Post
by Mr OC Benz » Tue Aug 25, 8:19 pm
Check now
Tim Williams wrote: &#;Tue Aug 25, 2:41 pm
Full low floor buses are mechanically more complicated then the commonly used (in Australia, at least) low entrance buses - they are also more expensive to purchase and maintain, with some of their expensive parts quite close to the ground. Full low floor buses would not be able to operate in some town-urban areas due to the road profile/topography. As a simple example when I had Murtons, we had a lot of trouble keeping some parts of our buses away from the roads in Broken Hill - in fact the 4 underneath skids at the front and rear of each of the two BCI's on the Town Services were virtually worn down to nothing after 3 years in service. And I believe our drivers did their best by slowing right down and raising the suspension in the more "extreme" areas.Full low floor buses are mechanically more complicated then the commonly used (in Australia, at least) low entrance buses - they are also more expensive to purchase and maintain, with some of their expensive parts quite close to the ground. Full low floor buses would not be able to operate in some town-urban areas due to the road profile/topography. As a simple example when I had Murtons, we had a lot of trouble keeping some parts of our buses away from the roads in Broken Hill - in fact the 4 underneath skids at the front and rear of each of the two BCI's on the Town Services were virtually worn down to nothing after 3 years in service. And I believe our drivers did their best by slowing right down and raising the suspension in the more "extreme" areas.
I don't think there's a one size fits all approach and certainly full low floor buses, while they are obviously desirable for the reasons that tonyp has mentioned (increased accessibility, reduced risk of injury, increased overall capacity etc), they are suited to some applications (e.g. high volume short distance) more than others (outer suburban, rural). Your example in Broken Hill does not necessarily mean that full low floor buses would not be fit for purpose in that area... the design specifications of buses (low floor or low entry) can wildly vary by manufacturer. There's plenty of locations in Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) where road conditions are far worse than anything that would be experienced in Australia and yet many low floor buses seem perfectly capable of handling the task (and for the record I've also witnessed others which are not!).
Tim Williams wrote: &#;Tue Aug 25, 2:41 pm
So, as we know, most urban buses here are low entrance only (excluding double deckers which are full low floor), but does this matter? - I don't think so...So, as we know, most urban buses here are low entrance only (excluding double deckers which are full low floor), but does this matter? - I don't think so...
As far as meeting minimum DDA compliance, it does not matter as long as it is compliant but are we seeking to meet just the bare minimum or is there a higher standard that can be met which balances cost with attracting patronage and providing a level of comfort and quality that meets customer expectations. Obviously this is where transport authorities need to take the lead as there is little incentive for bus operators (those who have that level of autonomy to lease/purchase own fleets etc) to exceed expectations when standards are set so low by transport authorities. Unfortunately the level of incompetence that most public transport authorities exhibit around the country and the people in charge of making decisions (who often lack any expertise or understanding of the fundamental principles of providing public transport) does not fill me with much hope that this will change in the short term.
Tim Williams wrote: &#;Tue Aug 25, 2:41 pm
...as people with disabilities make up less than 20% of the total population and there is sufficient area without any steps for their use at the front end of buses. There may need to be greater effort made to encourage standing passengers to move more towards the rear, rather than the current tendency to congregate around the front flat area....as people with disabilities make up less than 20% of the total population and there is sufficient area without any steps for their use at the front end of buses. There may need to be greater effort made to encourage standing passengers to move more towards the rear, rather than the current tendency to congregate around the front flat area.
