
51.2
.02


.02
51.2
99.9
.04


.04
100
Rural
Sub.
21.2
.01



21.2
100




100
Main
Road
461

.86
.03
1.11
463
99.6

.2

.2
100
Local
Road
137

.93
.03

138
99.3

.7


100
                     F-4

-------
                             Table F-5
    Percent of  Trucks of Model Year Remaining in Calendar Year
                                                             10


Prior to 1978
1978-1979*
1980-2000**
Calendar Year
1979
86
14
0
1981
57
29
14
1983
35
21
44
1985
22
14
64
1987
14
7
79
1990
7
3
90
1995
3
00
97
2000
0
0
100
 *Estimated from data for 1982-1984 in Reference
**Remainder of percent.
                                                10
                             Table F-6
                 Percent of Autos  and Motorcycles of
               Model  Year Remaining  in Calendar Year
10

Model Year
Prior to 1979
1979-2000
Calendar Year
1979
91
9
1981
71
29
1983
49
51
1985
26
74
1987
2
98
1990
0
100
1995
0
100
2000
0
100
                              F-5
         t;

-------
EM
         0)

      x7 ^

      -s
      rl C
      4J (U
      id H
      CD T)
      (* G
         id
      cn
      3  -
      n id
         0)
5  0,
4-)  CO
rl D


s -a
cn  G
H  id
CD rH
      3
      XI id
      W G
      m d)
      id u
      eu cn

      o c
      rl 0
      MH -rl
      MH -P
      id Id
      H H
      CU 0)

      I?
      M CO
      0) 3

      $!

         o









<
n

^
H
0)
0)

^1
Q
W
in
id


u
rl
M-l
M-l
id
^_)
EH

0)
S1
0)
^
rfj






















^
id
a
^H

^|
id
0
c
0)
H
id
U














o
o
o
CN

m
cn
cn
H

o
cn
cn
H

r-
00
cn
H



m
CO
cn
H



ro
CO
cn
H

H
00
cn
H

cn
p-
cn

a id
c cu  P r-

00 00 CO
vo vo vo


vo ^d* in
r- t-- r-
  *
cn cn cn
vo vo vo
cn co co
CO CO CO
+ V 
o o o
r t r-
ro CN CN
00 00 CO
' r 
Hi 1
rn r^
r- r~ r~
JJ 4J X)
rl -rl H
xl w cn 3
en c f C X5
HO) o CD 3
BJ Q JO W
i
id M  o
3 O O
en u P -P
Q) CO 3 0
o^ a < s
co m r*
OS O^ 
 * 
CO CO CO
VO vO VD
H co cn
H O 0
  
O^ O^ 0^
VD (X) VO
H O^ O
CO CN CO
  
O^ G} 0^
i^> \D \D
in oo ^
vO VD VD
V  *
G\ 0^ ^^
vO vO VD


m CN ro
0 O O
 * 
o o o
r r~ r~


M H CN
in in m
  
o o o
p- r t--
m m ^
CN CN CN
  
H H- H
r- r- p*
ro CN CN
cn cn cn
Hi i
rn r~|
P -P XI
H -H M
^! co in 3
Cn C S C Xl
rl Q) Q Q) 3
K Q M Q 10
M-l
o

G W
0 M
rl O
4-> 3

3 ^ >i
Cn  H
0) 0) G
Dn S3 O



















C

























































1 CO CO
O O O

CN CN CN
P~ P- P~












































































P -P XI
H -rl M
j3 cn cn 3
Cn G  C XJ
H CU O 
                                                  F-6

-------
CO
 I
fn

 a)
H
XI



CO
rrt
(Q
0)
i
-P
.,_!
W
C cn
Q U
3
r! LJ
tP EH
H
S3 5
Q)
fl 13
rl
M-H
0) O
cn
H C
O O
13 -H
-P
U rd
rH H
tl 1 rt
"4-1 ^

2 jv
EH
fi -P
rd -H
s*
D
14-1
O
C
o
rl
+J
O
3
5
0)
PH














1 i
ti 1
O
in
-P
td
r>1


H
0)
(U
^
7
in
n
(M
U
rl
4-1
n)
t.
M
EH

Q)
(Tl
w
fd
rl
0)
<
m
0
r!
M
O
H
-P
U
I






C
iH 0
O -H
rl -P
^ rd
(1) H
-p d

a
















rrt
10
0)
^
^
fd
r*
(U
H
frt
*O
o




















0)
1-1

t3
(U

U
w
o
o
CN
m
cn
/T\
U 1
H




0
0^
/T\
^1
rH




CO
/"T\
W 1
rH




CO
inininininir>LninvD
^MrHHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH



COOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOCX)OOOOCX)00




vO^vO^Dv01)v)OvDv^vDvO^OvDO
HHHHHrHHrHrHHHHHHCN






rH CN PO ^T LT) VD P** CO Ol O i 1 CN CO ^3* LT)
rH rH rH rH iH iH


                                             F-7

-------
I




-------
o
rH
a
EH



I/I
CO
3

J3
M
3
W

H U
2
OJ EH
J (U
a
CD
10 MH
H 0
O
i^i *
O -H
H -P
H-t US
(II 1
nj p^
M fr

5
r*-l "^
D IS
m
o
c
0

-M
o
a
S













4J

O
IT)
.p

H
3
]
H
1
0
0
CM
in





o
o^





co



m
CO
rH



ro
CO
en
rH


CO


en

rH







Mrominin^in^^^kDr-r>r-rH
mronrorororonroroMPororo'*
rorororororororonnnrororon

CNrviCNOlCNtNCMCNtNCNCNCNCNCNfN
roronroronnrorororororonro



C^CTiCriOOOOHOHHHrHH^O
(TiC^CTvOOOOOOOOOOOO
(NfMCNnnnnrorororonnoin




3^5^^^^^^^^^^^
CNCNfNCNCNCNCMCNCNCNCNCNCNCSJCN


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
fMCNC^fMCNCNCNCNCNtNCNCNrMCNCN



kO ^0 VO VO ViD ^D VD VO ^D C) Vi3 v^ \Q vi) nH
LO LO if} i-O LO LO LO to LO LO ^O LO LO LO ^0
HrHHHrHHrHrHrHrHHHrHrHH


cococococococococococococococo



Hr-HrHHHHHHrHHHrHHHH





rHCNro<*invot^oocnoHCN ^m
rH rH H H rH rH

                                     F-9

-------
 I
CM

 0)
H


I

W
nf
0)
%
G
ti
a
D
1?
H tfl
(0 0)
C H
0) O
Q -H
J3 
rl
g
-ST
c
0) !3
>
0) M-l
J 0
0) C
0) O
H -rl
O 4J
Z 14
nfl
H Oi
*H 0)
M-l ffi
It)
fi
S
S*1
m
o
c
.3
_jj
O
^
s





-p
tH
O
in
p
n)
<
S
rH
0)
1 1
ft
to
n)
&
o
H
M-l
M-)
(0
M
H
0)
Averag
M-l
0
uction
"O
s


Exterior
Regulation








k
0)
5H
^
1
0)
rH
CJ






J
3
5
5
O
O
CN

(n
H

Oi
H
r>
CO
H
Lf)
CO
H
ro
CO
H
rH
CO
rH
cr
r^
rH

OOOrHHrHHCSJiHCNCNtNCNCN^
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOrHOiHiHrHiHrHrHi-H^r
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

rHCNnomvDr^cocriOHCNnoLn
H H H H rH H
                                  F-10

-------
CM
H
d>
H


EH


Areas
1
D
-P W
H a)
c u

j w
^
C m
rH 0
ni 2
>
0) G
^ 0
0) C
i ^
gs
1-1
0 p
-H &i
M-l 0)
<4-l 
nl
cJS
S5
I*1
IH
o
c
.3
4J
o
3
o
1?




-P
IH
o
m
ti
1
H
0)
>
0)
J
5
01
01

rH

OOOrHHrHrHrHrHCNCNCNCNCNm
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOrHrHHrHrHrHrHHrvli-HCMrO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOrHHHHHrHHiHHHt-Iro
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOrHOrHHrHrHHrHi-lrHrHro
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOi-HOHOrHOrHOrHro
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOO O ro
ooooooooooooo oo

oooooooooooooon
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

rHCNn^u")voi--oo(rio.-icNro'*j|LO
H H H H H H
                               F-ll

-------
n
H
 i
rH

a
EH




to
nJ

pH 0]
(U 3
> PQ
0) 1
J s
0) 25
W
H C
13
c
H -H
in m
fd H
EH Cn
XI 0
D
X!
It 1 1 1
0 -H

0
rl
P
o
3
O
(













4\J
M-l
O
m
fl



Q)

S
x7
CO
p

u
-H
>H
2
EH
0)
(0
Q)
1 1 1
o

o
H
O





n o <
O -H P
H -P
M flJ '
P 3 J
X Oi
H fl) t














w
ftJ
(1)
?

rrt

S
p^
rd
u














u
H
3

 t
J
n
o
0
CN
in
0^



o
en

'



CO
pH




m
00
H


ro
oo





,_!
CO
H


H







OOOOOOOHpHHHrHHrHro
OOOOOOOOO 'O O O O O O

OOOOOOOHHHHHrHpHfO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



OOOOOOOOOOOOOHn
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





oooooooooooooon
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



oooooooooooooon
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





oooooooooooooon
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooon
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO





pH rH rH rH r-H rH


                               F-12

-------
a
EH



0)
w w
1 1^
o u
^ pi

0 EH
fl S

nJ E2
M
0
(ti fi
43 O
to -rl
D -P
m
_q 3
0 oj
0) PH
U ,C
(fl 4-)
e >
w
H 0)
o4 <
0)
A. c*
MH XI
O S-l
D
0) >i
i .^j
3 to
0)
-P Q
0) ,
(0 -H
> ffi
H
3 C















(ti
Q


0)
a
^-^
to
0
H
H
3
a
0)
o
&


0)
i i
ft
o
(1)

o
flj
"
3

c

aJ
H
g.
W




fi
Vl 0
O -H r
H -P
>-( (S '
0) t-H
4J 3 ,
X &>
W <1J















M

tx
in

(1)

O















2)
-1
3
n

d
0
/i
0
0
CN

in





o
CT>
r-l


00
iH



in
CO
rH


ro
CO
i-l


H
CO
H



rH








i^t-^r-r-^^vovo^^^vo^m
(Ticricricrim
ooooooooooooooo
CNCNCNfNCNOJCNCN(NCNCNjrMCNtN(N


CN(N(NCS1(NCNCN
-------
Cn
0)
rH

I

 H
>i Cn
43 $
Ti
0) 
-P -P
U -H
S >
Q<
e w
H nj
0) H
H 5
a
o c
o) ro
ft^
,
h 
0) -rl
^ tn
3 
C 0
iH
^-S
&
ta




ro1
Q
H
&
In
c
o
rH
H
H
s
*W
O
0)
-p
u
!
0)
1-1
ft
o
0)
pj
<4-l
O
^
0)
<
ilendai
u






>
^
5
H
3
0
O
CN
in
cn
H
o
en
iH
r~
CO
H
in
CO
i-i
ro
oo
H
H
00
H
cn
t-
rH

mfimCNCNCNCNi-lrHrHrHrHr-li-lOO
vOVOvOlQlQVOVOVOiOvOvOVDvOvOm
minininininLoinminininininin
^^jiTjnnronrMCNCNCNCNCNCMcn
t^r^t^t--r>t^rvr~r^t^r~r^r^r-vo
ininLninininmininininininLnin
(NCNCNrHrHi-HHrHrHrHrHOHOr^
crCAo^cTio^o>o^c^crcrtr^ii>vDVDvDiDvoi^)ro
iniouomLnmmtninLninininLnin
vlDllQVlQl0lOvOlQlQllOlv)
^^^^^.^^.^.^^^.^.^^H
HHHi-IHHrHiHiHi-lrHiHiHiHi-l
t^r^i^r~t^r~t^t^i^t^t^t^r~t^i~-
c7vr^r^t^r~t^r^r>c^r^
t^r~t-~t~~f^r-r-^r--r-~r~r~-r~!^r-~r~
^* ^f ^d* ^J1 ^ ^J1 ^* ^ ^ ^ ^d1 ^3* ^J1 ^* i  l
^^r^^f^^^^^^r^i^^i^Jt^Ji
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOODOOCOCO
Hr>-oocriOHCNn'3'Lr)
r-l H H H rH rH
                                F-14

-------
rH
a
EH



(U
nJ
M-l OJ
:*
|S
1-a
S !^
41^
C W
0)
rH C
} -H
>
H
&
O1
W




&
Q
M
0)
ft
In
C
O
H
H
-H
5
Tl
0)
U
rt
&
H
a)
rH
&
(U

o
M
0)
*r
JJ
c
(U
rH
5
H
&
H


Exterior
Regulation
Schedule






M
0)
M
(d
1
0)
rH
0








o
o
CM
in
cr>
H
o
en
H
t~-
00
H

m
CO
rH

ro
03

rH
rH
CO
O^
rH
cn
r-~
c^
H

t^i>i0cNicNCNicNOocnoocooo
ooooooooor^.t^r>r^r-r^^
inininininininininmininminin
rHHrHrHrHrHHrHHrHHHrHr-HrH
t^vi>vO'*m^inro^ro^ror^t^r>r^t^r--r-vp

U3inm^r^r^ir^r^

cor~-r~t^-r^y3r-^Dr^^r>vor~-ii>in
oooooooooooooocn
O^tJlO^O^dO^O^O^^G^O^C^O^O^OO
HHHHHHHHrHHHHHrHH
i)
ooooooooooooooo
CNCNtNCNCSJCviCNOlCNCNCStNCNCSrs
ronnnroronroronnnmrotN
ininininmLninininininminm^
rsiCNCN(NC\)(NCMrMCNCNrM(NCNCN(N
CNCNCN
-------
r~
H
 I


 0)
rH

a




to
M
H

,y
^
O 0)
M-) D
td M
M EH
E-*
G 0)
XI
(j l| i
> o
>i G
XI 0
H
T5 -P
0) Id
-P H
O 3
td tn
ft m
H
,
0) -P
rH -H
ft 3:
o
Q) 03
eu td
cu
o *^

Ij 
o o
i ^
2: D
P rH
J^ jrf
0)
rH G
>
rl
w













td
Q

M
0)
ft

In
o
H
rH
H
^

(U
-P
u
1

0)
rH
ft
o
n.
HH
MH
0

m
X!
"g
3

-P
c
0)
rH
td
t>
H
Fr1
W




G
SH O
0 -H
H -P
M id
0) H
X tn
H m
ft!


