People with disabilities may make up less than 20% of the total population but in many cases, they make up far more than 20% of patronage on bus services, obviously depending on the type of service and demographics of the area. Sure, in many situations we are talking small numbers (i.e. 20% of 5 people on a bus is obviously not much) particularly outside of the bigger cities but in those capital cities where off-peak travel incentives are provided, their proportion of total patronage during these times can be significant. I have personally witnessed multiple occasions of fully seated buses carrying predominantly seniors/pensioners and people with reduced mobility in high density areas, where poor bus design has resulted in these passengers having great difficulty with getting on, finding a seat, and getting off again. Compounded across the trip and throughout multiple trips across the day, this results in increased unreliability and delays, which are by no means the passengers fault but certainly makes you wonder if there is a better solution - of course there is a better solution but as I've mentioned above, who is in charge of making decisions that would ever know or care about these issues? I see there is a real disconnect between those in charge of planning and execution of bus services and their understanding vs what actually happens in reality.
Tim Williams wrote: &#;Tue Aug 25, 2:41 pm
The point (which I have made previously) is that full low floor buses tend to have lower seating capacities and the seats towards the rear are of necessity on plinths, some of which are very high and do present a tripping hazard to the elderly and infirmed - whereas the current low entrance buses are far more passenger friendly and just require passengers to negotiate a few steps towards the rear.
The point (which I have made previously) is that full low floor buses tend to have lower seating capacities and the seats towards the rear are of necessity on plinths, some of which are very high and do present a tripping hazard to the elderly and infirmed - whereas the current low entrance buses are far more passenger friendly and just require passengers to negotiate a few steps towards the rear.
Lower seating capacities isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on the application and as mentioned above, each manufacturer does things differently and there are indeed some out there who could provide similar seating capacities to that of a low entry bus. Likewise with seats on plinths, there are some which are very high but again this varies by manufacturer. The same is true for low entry buses. Some manufacturers make these relatively passenger friendly by having gentle and slight increases in height between steps while others are significantly more difficult to traverse.
In any case, there appears to be increasing realisation that full low floor buses are beneficial for public transport operations. This is becoming more evident with electric buses which are gaining traction and will only be a matter of time before they become more widespread across Australia. Electric buses have the added benefit of being able to accommodate full low floor layouts more easily compared to their diesel counterparts. Although some manufacturers (in Australia at least) have decided to continue the low entry format on their electric bus products (even those where there is actually no technical reason to do so), there are plenty of newcomers to the market which, if they are successful, will deliver a far more desirable product from a customer's point of view, most of which are offering full low floor layouts (Volvo's E, Bustech's ZDi, Denning's Element?, Zemtec, Ebusco to name some). The Brisbane Metro project will feature full low floor buses and the business case being developed for an electric bus network on the Gold Coast is expected to feature full low floor layouts on those buses.
I don't think there's a one size fits all approach and certainly full low floor buses, while they are obviously desirable for the reasons that tonyp has mentioned (increased accessibility, reduced risk of injury, increased overall capacity etc), they are suited to some applications (e.g. high volume short distance) more than others (outer suburban, rural). Your example in Broken Hill does not necessarily mean that full low floor buses would not be fit for purpose in that area... the design specifications of buses (low floor or low entry) can wildly vary by manufacturer. There's plenty of locations in Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) where road conditions are far worse than anything that would be experienced in Australia and yet many low floor buses seem perfectly capable of handling the task (and for the record I've also witnessed others which are not!).As far as meeting minimum DDA compliance, it does not matter as long as it is compliant but are we seeking to meet just the bare minimum or is there a higher standard that can be met which balances cost with attracting patronage and providing a level of comfort and quality that meets customer expectations. Obviously this is where transport authorities need to take the lead as there is little incentive for bus operators (those who have that level of autonomy to lease/purchase own fleets etc) to exceed expectations when standards are set so low by transport authorities. Unfortunately the level of incompetence that most public transport authorities exhibit around the country and the people in charge of making decisions (who often lack any expertise or understanding of the fundamental principles of providing public