M
0)
^4
id
c
CD
rH
id
o


















(U
H
0
a

3
o
73

O
O
CN

IT)
CTl
Oi
H




O
O"i
rH




00
i-H



m
CO
H



ro
00
H




H
00
H


s
rH








co VD ^o ^^ ^H ^^ ^H r*^ co *^ r*^ LO to ^* 0*1
to vo ^o ^o ^D ^o ^o LO LO LO i-D LO LO 1-O ^r
CNr^r-r^in
oocococooooocooocooooocococooo
OJ CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN



CO CO CO 0*1 CO CJ^ CO Cn CO Ol CO 0*1 ^J Ol "sj1
ronrocNrocNncNrocNrocNrocNH
HrHHHrHHHrHrHHHHrHrHr-H
rororororonronnncnronroro

CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNr~
roronnroronnroronnnnro




_  _^ . _^ Q . -., . ., .-.
! 	 | ,_| ^ , 	 | , 	 | , 	 |


                                F-16

-------
00
H
 I
3
EH




o
V
-p
U
id
 w
L_J \^
U
Q) 3
rH H
CU EH
O
<1) >
CM 0)

,
0 
w
(U
rH M
id -H
P O
0 2
EH
O
C "H
H 1-1
c 
M id
(1) rH
-P 3
X en
W ^
















V-l
id
0)
>H

id
0)
H
(d
U












flj
H
^
T3
(I)
U
W
0
o
(N

in
CTi




o
o^

H


oo
H


in
CO
rH

00
rH


i-H
CO
rH



rH








^LniniotDi>^Dr^r~r--r^cocooDrH
^^^^.j,^,^,^^^^,^^,^^,,^
rorororonrorororonronrororo

(NCN)(N'31ai'!a'^'d
-------
en

rH
(D
H

a


to
Foise
vehicle
& v
u tn
H 3
M-l CQ
M-l 1
ttf c
g
fi MH
io o
8 c
D O
H
>i -P
ft HJ
TJ 3

-P 0)
O &
(0
H
,c!
(0 -U
H -H
81*
0) (0
04 tf
M-I JH
o S
n c
(U 
9 -P
1s
>i
+J 4J
fi -H
0) tO
rH C
At V
> Q
U-&
w'd
c
H






s?
P
^
0)
a
^^
to
0
H
H
S
^.X
O
0)
-P
u
H
(U
H

0)
ft
>M
O
n
(U
1
-P

s
>
H
&
U

Exterior
Requlation










a
0)
5H

d
o
i-H
ri
0.






Schedule

o
CN
in
(T>
H
o
r^oocriOHCNro^im
rH H H r-t rH tH
                                       F-18

-------
o
O)
 I
HIO     CNCNfMHCNHHrHrHHrHrHHHOO
    t)     m         
    H     fj     M   c^
           *3     (Oi-H     COCOOOOOCOCOCOOOCOCOOOCOCOCOOO

 (DM     ft    -2
PJ  ifl     tt)     aj

MH  M     *     d
O  <     MH     r )

h  c     O        n

^     J,         
    -.:     9J         H     COCOOOCOCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

|D     I


*$     *
C  -H     4J
<1)  to     c
H  C     0)         OD
g  fi     H         g
.5         S         ^     cococococococococococococococo


Si  ^     -lH

w  ni     D1

    ^               C^     (NCNCNCN(N(NCNr>ltNCNCNCNCN
-------
H
CM
 I
 0)
i-H

H
                   O
                   O
                   O
                   CN     lCNCSCNCNlCM(NCMtMCNCNCN




 o)                 in
 to  w

So   Q


ti3   -
MH
 (fl  CO   "^         o

U  ?   
    c


         s
    o

*  g   "8         
t3-H^         H     CNMNCNCVl(>l(NCNlCNCNrvlCNCNCNCN
4J  irt   *
 O
 "J  ^   ,_j
 ft tn   H     hi

         5     ^   

 <  -o.   &        m
         gj     HJH     CNCSCNCNJCNCSCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNIOJ

 S5   ^     1

^        3
   m   m         M
    J   S         CO
                   H


    
40-3   ^J
 r1  -1   '"t
 6  ?   -        co
    W   '0        rH


 &"
W
             c
         ^-1   O  0)
         O  -H H
        H  4J  3

         0)  rH  0)
         4J   3 ^3
         X   tP U
         W   0) W
            
                                                                                      H   H   H   H
                                                     F-20

-------
tN
CN
 I

PM
                    o     ooococooocoinin'3'Tj'ronroin
                    o
                    o
                    w      ..........
                           rorororonroromronrororOMro




 o>
 mm              LO
HO     >,       en

  o     o
   H                     nmrorocororonrorororonron



C?     &
 (0  cq
           "to"       o     ooocTicncricricococooococovDin

           c       ^


           ''              noororororonmronnrooororo


D M-i
    O

 "  C     ^

-d-3     |       

5ti     
 U H
 (fl  3
 & 0>     fl   H

                CJ

      u       qo      -----------

                    H
           2              ronronrorororocoronrorororo

S  S     +j
           fi

   S     .5
 O         ft       H     OOOOOOOOOOOOOOin
   H     f>       CO
           -H

           _              rotoroforororororororororornro

 D< H
W

                    CTi     OOOOOOOOOOOOOOin
                                    rocorofOrororooocororoooroooro
                   M  O  CJ
                   0  -rl H
                  H  4-1  3
                   ^i  (d 'O
                   0)  i-H  0)



                  W  g W
                                                  F-21

-------
ro
(N
I

O
o) 
r-\ 0)
ft 3
8?
ft C
M-l 13
M 0
5 0
2 4J
(fl
4-> H
Q) &
H ,0
H -H
O Q)
EH W
H
S3
G O
O -H
H 4-1
4J M-l
O (fl
3 i-4
Tt tl
0)
C M
0) D
O
0) ,Q
ft




O
o
(t)
H
H
(U
M-l
O
0)
JJ
ivalen
W
c
H
0
o
3
4J
o
0)
ft

1
0 'r
rl 4
S-J d
flj r*
4J :
m (
0








<0
T)
0)
H
nj
o





3 fl)
^ H
j 2
j 'C
^  O
l
o
0

-------
CM
I
         K^
        a
            co
         co  id
         3  Q)
         PQ  H
         
O
 C
 cu
rH
 id
O
                               rH
                               00
                               CTi
                                                                                             H   rH
                                      CN   CN   M
                                                                                   H   H
                                      CMCNCN
                                                                                   HH
                                      CNCNCN
                                      H
                                      CN
                                           O
                                           CN
                     O
                     M
O
CN
H
CS
O
CN
O
CN
O
CN
O
CN
OO
CN{N
OO
CNCN
O
(N
                                      rocOronn
                                                               03



                                                               O
                                                                    ooco
                                                                              00
                                                                              O^

                                                                              o^
                                                                              O
                                                        00   CO


                                                        o   o
                                                                                             coco
                                                                                             OO
                                                  CO    v>



                                                  O
                     a
                  rl  0  CU
                  O  -H rH
                 H  -P  3
                  M  (d T3
                  0)  rH  (U
                 -P  P X!
                  X  &  0
                 H  g W
                                              F-23

-------
in
CN
a
EH
       to
       to
       rt
       3  (0
       PQ  0)
(U  3

Q  M

H

W -P
   r)
0)  10
O  C

s
       53
        to
        a
        0)
        0)
            o
            o
            o
            */

8     ^   S
u      M   01



        0)


      *
w      y

Q          ro     incOrOiH[~-03COOOCOCOOOOOCOOOro
1-1          00

 ft         ^
 (1)
 
                   HrHrHOHOrHOrHOrHOrHOO
                   roforonroronronronroron





            01           	
                   coinoooooomininininminininii)

                   fHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHHrHrHO
                 r<  0  
-------
CM
        to
        tn
        
-------
CN




!

I*
04
CO
s
3
CO
a) 
H
in
s
H
ro
00
H
H
03
cri<3^o
rHCTiOVDii>VO>>li>kOlOr>mtNlDr~ii>ocr>OCT>tr)in'a^*i^t^n'f
-------
CO
CM
 I
        to
       ^
        to
        to
        to
        3
       CQ

       JJ
       H
        to  to
        c  (d
        (0  d)
           (U
           to
       W  H



        g^
       -P
        01
       H
       a
        0)
        a)
             o
             o
             o
             (N

                  CNCNCNrHrHrHHrHrHlHHHrH




             in
             en
             en


                  CN(N>   W    W '   "**    VW   I "     "   * -    I "-   >'
                  CNCNOJHHHHHHHHHHH

 o>





 '           8  .
                        oocncncncncdcTiccicocdcbco
                  
-------
4)
H
Sleep Disturbance ENI Due to Intercity Bus Passbys
in All Land Use Areas
Sleep Disturbance ENI (Millions) Per Night

Calendar Year
o
o
o
CN
in
ff\
G\
H
0
(Ti
r-l
00
H
00
ro
00
H
00
OS
H
o^
c^
rH
n o fl)
0 -H H
H -P 3
H (fl -O
fl) H fl)
-P 3 .C
X &> 0
W fl) CO
^D ^H ^D ^0 LO fH ^1 O^ t^1 f*H O^ C^ ^^ 00 ^^
CO ^1 CO C^ ^D ^D r^ 00 '^ vO LO ^^ 0^ ^^ iif
CNHrO CNJOHC^HOrHOtHCOi-HO

^^^SSKS^Ql^S^^SQl
CNrH^OHfMOCNHCSHCNOCNO
COCNCNCNfMHOJi-ICNrHCNi-HtNiH
$3S3S3S!n3SEn83

^D ^t ^^ CQ (^ ^^ J^ fO ^Q ^5 ^^ CO 'S' O^ ^^
ro co c^ ^D oo ^^ ^o ^^ nH LO c^ LO C) c^ ^*
P?Scso3ScNMcaMo5^cs^oa
^D ^^ LO ^5 r** co r^ c^ co oo oo CT^ r*^ ^p c^
CO Ol 'sj' 00 r^ CO ^H CO ^D CO 0^ LO nH CO ^3*
C^ p^ 03 vO 00 LO kO LO ^D LO LO LO ^) LO C3
COCNCNOJCMOJOJCNfMCMCMfMCNOJ
co^oor^-o coocoocoocoOco^p
nSSSmfNSSSSScNfSS0
fnoo^ocn^rH^'QO^'oo':1'ooT:l<
-------
O
ro
 I
Cn
i  I

8
         XI
          en
          CO

         Hi  CO
             (d
          co  ^    m
             00
        n
 ft     _,
 CU      ^          (NCNCNCNCNfMCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
 CU      rf
r-H

        "td
in      U
 O           ro    .  .   .     _          ...._._          .      .
             oprorot^HinoooooooooooDoooooo   o

 
-------
n
I
        CO

       A
        CO
        CO
        m  co
       ft  Id

        co  H
 O  S
-P  .g

H  t3

I  

 C  CO
"rt

 co



h

 ft C
 0)  -rl
 CD
H
W
           C

           Q
            O
            O
            O
            CNronrOfNCNCNCNrHCN






            in
            cr<
            0>
                  PirOrOCNCNCNCNfSCNrHCNHCN





H
a          o
            CTl

 
                  nrorororonronrorofororoc'l








            o>                               *	    o
                  rorororonnnnncorororo^o     .
                  rl  0  tt)
                  0 -H  H
                  rl JJ  J3

                  ^i  id  'O
                  X  ty  O
                  W  CO  W
                                                                                        rH   H
                                                    F-30

-------
(N
ro
<1>
H


E-i




tn
*
in
(fl
CU
0)
3
ffl
w
0 s
Q) rf!
g a

H
ro
00
rH
H
00
rH
O>
r~
rH

ooooocvif>)CMr^oor- o
CvJHHrHHiHHHHOOOOO O

OCOOOCNrOMC")Or-lOOCf>OiC^O
CNHHHHr-IHHiHHHOOOO

OOOCfin^'rOTjCNCNIHNHCNHO

Oooootn^D^r^cor--oot--oor--cor~o
CgrHHrHrHMi-HrHrHHrHf-li-li-lO

oo>coo
CNr-lrHHCNHrHrHHHHrHrHHO

OO>OOOCr>CTlO>CTIO
(NrHOINCMrHHrHrHi-li-lrHrHiHO

rHOi-l
i-l H H H iH rH
                                 F-31

-------
ro
ro
 I
CM

 Q)
rH
JQ
"
;





CO
w
PM
W
3
ffi
O
4-i cn
ni
a; a)
Q !
H H
2 cd
^ 3
tr> Ctf
C
-H e
a -^

is
a
a)
0)
H
en-

















&>
H
Z
0)

,~v
CO
O
rH
H
i-l


H
w

t?^
s
-H
CD
1
a
0)
fl)
1-1


c
!-l 0
O -H
H 4J
M fl)
<1) H
P 3
X! cn
W (!)
05

j














S-l
td
0)
>-l
^
lu
a
c
0)
nl
u







0)
-H
^
t)
0)
1
O


---


en
rH
O
CTl
H




CO

I 1



to
CO

c  I



ro
CO
H


H
CO
CTl
H
r-^
-I










i-i , r-:i-(HrHHOOOOOOOO


H-HrHHrHHi-lOOOOOOOO

HHHrHr-li-SHi-IHiHrHiHr-lrHO




t*.^iin*yi^rr\mrr\(ritn(nmm(riO
HHr-(r-fHHHi-lrHHi-IHiHrHO





r-.inLn^u-i-sr^^h^sjt^^'^i^o
HHiHHHHiHHiHHHrHHrHO





HHHHHHHHHHHHHi-IO




HrHr-li-IHHi-HHHHiHHHHO






i  i tM r') 'sT Lfi u^ r^ uO Oi ^_J <{ ^ rrj ^ i^)
H H i-l i-H iH H


                                     F-32

-------
n
I
         A
          en
          in
          id
 in

PQ

-P
H  tn
 en  
C
H
C
0)

3
              04
              Q)
              0)
              rH
              en
o

 0)
H
 (d
u
                                   CN
                                   00
                                   CO
                       C
                    Si  0  fl)
                    O  -H rH
                   H  -P  3
                    n  id "d
                    0)  H  0)
                    -P  3 ,C
                    X  Cn o
                    H  Q) CO
                                         CNCNCM
                                         CNW
                                                    in
                                                    CN
                                                o
                                                CN
                                        o
                                        CM
                                       o
                                       CN
                 o
                 CN
                                         ID
                                         CM
                        in
                        CN
                      in
                      CN
CN
CN
n
CN
CN   CO
CN   CN
rH    CN
CN    CN
O
CN
H
CM
                                                                                                      CNtN
O
CN
                                         00
                                                    CO
                                         CN   D4    CM   C\>    OJ   O)   CM   (M   tN
                                                                                                ( -1    f\]   O,'
                                                                                                                 CN
                                         CNCNCMCNC4CNCNCNCNCN01CNCN
                                         CN   CN    CM   CN    CN   CN    CN   CN    CN
                                                                                                           OJ    CN
                                                    F-33