transport) does not fill me with much hope that this will change in the short term.People with disabilities may make up less than 20% of the total population but in many cases, they make up far more than 20% of patronage on bus services, obviously depending on the type of service and demographics of the area. Sure, in many situations we are talking small numbers (i.e. 20% of 5 people on a bus is obviously not much) particularly outside of the bigger cities but in those capital cities where off-peak travel incentives are provided, their proportion of total patronage during these times can be significant. I have personally witnessed multiple occasions of fully seated buses carrying predominantly seniors/pensioners and people with reduced mobility in high density areas, where poor bus design has resulted in these passengers having great difficulty with getting on, finding a seat, and getting off again. Compounded across the trip and throughout multiple trips across the day, this results in increased unreliability and delays, which are by no means the passengers fault but certainly makes you wonder if there is a better solution - of course there is a better solution but as I've mentioned above, who is in charge of making decisions that would ever know or care about these issues? I see there is a real disconnect between those in charge of planning and execution of bus services and their understanding vs what actually happens in reality.Lower seating capacities isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on the application and as mentioned above, each manufacturer does things differently and there are indeed some out there who could provide similar seating capacities to that of a low entry bus. Likewise with seats on plinths, there are some which are very high but again this varies by manufacturer. The same is true for low entry buses. Some manufacturers make these relatively passenger friendly by having gentle and slight increases in height between steps while others are significantly more difficult to traverse.In any case, there appears to be increasing realisation that full low floor buses are beneficial for public transport operations. This is becoming more evident with electric buses which are gaining traction and will only be a matter of time before they become more widespread across Australia. Electric buses have the added benefit of being able to accommodate full low floor layouts more easily compared to their diesel counterparts. Although some manufacturers (in Australia at least) have decided to continue the low entry format on their electric bus products (even those where there is actually no technical reason to do so), there are plenty of newcomers to the market which, if they are successful, will deliver a far more desirable product from a customer's point of view, most of which are offering full low floor layouts (Volvo's E, Bustech's ZDi, Denning's Element?, Zemtec, Ebusco to name some). The Brisbane Metro project will feature full low floor buses and the business case being developed for an electric bus network on the Gold Coast is expected to feature full low floor layouts on those buses.
Schaller Consulting
Archive
MTA New York City Transit Research Shows What Customers
Want in Low Floor Buses
by Bruce Schaller, Dana Lowell and Kenneth R. Stuart, Ph.D.
Mass Transit, May/June .
The research reported in this paper was conducted while the authors were in
New York City Transit's Marketing Research and Analysis Division and Buses Division.
With two manufacturers rolling out new low floor bus models this year, virtually
every North American producer of 40' transit buses now offers a low floor
option. One bus manufacturer estimates that low floor sales accounted for
15-20% of total bus sales in and predicts that the low floor market
share will rise to 70-80% by the year . An industry analyst has counted
3,200 low floor buses in service or on order today.
Obviously, the transit industry is interested in low floor buses, due to
the many perceived benefits that they offer. But do customers share this
enthusiasm? Over the last year MTA New York City Transit set out to find
the answer using customer research.
The answer is "yes-if." As long as safety and seating concerns are addressed,
a large majority of bus riders favor low floor buses over the standard floor
buses with which they are familiar. Thus, properly-designed low floor buses
promise to be a hit with bus riders, while designs which do not address customer
concerns could have serious problems in terms of customer acceptance.
In addition to this overall conclusion, the customer research yielded a wealth
of information about how to design buses to maximize customer satisfaction
and ultimately, bus ridership. Much of this information is applicable to
standard floor buses as well as low floor designs.
CONDUCTING CUSTOMER RESEARCH
Customer needs and preferences were obtained using a three-part research
design.
Phase I focused on understanding how bus design choices affect customers.
How do changes in bus layouts and features alter passengers' bus-riding
experience? What criteria do customers use to judge that a given bus design
is good or bad? As a new area of customer research for NYC Transit, it was
important to see design issues through riders' eyes rather than impose an
engineering, operational or planning framework on the research.
Qualitative research (focus groups) was utilized to achieve this first objective.
Groups of 8 to 12 customers were shown a standard floor and a low floor bus
(either the two-step bus or full low floor bus; see box for descriptions).