-------
in
n

CM
I
        XI
        (0
        Ul
        a
        CM

        Ul
        3
       H  10
        O  (fl
        rl  II)

       p  <
        C
       H  <1)
Q J

H H
53 rH
W <

Cr* c
C -H
H
        Q)
        0)
        0)
       rH
       01
                  (1)
                  CU
           tn
           C
          .3
H

W

tJ>
C
H
C
                  05
C
0)
H
n)
U
                            o
                            o
                            o
                            (N
                            in

                            
                                                                                    r^
                                                                                    CM
                                                                              O
                                                                              o
          CO
          en
    in
    CO
      U
                sw
                                             F-34

-------
VO
n
 0)
F-l


I
        -p
        w

        4
        Q)
        ft

        SH
        O
         to  in
         >i  M
        rP  0
         0)  0
         w T3
         
-------
n
t,
a)
H

I



in
S
ID
H
iJ
en
CD

4)
O
in co
in o
in
3 0)
PQ H
ft
-P 0)
*H ft
O
M "0
*incvjcMinvDinin cno
\D ^d1 i/^ -d" "^* *^ *-^" c^i f^o c>3 r>3 r^3 r^ c^l ^3
>i^ ^g xj ^J ^sj \N ^N VN IN IN " ^-'
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

_ ^^^ I ^- _. ^ f~ ._ -_ _. -^ -_ -J. ^
vomminiriu-iin-3-inO vO vO ^O CO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO




i^-s ^ ^. . ^ .
i 1 i 1 H i 1 H r- 1

                             F-36

-------
CO
M


(i,


0)
        (0
        H
        o
        0)
        ft
10  to

A  0
10  O
to t3
n] -P
ft  3
   O
to
3  qj
 H
    ft
H  O
O  ^-x
    r^     ON  ON   ON   ON  ON   ON   ON  ON   ON   ON  ON   ON   ON  ON   c J
    S3
           ooooooooooooooo
                 w
                 0 -H
                 a)  H  
-------
TABLE F-39
Bus Type
Inter-City
Transit
School
Contributions of Different Types of Buses
to the Reduction of Hearing Loss and
Speech Interference Impacts
Impact Reduction %
Speech Interference
1
63
36
Hearing Loss
(Operator)
1
24
75
Hearing Loss
(Passengers)
1
63
36
 F-38

-------
                     FIGURE F-l
        TOTHL  NIGHTTIME  POPULRTION
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
  HOMES  PRODUCED  BY  BUS PRSSBYS  IN  1979
0
Q
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                     m
                                     8
      35-40
40-45   45-50  5Q-55   55-50   50-55
 SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SELJ ,DB
                             i
                             2,3
                             4,5
                             6,7
                             8,9
                             10,11
                             12,13
                             14
                             15
65-70
                      F-39

-------
                     FIGURE F-2
        TOTflL  NIGHTTIME  P0PULRTIQN
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
  HOMES PRODUCED  BY BUS PRSSBYS  IN  1981
o
o
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                     m
                                     -K
                                     Y
                            1
                            2,3
                            4,5
                            6,7
                            8,9
                            10,11
                            12,13
                            14
                            15
      35-40
40-45   45-50   50-55   55-60   60-55
 SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL (SEL).DB
65-70
                      F-40

-------
                    FIGURE F-3
         TQTflL  NIGHTTIME  PGPULRTIQN
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPQSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
  H8MES PRODUCED  BY  BUS PRSSBYS IN  1983
CD
O
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                      +
      35-4D
4D-4S   45-50  50-55   55-50   50-55
 SOUND EXPQSURE LEVEL (SEL3 .DB
                             1
                             2,3
                             4,5
                             6,7
                             8,9
                             10,11
                             12,13
                             14
                                      21  15
55-70
                     F-41

-------
                   FIGURE F-4
        TGTRL  NIGHTTIME  PGPULRTIGN
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
  HOMES PRODUCED  BY  BUS PRSSBYS IN  1985
a
a
a
a_
IN
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                      m
                                      8
                                      *
                                      Y
                                      *
                                      Z
                                      31
                             1
                             2,3
                             4,5
                             6,7
                             8,9
                             10,11
                             12,13
                             14
                             15
      35-4D
40-45   45-5D  5D-55   55-BD   60-65
 SQUND EXPOSURE LEVEL. (SEU.DB
65-70
                      F-42

-------
                   FIGURE F-5
         T0TRL  NIGHTTIME  P0PULRTIQN
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
  HOMES PRODUCED  BY BUS PRSSBYS  IN
O
0
O
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                     m
                                     H
                                     *
                                     Y
      35-4G
40-45   45-5D   5D-55   55-50   6Q-65
 SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL fSELJ.DB
                            1
                            2,3
                            4,5
                            6,7
                            8,9
                            10, 11
                            12,13
                            14
                            15
65-70
                     F-43

-------
                  FIGURE F-6
       TQTflL  NIGHTTIME  PQPULRTION
EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE  LEVEL  INSIDE
 HOMES  PRODUCED  BY BUS PRS5BYS  IN  1990
                                    EXTERIOR
                                    REGULATION
                                    SCHEDULES
                                    CD
                                     8
                                     *
                                     Y
                                     T
                                     Z
                                     31
     3S-4D
40-45   45-50  50-55   55-60   60-55
 SQUND  EXPOSURE LEVEL (SEL).DB
                             1
                             2,3
                             4,5
                             6,7
                             8,9
                             10,11
                             12,13
                             14
                             15
65-70
                     F-44

-------
                  FIGURE F-7
        TQTRL  NIGHTTIME  POPULRTION
 EXPOSED  VS SOUND  EXPOSURE LEVEL  INSIDE
  HOMES  PRODUCED  BY BUS PRSSBYS  IN  1995
o
o
                          EXTERIOR
                          REGULATION
                          SCHEDULES
                                     m
                                     Y
      35-40
4D-45   45-50   50-55   55-5U   50-65
 SOUND EXPOSURE  LEVEL  (SEL).DB
                            1
                            2,3
                            4,5
                            6,7
                            8,9
                            10, 11
                            12, 13
                            14
                            15
55-7D
                     F-45

-------
                   FIGURE F-8
       TOTRL  NIGHTTIME POPULRTION
EXPOSED  VS SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL  INSIDE
 HOMES  PRODUCED  BY  BUS  PRSSBYS  IN 2000
o
o
                                    EXTERIOR
                                    REGULATION
                                    SCHEDULES
                                    m
                                    Y
                                    IT
                                    Z
    35-40
           4D-45
    45-50   50-55   55-60   50-65
QUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (SEL),DB
                                        1
                                        2,3
                                        4,5
                                        6,7
                                        8,9
                                        10, 11
                                        12, 13
                                        14
                                        15
65-7Q
                     F-46

-------
                                                                              10
                                                                              ID
                                                                             I I
                                                                              a
                                                                              CD
               CD
          zcor-
          CD ID CD
          ii rni
       cc
                       O w
              XUJ0
              LU DC 00
                                                                              i
                                                                              LO
                                                                             I i
                                                                              O
                                                                                CD
3
       CO
       UJ
       Q
       LU
       Q_
   Q_
   CD
   Q_
   CD
   CD
       LU
         'CD
cc'
CD
 XLU
 CO

   UJ
 LUCO
 CD CD
 CCCD
 cc:
 LUI
 >cc
 cc
I   -J
:COLU
       CD
          cc
   CC:LU

   CD CD CO
   CDQ_CO
               o_
                   00*09
                     ao'os
                          00'0*
ao-ae
OO'OZ
00'
oo-a
                                      F-47