Research included wheelchair users and blind/visually-impaired customers.
After seeing the buses, each group engaged in an in-depth focus group discussion
of their likes and dislikes of each bus and preferences for entrances, seating,
windows and other features. Participants were also asked for suggestions
on how to improve the design of the buses they saw.
Phase II: Results of the focus groups were used to draft survey questions
for the quantitative phase involving 232 bus riders from throughout New York
City. Participants were taken on simulated in-service test rides. During
the test rides respondents completed a written survey on their impressions
of each bus overall and on various design features.
Groups of approximately 40 participants rode each bus for about 20 minutes,
exiting and reboarding at bus stops along the way. Participants thus experienced
how the bus felt under conditions very similar to their daily bus riding
experience. Each participant rode in four different buses-the three low floor
buses (see box) and a NYC Transit standard floor bus.
Phase III: The two-step low floor bus was operated for three months on three
Manhattan bus routes. A short survey was distributed and collected during
normal revenue service on each route. This phase served to validate findings
from the second phase, showing that test rides accurately simulated everyday
conditions.
BUSES EVAULATED
Four bus models were used in this research:
-
A bus with a flat low floor between the front entrance and rear exit doors
and two steps in the aisle leading to a raised section behind the rear door.
The rear door was ahead of the rear axle, near the middle of the bus. Two
versions of this bus were used during the different phases of research: a
37-seat version with mostly side-facing seating between the doors and fully
upholstered seats; and a 39-seat version with padded seats and mostly 2x2
forward-facing seats between the doors. Both versions had 2X2 seating in
the raised back section.
-
A bus with a flat low floor from the front entrance to just ahead of the
rear axle, with a slightly upwardly sloped aisle over the rear axle to the
back of the bus. The rear door was in the back of the bus, behind the rear
axle. The configuration used had 28 seats, mostly 2x1 forward-facing.
-
A bus with a flat full low floor from front to rear. This bus had 33 seats,
mostly side-facing. It also had two rear doors, one in the middle of the
bus ahead of the rear axle and the other in the far back behind the rear
axle.
-
A regular NYC Transit bus with standard floor height and 40 seats. The rear
door is about two-thirds of the way toward the rear of the bus, ahead of
the rear axle. Most seats between the doors are 2x1 forward-facing.
All current NYC Transit buses, including the one used in the research, are
fully wheelchair accessible via a wheel chair lift in the rear door. All
low floor buses used in the research provided wheelchair access via ramps,
located in the front door, the rear door, or both.
BUS SERVICE AND BUS DESIGN
For the most part, New York City bus riders feel that the physical design
and layout of the current standard floor buses that they ride every day is
satisfactory. Non-disabled focus group participants said that the current
design is "not broken." The quantitative research confirmed the focus group
results; 8 in 10 customers on the simulated test rides rated the current
bus as satisfactory, while only 3 percent said it is unacceptable and 17
percent rated it excellent.
If the current design is not broken, what is there to fix? To answer this
question, one must understand how bus design can affect bus service. Customers
had plenty to say about bus service in general, indicating that their biggest
concerns are waiting times, speed of travel, and crowding. They also equated
good or bad service with other factors such as bus operator skill and traffic
conditions. Once customers were given the opportunity to see how design can
affect some of these service attributes, however, they expressed intense
interest in the alternate designs we showed them.
How customers assess design options can be summarized into three service-related
criteria. Is the design safe? How does the design affect the comfort of my
trip? How will it affect reliability of service?
Safety
A threshold concern for any type of transportation, safety is particularly
important to bus riders in New York City, many of whom choose to take the
bus instead of the subway due to personal security concerns. Under the watchful
eye of the Bus Operator, customers feel a greater sense of personal security
on the bus. On a 0 to 10 rating scale, NYC Transit customers give buses a
7.9 rating for personal security versus a 6.9 rating for the subway (third
quarter citywide survey). Cocooned above the dangers posed
by cabs, trucks and cars, customers also feel safer from accidents on a bus
than they do in other types of surface vehicles.
Link to tenglong
In the minds of customers, low floor buses generate two potential safety
concerns. First, with passengers sitting much lower to the ground, some customers
worry that a car or truck crashing into the side of a low floor bus would
cause injury to passengers' vital body parts rather than to their legs, as
on a standard floor bus. A vocal minority of focus group participants expressed
this fear.
Results from the quantitative phase confirmed this concern, but also showed
that these fears are eased by designs that have a raised rear section, which
offers customers the option of sitting above the traffic as they do in current
buses. Thus, 29% rated the full low floor bus as unacceptable on "safety
in an accident", compared with 17% for current buses, and 14% for the two-step
bus with a higher rear section. In addition, after riding a two-step low
floor bus in actual revenue service, only 10% of customers rated it unacceptable
on "safety in an accident".
While the low floor bus with the raised rear section alleviates some passengers'
concerns about safety in an accident, it also introduces the second safety
issue. Customers worry about tripping and falling on the steps that lead
to this raised platform. Focus group participants expressed this concern
very strongly. These respondents, who walked through a stationary bus, imagined
being thrown down the steps as the bus accelerates or stops, or missing the
steps as they begin to exit. Actual experience on a moving bus largely but
not entirely alleviated these fears. One in five respondents on both the
test rides and in-service test rated the aisle steps as "unacceptable", but
an even larger number rated them as "excellent" (30% on the test rides and
40% during the in-service test) . In addition, it should be noted that in
three months of revenue service there were no reported incidents of trips
or falls on the rear steps. While this issue merits concern it is not a
show-stopper.
Overall, while low floor buses present some safety concerns to passengers,
which should be closely monitored as buses are put into service, these issues
appear to be manageable.
Comfort
Comfort is a broad term that involves a range of bus features. The size and
location of doors, the number of seats and their orientation, and the position
of the wheelchair entrance all affect riders' ease of moving into, through
and off of the bus, their physical comfort while seated or standing, and
their sense of personal space.
The biggest advantage of low floor buses is how much easier they are to enter
and exit than a bus with a standard height floor. This advantage was immediately
appreciated by focus group participants, particularly seniors, disabled persons,
and the parents who indicated that they often travel with young children.
These groups comprise a significant slice of bus ridership. Customer appreciation
of this advantage was confirmed in the quantitative research, where 61% of
participants rated "overall ease of entry" as excellent for low floor buses
compared with only 29% for the standard floor bus. Once inside the bus,
customers' main concern is finding a seat. Seating is the trickiest aspect
of low floor bus design. The very lowness of the bus that improves boarding
also produces wheel pockets that protrude to waist level, eliminating space
for seating.
Dealing effectively with the space reduction created by wheel pockets is
critical because the number of seats was the number one determinate of how
well customers liked the low floor bus designs they were shown. The two-step
bus, which had the most seats (39) of any of the low floor buses used in
the research, was the most popular bus in the quantitative phase. Customers
preferred this bus over standard floor buses by a three to one margin, and
also preferred it to each of the other low floor buses. In another measure
of satisfaction and potential ridership payoff, one-third of test-ride
participants said that with the two-step bus in service, they would ride
buses more, while only 9% said they would ride buses less.
Conversely, the full low-floor bus-with only 28 seats- was the least-liked
low floor model. Respondents preferred the current bus over this design by
a two to one margin. More customers said they would ride buses less with
this bus in service (20%) than would ride more (14%).
Thus, adequate seating is a make-or-break issue for low floor buses. But
the number of seats is only one aspect of bus interior design. Seating
orientation and aisle space are also critical elements that can affect the
success of any bus model, including low floor designs.