-------
                                                                     in
                                                                     CD
                                                                     I
                                                                    'a
                                                                     (D
     COCO
     ID CD
     i CD 
*.
CO
   ID 21
   D_C
   CD>CUJ
   Q_CE>
3 rv;   ijj
J^CDUJCD
U~ CDC!DCD
   CDCECD
^H-Q:
^-IDUJh
r^CD->CL
's_   tj:
   CD   _J
   ZCOUJ
   CE
        UJ
    -CD_J
   QlLiJ
   CDCO>-
   CD CD CD
   oa_co
   ^xcn
   "LUCE
        a_
cr
D
cn
f
CD
              z
              O 

             g^-
             2 i
                                                                     D
                                                                     r-
                                                                     10
                                                                     in
                                                                     w >-
                                                                     ID CD
00'0
                               F-48

-------
                                                                           UQ
                                                                           m
                                                                           CD
cr
CO
UJ
CD
LU
Q_
      CO

CDZDCH

h-
CLTi^L

ID1I
Q_'~'Cc:
CDXLU
o_ cn >
CD
CD
o
   CD
   LU
LtJCO
CD CD
CCCD
cc:
LUJ
>cr
cc
cn
Q
cc
t
ZCQLU
CL>
      LU
 -CD_J
CC:LU
CD CO >
CD CD CO
CDQ_CQ
2IXCD
-HLucr
      Q_
                2
                O t/J
              LU 3 uj
              1-0 I
              X ^ M
                        10 r-. oj  . "~_
                        *' 
-------
                       O M
CD
               to
         2: to oo
         CD ID CD
         vi CO '
      cr
      LO
   ID 21
   Q-1'tr
   CDixuJ
         Q_cr>
       S   ^
       S^   ^
       ^CDUJCO
LU
z:
i
H-
>-
CE
O

_1
cr
OCECD
H-cr
ZDLUI
CD>CE
   CL
Q    _J
ZCQLU
CE
      UJ
  CD_J
CTLU
          CD CD CD
          CD.Q-CO
                D_
                       co in r. OJ '. ',
                        -    >   o cs ^f
                    -CM'l-tDOo"*-:?
               ui oc t/j Q +
                                    N
                    00 '09
                                                                                a
                                                                                33
                                                                                in
                                                                                r-
                                                                       ui
                                                                       r-
                                                                                   CD
                                                                                   O
                                                                                 a
                                                                                .<~- !
                                                                                   UJ
                                                                          IQ  CD
                                                                               OQ'O
                                         F-50

-------
                                                                                in
                                                                                ID
                                                                                O
                                                                                CO
          2:0-3 oo
          CD =3 CD
       CE
          CESIZ:
                        2
                        O w
                       n in r-  oi
                       CM" * co"  co"
                   O
                LUCCco
                                                                                rr-
                                                                                iE
                                                                                I i
                                                                                U3
                                                                                I-
                                                                                r-
                                                                                ^ i
                                                                                a
LU
a:
       co
       UJ
       a
       UJ
       Q_
       UJ
cr
Q
       CE
       CD
   CDXLU
   D_ CE ~Z>
   lil   LU
   CDLUCO
   CDCpCD
   CD CE (D
   ICt:
   ZDLUI
             CE
          Q
             COLU
          CE
               LaJ
   CH LU
   COOO>~
   CDCDCQ
   CDQ-CO
   2IXCO
   ''LUCE
        CL,
                   00-09
                      ao-as
oo -at
9OT*
  OO'OE
31d03d
OO'GS
 "
OO'OT
Ou'O
                                        F-S1

-------
 I
u.
CJ
               CD
          2: co en
          CD ID CD
          i" CD <
~ZL'
CE
       GO
       UJ
       CD
       LU
       Q_

       LU
       CE
       CD.
       CE
       I
       CD
   ID 21
   Q_>'Qi
   CDXLU
   Q_CE:>
     21 ct:
   DC:   LU
   CDLucO
   CD O CO
   CDCECD

   IDLUI

     rc
          Q
     COLU
          CE
               LU
   Q1LU
   CD CO >-
   CD CD CD
   OQ-CO
   2IXCO
   ^-.LUCE
        O_
                        z
                        O to
                                ro
                      00  115 p^ o    
                      cs  t 
                                                                         i
                                                                        r~
                                                                         i
                                                                        a
                                                                        r-
                                                                                  i	-
                                                                                  O
OO'O
                                       F-52

-------
LO
 I
U-

g
C3
                LO
          2 CO CD
          CDZDCD
          ii CD i
       CE
       CD
       LU
       a
       LU
       Q_
       LU
CE
a
Q_^C
CDXLU
Q_CE>
   C    LU
   CDLUCO
   CD 'ID CO
   QCECD
   h-ct:
      CL
   Q
                LU
          CD CD CD
          OQ_CO

          'LUCL
                Q_
                        O w
                OC^Q
                LU 13 LU
                h-O X
                XW o
                               co in r~ 05
                               CM" " to oo  
                    00-09
                                                                                  U3
                                                                                  3D
                                                                                  a
                                                                                  XI
                                                                                     CD
                                                                                  a
                                                                                     -1
                                                                             loJ
                      00'OS
                             00'0*
                             9OI*
  00-06
3"IdB3d
00'02
OO'OI
oo-a
                                        F-53

-------
       CL
       LU
      o
 zcoo
 CDIDO
 H~HCQC\J
J
 CE 21^
 _JID^
 ID 21
 CL."'Q
 CDXLU
'o_a::>
               LU
          CD QJ
                      O "5
            ^ rro    ^r
            UJ U m  *- CM
                            r- CO
                            r T

                            o" CM" ^ in
                                                                               U3
                                                                               03
                                                                               I
                                                                               a
                                                                               XI
                                                                               LT1
                                                                               r-
                                                                               r-
                                                                              f i
                                                                               a
                                                                               a
                                                                      L3  CD
                                                                                  c.
                                                                                  c:
ex.
^
13
       CD
    a:
 a    _J
 2:(/}UJ
 cr
       UJ
 1  -CD_J
 rruj
 CDCQ>-
 CDCDCD
 QQ_CO
 ^XCD
 ^^LUCL
       Q_
                    OQ'09
                     DO1 OS
00'0*    OO'OE
001*  31d03d
                                                                             00'0
                                        F-54

-------
   01

   CD
   cI
h-
2:^
LiJi-1
_J
crco

>
       00 %09
OQ'05
OO'O*
  OQ'Qg     00*02
3id03d  J0
OO'OI
OO'O
                           F-55

-------
          t1
          00
          CD
              2
              O
            ^rP
            O <
                          . T- * in
                   r- CM 00 CD t- .- *-
                   ?&  0 O < x
CO
LU
cc

<>
       LU'  i
       _J
       crco
       :>LU
       >-co
       IDZD
       OCQ
       UJ
          LU
       COQ
       ;> i
          CO
CO
CD_J
CL.LLJ
x:>
LULU
   _J
CO
       cno
       ct:co
       LU
       o_co
       CO ID
          CD
          CJ
               00'09
                00'OS
oo1 at
OT
  00-OE
31dD3d
00'02
OO'OI
OO'O
                                 F-56

-------
I
CD
          CO
          00
          en
       QZCTJ
       >LU
       CD
       =3 ID
       ODD
       UJ
          UJ
       GO CD
       ;>>
          CO
CO
0_J
Q_LJ
X>
LULU
   _J
CO
       t ID
       CEO
       CCD
       LU
       CL.CO
       CD ID
          CD
       CO ID
       ID Z
          CD
          O
               O
             0:?:
             0<
  o

  o>" "
in oo CM"
                     CC^O   .- CM CO CO .-  <-


                     ? K GO   Q0<]xO^<
               00-09
00'OS
oo-ot
  oo-oe
31d03d
00-02
                                                      OO'OI
                                        oo-o
                                   F-57