In general, bus designers can fit more side-facing seats than single
forward-facing seats into a bus. However, customers strongly prefer
forward-facing seats because they are more comfortable when the bus stops
quickly (customers don't like to slide sideways). They also provide better
sight lines out the windows to see the bus' location, and they help customers
avoid disconcerting eye contact with strangers sitting across the aisle.
Seat orientation is so important that customers will trade off a few seats
overall to obtain more forward-facing seats. (These groups of customers did
not see any buses with rear-facing seats.) Asked to choose between two interior
layouts of a standard floor bus, customers preferred the current configuration
of 22 forward-facing and 18 side-facing seats (total of 40 seats) to a
configuration with only 17 forward-facing seats and 25 side-facing seats
(total of 42 seats).
The other tradeoff is between seating and aisle space. In this case, customers
come down on the side of seating. In preferring the low floor bus with the
most seats, customers seemed not to mind the loss of aisle space. They rated
"feeling of enough space" and "ease of moving through the bus to find a seat"
identically whether the bus had 2x1 seating (two seats on one side of the
aisle and one seat on the other side) or 2x2 seating between the front and
rear doors. This result must be viewed cautiously, however, since the test
rides given to survey respondents didn't truly simulate peak traveling conditions
in New York City. Virtually all of NYC Transit's routes experience high standee
loads during some part of the day. Under these conditions, the extra aisle
space provided by 2x1 seating between the doors is critical to ensure that
passengers can move quickly and easily through the bus.
Loss of aisle space is of less concern behind the rear doors. And in fact,
customers overwhelmingly preferred 2x2 over 2x1 seating in the rear raised
section of the "two-step" bus, both during the test rides and during the
in-service test.
The final comfort-related issue is the placement of the rear door. Should
it be in the middle of the bus, slightly back from the middle, or in the
far rear of the bus? Customers expressed a clear preference for placing the
rear door near the middle of the bus where it can be reached more easily.
Customers said that they would be more likely to exit out of a rear door
located in the middle of the bus than one located further back. Customers
disliked buses with a rear door in the far rear of the bus behind the rear
axle, particularly because the two examples used in the research featured
narrow aisles leading to the rear door.
In sum, customers share the feeling that low floor buses provide distinct
advantages in the realm of comfort. The seating layout of the bus must be
carefully designed, however, to achieve adequate seating capacity while
maximizing forward-facing seats, maintaining adequate flow through the bus,
and placing the back door near the middle of the bus.
Service reliability
Many transit planners feel, or at least hope, that low floor buses will improve
bus service by reducing dwell times at bus stops. They hope that the one-step
entrance, wider doors and quicker wheelchair boardings will speed passenger
boarding and exiting. Quicker and more reliable dwell times help maintain
even spacing between buses and reduce total run time, producing less bus
bunching and better service.
Customers are not so sure that these claims are valid, but seem willing to
be convinced. Overwhelmingly, customers attribute unreliable bus service
to traffic congestion, accidents and the baffling phenomenon of bus bunching.
Customers tended not to expect that they would board a low floor bus more
quickly than current buses. Those who do expect quicker boardings, however,
overwhelmingly expect that reliability will improve as a result. Therefore
it can be expected that if customers actually experience faster boardings
on low floor buses, they will ultimately feel that low floor buses contribute
to more reliable service.
All customer groups immediately liked the wheelchair ramp used on low floor
buses. Both wheelchair users and others felt that the ramp would be faster
and easier to use and less likely to break down than the wheelchair lifts
used on current buses. Most customers in New York City have experienced delays
while the wheelchair lift was used and welcome anything that will speed
wheelchair boardings and alightings. Many wheelchair users vividly recount
being stuck on a bus with a nonfunctioning lift, or worse, being perched
on a lift that fails in operation. They ardently welcome a more reliable
device.
Any design solution incorporates a balance between competing demands, both
functional and technical. Developing a low floor bus design means balancing
competing customer needs-for example space for seats versus space for standing
and circulation-within the constraints imposed by the technology-namely the
space needs of wheel pockets. The central finding of this research is that
New Yorkers see substantial benefits from low floor buses but they are not
willing to give up too many seats to get these benefits. Customers reacted
very favorably to low floor bus designs with 37 or more seats (compared to
40 in NYC Transit's current buses). Low floor buses with significantly fewer
seats got generally unfavorable ratings. Therefore, low floor designs should
incorporate as close to 40 seats as possible while maximizing the number
of forward-facing seats and maintaining adequate aisle space. A low floor
bus model which does so will be preferred to current buses by a majority
of New York City bus riders.
Customers also preferred having one rear door, near the middle of the bus;
a wheelchair ramp in the rear door; wide doors, and large windows that slide
open (see box).
PREFERENCE FOR SPECIFIC BUS FEATURES
For each pair, which item would you prefer?
Forward-facing seats
80%
Side-facing seats
17%
Large Window Size
68%
Conventional Window Size
30%
Windows that slide open
72%
Windows that flip down at top
25%
Wheel chair ramp
75%
Wheel chair lift
22%
Wheel chair ramp in rear door
63%
Wheel chair ramp in front door
33%
1 rear door near middle of bus
83%
1 rear door at very back of bus
15%
APPLYING THE RESULTS TO PROCUREMENTS
Based on this research, NYC Transit is cautiously optimistic about the future
of low floor buses in New York City. Obviously, our customers agree that
these buses have a role to play in our service, and NYC Transit recently
awarded a contract for 190 low floor buses powered by compressed natural
gas as part of our normal fleet replacement cycle.
However, we remain concerned about the loss of seating and overall capacity
with low floor buses. For our current buses, we specify only 2x1 forward-facing
or perimeter seating; this results in a 40 seat bus that also has a wide
aisle to accommodate standees during peak loading. For our low floor buses,
we will make a slight compromise by specifying 2x1 seating between the front
and rear doors, but allowing 2x2 seating behind the rear door. The acceptability
of this compromise is supported by the results of this research. As in our
current buses, we will also specify that as many seats as possible be
forward-facing. This will result in a 36 seat bus, at least in low floor
models with a raised rear platform.
In the long run, we will encourage bus manufacturers to find creative ways
to increase the capacity of their low floor models. The ultimate goal, of
course, is a 40 seat model that equals the capacity of our current buses.
LESSONS FOR CUSTOMER RESEARCH
Several lessons for conducting customer research can be gleaned from this
experience:
1. It is vitally important to see bus design issues through customers' eyes.
A host of engineering, cost and operating issues must be accommodated in
the design process and it is easy to lose track of whether a given design
choice meets customers' needs. Research with customers vividly shows what
those needs are. Research also shows that customers are realistic in making
choices, shrewdly taking into consideration the real world stresses that
buses must endure.
2. A full and accurate understanding of customer needs requires more than
one research method. The combination of focus groups and survey work, simulated
test rides and in-service tests served well to define and quantify customer
views. Using focus groups alone can be misleading; some concerns expressed
strongly in the groups turned out to be exaggerated based on the test ride
and in-service survey results. Yet the focus groups were a vital first step
which allowed us to design better follow-on research phases.
3. It is important to show customers practical alternatives so they can
realistically consider the tradeoffs. Design is inherently about tradeoffs-more
seats means less standing space, etc. Customers readily understand the tradeoffs
and can express their preferences if they see the alternatives. Without seeing
actual designs, however, customers have difficulty realistically visualizing
their likely experience.
4. It is important to simulate the actual experience. Reaction to the test
rides corresponded very closely to results of the in-service test, while
customers in focus group walk-throughs tended to exaggerate certain concerns.
Following these guidelines, it is definitely possible--and worthwhile--to
enlist customers in the effort to build a better bus.
For more information, please visit Low Entry bus chassis.
Comments
Please Join Us to post.
0