-------
o
CM
 I
CD
         LO
         CD
         CO
            CC H
            O <
       crco
       > UJ
       CO
       ZDZD
       OCD
       LJ
          UJ
       COO
       > ^-H
UJt 
00
CD_J
Q_ UJ
x>
UJLU
   _1
CO
       H-ID
       a: CD
       Q1CO
       LU
       Q_CO
       CD ID
          CD
       CO ID
       IDZ
       CD <
          h-
          -2L
          CD
          LJ
                           -  CM CO CD -*--

        00'
                                                                DOT)
                                   F-58

-------
CM
 I
LU
Di
          QO
          CD
CECO
>LU
'-CO
ID ID
C3CD
LiJ
   LJ
COQ
:>> i
   CO
02:
UJ 
CO
CD_J
Q_LU
X>
UJLU
   _J
CO
       I ID
       CECD
       CCO
       LU
       O_CO
       CDZ3
          CD
       CO ID
         CD
         CJ
                     oc =: Q   r- CM p>" to"
                     Ji
                     5c^   Q O <  x
              00-09
                 00'OS
00 'Ot
                                          OO'OE
OQ'02
                                                      OO'OI
                                      oo-Q
                                   F-59

-------
CM
CM
 I
Ul
         O
         C")
         CO
LU <
_J
ccco
>Ld
 i CO
ID ID
OCQ
!uJ
   bJ
CQQ
>I-H
   CO
QZ
UJt '
CO
O_J
D_ij_J
>0
UJUJ
   _J
CO
       I ID
       CECD
       01 CO
       UJ
       Q_ CO
       CD ID
          CD
       CO ID
       IDZ:
       CQ 
          CD
          CJ
             ttl?
             g < z>
             cc ={ o
  O)
in oo
                           t CM fO CD t
               00-09
                 00'OS
  00'0*
  OO'OE
3~ld03d
OD'02
OO'OI
DO'O
                                    F-60

-------
oo
CM
!
           LO
           OH)
           CT>
        UJ i~ <
        . _J
        CECO
        >LU
         -CO
        ID ID
        OLD
        IjJ
           LJJ
           CO
        02:
A \   j

Q_LU
X>
UJUJ
        h- ID
        ceo
        QiiLO
        UJ
        D_CO
        OID
       CD
          CD
          CJ
              O <
                           to oo
                              T- CN CO  CO r- T- ,-
                                O <  x
                00-09
                  OO'OS
00'Ot
CO'OE
                                             J0
00%02
                                                                 OO'OT
                                                                     CO'O
                                      P-61

-------
CM
 I
UJ
oi

           o
           o
           o'
           C\J
        LU<

        CECO

        ^CO
        ID ID
        C3CQ
        UJ
           LU
        COO
                        z.
                        o
           CO
        UJ
        0")
        LULU
        CD2
        h-ID
        CE O
        cc: CTD
        LU
        Q_CO
        GDID
           CD
        CO ID
           h-
           ~ZL
           CD
           CJ
                                  in  co
                                      - - *  in
                                CN C*J  CO T- -  r-
                00-09
OCTOS
OO'O*
OO'OE
00'02
OO'OI
uO'O
                                       F-62

-------
           CD
                      
                      DC
                      0<
                       o w
                       f=- LU
                               CM  CO CD 1 r- r-
in
c\j
        UJ
        _l
        CE
        LU

        CO
           LU
           CO
           ID
           CD
           Q
        Q
        UJ
UJ
ex.
0
1 1
Ll_


v.., LU
-s
OT-J
r\*
SE
       LU
       CO
       CO
       CE
       a_

       CO

       CD!
CO

-------
          00
          CD
                      z
                      O
                           o>  
                         in co  CM"
              O < D
              E =i Q
                         - T- *t in
                  i- CM CO  CO  i- T- t-
                      cc
                       G < x O X >
UJ
       UJ
       _J
       CE
          CO
          UJ
          CO
O
UJ

CO
          UJ
Q
UJ
CO
CD
Q_
X
UJ

CO

UJ
CD

LU
CO
CO
CE
CL_
          CO
       CO
       ID
       CD
LU
>
LU
_J

Q

ID

CO

CO
ID
CD
ID
          CD
          LJ
              OO'OOE
                00'032
                                 OO'OSI
                                31d03d
00'0
                                      F-64

-------
c\j
CJ3
           cn
           oo
        UJ
        cr
        C3
        LU
        CO
        D
        i. i
   UJ

   ID
   CD

   LU
   D

   CO
UJ

CO

LU
CD

LU
CO
CO
cr
o_

co

CD
UJ

LU
_1

O
z:
ID

CO

CO
          CD
          CJ
               O t/5

              0
-------
          LQ
          CO
          CD
               5^
             cd-ri
             O---
                            E3G<1X0K>-
00
CSJ
 i
Lul
       LU
       C3
       LU
   CO
   LU
   CO
   ID
   CD
Q
LU
CO
/T-.
t_^
Q_
x:
LU

CO
Qi
LU
          LU
          Q
          ii
          CO
          LU
          LU
LU
CO
CO
cr
o_
          CD
          CO
          CO
        CO
        ^D
        CD
          CD
          CJ
               QO'OOE
                 OO'OSZ
 00-OD2
  9OI
 QO'OSI
31d03d
oo'odi
oo'ds
OO'O
                                       F-66

-------
o>
CM
 I
LU
a:
           r-
           co
           CD
        LU
        _J
        CL
        LU
        CO
   CO
   LU
   CD

   CD

   LU
   Q
X
LU

CO
DC
LU
           LU
           >
           IJLl
        LU
        CO
        CO
        CC
        Q_

        CO
        ID
        CD
   ID
   CD
   CQ

   CO
   ZD
   CD
   ID
           CD
           CJ
                z
                O in
                ^ oi
                I- _l
  a  
in co  JM"
*" r~"  *~.
                                             in
                               - CN nr 
-------
o
co

           O
           en
           CD
        Ijj
        _J
        a:
           co
           ijj
          !co
        o
        LU
        CO
CD
UJ
a
X
Ijj

CO

LU


LU
CO
CO
CE
O_

CO

CD!
           LU
           >
           LU
           CD
           CO
           CO
           CD
           CJ
                       U) 00
                          . -   in
                  T-  CM CO CD r-  - t-
                     f- VJ I
                     5cb5"   E3 e <
               OO'OOE    OO'OSZ
                        00'002
                                    00*051
                                   31d03d
00*001
oo- as
                                                                       UJ
                                                                               in
                                                                                I
                                                                               a
                                                                                  LU
OO'O
                                      F-68

-------
CO
 I
o:
          ID
          CO
          CO
       d"
       >^
       ^-^
       	CO
       C313
       m^
       t/J
          a
       a_
       LJJ
          LU
          UJ
       CO
       LU
       CO
       CO
       ex
       Q_
       CO
       ID
       CD
21
ID
CD
CO

CO
ID
          ID
            9S

            ^2
                  in oo (vj"
                            i- CM n to *- *- -
                    5c8  E G <] x> K
OQ'OOE
                       CQ'OSZ
                                                              00'0
                                    F-69

-------
CM
CO
 I
CD
       I-
       ^
       uJ
       _l
       or
          o
          o
          o
          C\i
          CO
          LU
       f\

       X
       LU
       UJ
       I/ J

       CO
          LU
          Q
          CO
          ID
       CO


       CD'
          LJ
00'00    OQ'092    00-002    OO'OSI    OO'OOI
                   .01   31d03d  J0
                                                             00-02
CO'O
                                     F-70

-------
                               APPENDIX F

                               REFERENCES
 1.  Booz/Allen Applied Research, "An Assessment of the Technology for Bus
     Noise Abatement," draft final report submitted to U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, June 22, 1976.

 2.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Noise Enforcement Facility, "Lima
     School Bus Test Report," Sandusky, Ohio, June, 1976.

 3.  Wilbur Smith and Associates, "Transportation and Parking for Tomorrow's
     Cities," New Haven, Conn., 1966.

 4.  U.S. Environment Protection Agency, "Noise Levels of New MCI Buses,"
     Advance Report, July 23, 1976.

 5.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Noise Levels of New Eagle
     Buses, November 16, 1976.

 6.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Passenger Noise Environments
     of Enclosed Transportation Systems," Report Number 550/9-75-025,
     June 1975.

 7.  Russ Kevala, Booz-Allen Applied Research, Personal Communication,
     September 23, 1976.

 8.  Booz/Allen Applied Research, memo to Wyle Research, March 12, 1976.

 9.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
     Highway Statistics, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office,
     1975.

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Document for
     Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Regulations."  EPA Report
     550/9-76-008, March 1976.

11.  R. E. Burke, S. A. Bush, and J. W. Thompson, "Noise Emission
     Standards for Buses - A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,"
     Wyle Research Report WR 76-21, submitted by Wyle Laboratories
     under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3512, prepared for the Office of
     Noise Abatement and Control, October 19, 1976.

12.  House Noise  Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of
     Aircraft Noise, SAE Report AIR 1081, October 1971.

13.  Warnix, J. L. and Sharp, B. H., "Cost-Effectiveness Study of Major
     Sources of Noise.  Vol. IV - Buses," Wyle Research Report WR 73-10,
     April 1974.
                                  F-71

-------
                               APPENDIX G



                         MODEL NOISE ORDINANCE








A.        ELEMENTS OF A MODEL ORDINANCE



          In view of the previous lack of state and local interest in



regulating the noise emissions of buses, it is useful to note their



possible future interest in enforcing a model ordinance to be developed



by EPA specifically for buses.  In general, the response is positive



depending, of course, on the recommended noise standards, i.e., provided



they are not less restrictive than those presently in force.  However,



the question often raised is that there may be difficulties in the adop-



tion of a model ordinance by local governmnents when the enforcement will



be directed towards the procurement of additional facilities or equipment




of a city agency; namely, the local transit authority.  It is to be ex-



pected that the adoption will be resisted if the enforcement interferes



significantly with the operation of the fleet.  This means that the test



procedure must be as simple as possible, and yet consistent with good



acoustical practice.  Basically, there are three methods available,



namely:



              SAE J366b Testinvolving a full throttle acceleration



               past a microphone to measure near maximum noise level.



          o    Stationary Testinvolving a rapid acceleration to



               governed engine speed in neutral gear, followed by a



               rapid deceleration.






                                G-l

-------
          o    Pass-By Testinvolving a measurement of the noise level



               in a highway situation as the bus passes by operating



               under normal conditions.



          In addition to the tests involving noise measurements, an effec-



tive method of enforcement can involve a careful vehicle maintenance



checking procedure.  A statement of the advantages and disadvantages of



the four possible methods of enforcement are given in Table G-l.



          In enforcing the model ordinance for newly manufactured buses,



it is not necessarily essential to test every bus in a fleet.  A sample



of identical buses is all that is required to identify a common factor



that results in an increase in noise with timea poor muffler design,



for example.  All other factors causing degradation can be identified



by correct vehicle maintenance at regular intervals.  With this simpli-



fication, the optimum enforcement procedure can be stated as follows:



          o    A stationary test on a sample of diesel-powered buses



               (mainly transit buses).



          o    A unmodified SAE 366b test for gasoline-powered buses



               (mainly school buses).



          o    A comprehensive procedure for bus maintenance (this will



               also be to the prevention of noise degradation of the older



               buses in the fleet).



          With this background, it is possible to develop a simple,



proposed model ordinance for buses.
                                  G-2

-------
      Procedure

1. Controlled SAE Test
            Table G-l

Bus Noise Enforcement- Methodology

           Advantages

      o  Suitable for application
         to all bus types

        Fairly repeatable

        Well documented
      Disadvantages

  Large amount of space
   required

  Time consuming
2. Stationary Test
        Simple

        Quick

        Only limited space
         required
   Difficult for application
   to ungoverned engines
   (school buses)
3. Uncontrolled Pass-By
         Simple

         Expedient
   Not as accurate as
   other methods

   Requires driver cooperation
4. Vehicle Maintenance
   Check
        Expedient
        Strong possibility of
         adoption by local agencies
   Does not provide
   quantitative results
                                    G-3

-------
B.        PROPOSED MODEL ORDINANCE



          Applicability



          The provisions of the model ordinance shall apply to any motor



vehicle having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000



Ibs. designed for the transportation of 10 or more people, other than



the driver, that is manufactured after the year 	.



          Standards For Buses Equipped With An Engine Governor



          No person shall operate a motor vehicle as defined above that



is powered by an engine with an engine speed governor which generates a



noise level in excess of 	 dBA when measured with fast response with



the vehicle stationary at a distance of 50 feet from the vehicle center-



line, on a line perpendicular to the exhaust outlet, when the engine



is accelerated in neutral gear from idle with wide-open throttle to the



governed engine speed.



          Standards For Buses Not Equipped With An Engine Governor



          No person shall operate a motor vehicle as defined above that



is not equipped with an engine speed governor which generates a noise



level in excess of 	 dBA when measured according to the test procedures



defined by the EPA Procedure for Measurement of the Noise Emissions of



New Buses  (modified SAE J366b).



          Vehicle Maintenance Procedure (Recommended Practice Rather Than



                                        Part Of An Ordinance)



          Regular vehicle maintenance for all buses shall include inspec-



tion and necessary repair of the following equipment in addition to normal



running maintenance:





                                   G-4

-------
1.  Exhaust Systems
    o     Mufflers and connecting pipes should be in normal
          working order, be free of visible corrosion and
          external carbon deposits.
    o     Flexible joints should be free of carbon deposits and
          should not exude smoke, fumes, etc.
    o     Exhaust manifold bolts and gaskets should be checked
          for tightness and replaced where necessary.
2.  Body Work
    o     All access doors and panels should be checked for
          proper closure and weatherstripping.
    o     Where applicable, "under-belly" pans should be in place
          and correctly fitted.
                        G-5

-------
                          GENERAL REFERENCES

                              APPENDIX G
1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  "Noise Source Regulation
     in State and Local Noise Ordinances,"  Report No. 550/9-75-020,
     February 1975.

2.   Society of Automotive Engineers,  "Exterior Sound Level for Heavy
     Trucks and Buses," SAE Standard J366b.

3.   "Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards," Federal
     Register, Vol. 38, No. 144, July  27,  1973.

4.   "Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission StandardsFinal
     Regulations on Compliance," Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 178,
     September 12, 1975.

5.   "Existing Noise Regulations Applicable to Buses," Draft Final
     Report submitted by Wyle Laboratories under EPA Contract No.
     68-01-3516, prepared for the Office of Noise Abatement and
     Control, June 24, 1976.
                                    G-6

                                            * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 0-729-826/1472

-------