Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part C

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trc

Modular route bus design A method of meeting transport

operation and vehicle manufacturing requirements
Robbie Napper
Department of Design, MADA, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Road, Cauleld East, Victoria 3145, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 January 2011
Received in revised form 29 October 2013
Accepted 1 November 2013

Keywords:
Transit
Bus
Design
Manufacture
Vehicle
Operation
Specication

a b s t r a c t
This research examines the problem of route bus specication and vehicle manufacturability. In order for bus operators to provide transport services, a range of vehicle congurations must be available from bus manufacturers, generating variety which has a negative
impact on the manufacturing process. Larger part inventories, uncontrolled labour tasks
and more troublesome maintenance are known impacts of this variety. This research identies the functional necessities in route bus interior design and reduces the problems in
bus manufacture and operation caused by specication diversity by proposing a modularised system of bus design. In particular, it makes recommendations as to how bus conguration should be carried out, ensuring an optimum mix of operational and manufacturing
needs:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Determine user needs before the bus specication process.

Designs to be developed by the manufacturer in response to user needs.
This design should be standardised where possible, as suggested by the user needs.
Where user needs dictate product variations, apply a mass customisation approach to
accommodate these needs.

The recommendations are communicated in design proposals for a modular bus interior,
demonstrated by four cases designed to meet the present status quo of bus interior design
and predictions for the future of the eld.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Route buses are an integral part of transportation systems. The ubiquity of roads means buses can offer an inexpensive
and versatile means of public transport (Grifn et al., 2005). Bus vehicles are capital goods, machinery used to produce a
commodity (Acha et al., 2004). Manufacturers make buses operators provide transport. The nature of bus operators varies
from government organisations to small family businesses; they are typically responsible for the operation of buses in a dened geographical area to create transport service. Operators must work within the constraints of their locale and business
strategy; reected in varied methods of operation and marked physical variations in bus vehicles.
This research investigates body-on-chassis or bus bodywork manufacture, characterised by the fabrication of a bus body on
a supplied chassis. This manufacturing methodology is typical in countries where markets cannot support widespread
investment into chassis manufacturing capabilities. In the Australian context, the majority of chassis are manufactured in
Europe and shipped to the bodywork manufacturer. European chassis are considered market leaders in this area (Vuchic,

Tel.: +61 3 9903 1059; fax: +61 3 9903 1440.

E-mail address: robbie.napper@monash.edu
0968-090X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.11.002

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

57

1981). The Australian bus market is dominated by bus bodywork manufacturers, although alternatives are available in the
form of locally made complete buses.
The research problem is that specication diversity in route bus bodywork increases the costs of product development,
erodes economies of scale, and increases lead times and overall production times in bus manufacture. The result is a more
expensive and troublesome vehicle to purchase and maintain. This research sets out to determine a bus interior design providing appropriate vehicles for operational purposes, while ensuring that the vehicles are also capable of efcient
manufacture.
Bus variation is manifested in several ways. Vehicle length varies as a result of road-form constraints and desired passenger capacity. Changing components such as doors and air conditioners allows bus operators to meet different functional
requirements, the result being vast variation across the product range. In addition to explicit functional needs, bus operators
may also have a company history or culture dictating a particular specication, such as oor materials and livery. These variations continue to create unique vehicles.
To the layperson and passenger, bus variation may well be invisible. Their perception is of a vehicle providing the transport commodity; and of being moved from origin to destination. The present aim of bus design is to facilitate manifestation
of this service. The commodity-centric view of transport, and in particular bus transport is however changing by becoming
attuned to the qualitative requirements of transport, particularly with reference to competition from the private car (Beiro
and Sarseld Cabral, 2007) and light rail (Hensher, 1999).
Variation in bus design is necessary at present to mitigate the discrepancy between bus vehicles and operator needs; ultimately enabling the operator to offer the passenger consistent service. In addition, by specifying the exact nature of its capital goods, the bus operator can integrate the bus into their operational strategy. For example, a bus operator might instigate
a particular material specication allowing it to schedule vehicle cleaning around evening shifts, or the design of a drivers
area may be more in keeping with union requirements for driver safety a factor that affects the passenger indirectly rather
than directly. Specication is often driven by historical precedent in operator companies, which may be functionally justied
as in the case of wanting to use the same chassis marque (brand) to rationalise maintenance programmes, or culturally justied by means of family company history. One example of this the bus interior shows signicant variation in conguration, and in the part inventory used to accommodate this variation.
In present form, bus bodywork manufacture is highly labour intensive, requiring many skilled tradespeople in various
capacities. This is coupled with a considerable amount of engineering, sales and administrative work prior to commencement of build. Bus specication requires extensive negotiation between sales, engineering and the operator, supported by
preparation of contracts for delivery and payment; conditions repeated across a variety of orders from bus operators. These
conditions have precipitated a bespoke system of manufacturing, distinguished by variety in procedures, parts and the nished product, despite the processes having similarities and the end product being functionally identical to the next a bus.
At present, operators specications are communicated to the manufacturer by means of the sales process and given form
in the engineering department before production. While this may appear simple in its linearity, the information passed
through this process changes at every stage. Thus, by seeking to intervene in bus design this paper also aims to address
the process of bus specication, as shown in Fig. 1. Although the bus may appear somewhat reactionary to specications,

Fig. 1. The typical Australian bus bodywork specication, design, and manufacture process.

58

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

by analysing these specications we can improve our understanding of what drives them. Thus, the methods by which buses
are brought into service are subject to research and experimentation in this research.
Diverse specications originate with the needs of bus operators. A specication can be an unclear method of communicating user needs, as the communiqu takes the form of a solution, rather than establishing a problem. Research into user
needs therefore forms a fundamental element of the broader research into bus specication processes, in order that the problems of specication diversity may be reduced.

2. Product and literature review

The extent of variation in the bus interior was found to be signicant in a review of two years production at an Australian
bodywork manufacturer (n = 495) (Napper, 2007). Interior components were found to be open to unstructured variations in
design, colour and position in the bus. For example, a handrail connecting the ceiling to a seat back may be shaped (bent
from stainless steel tube) in a variety of curves, painted one of several colours or offered in a brushed nish, and then positioned in the bus interior in only one space, or repeated in several positions. The nish paint specication is simple enough to accommodate in the production process, but when variations such as this are multiplied across many interior
components the consequences for vehicle manufacture and consistent operation become serious. In production, large inventories are required to offer all variations in components, and labour is subject to variation as the work required to fabricate
and install parts is not standardised. In operation, variety in a vehicle eet has a signicant impact on maintenance and repair of vehicles in the same labour dimension as in manufacture. Furthermore, an inconsistent eet of buses can cause scheduling difculties as a transport planner must accommodate differences in vehicle capability in their consideration of the
available eet.
The review also found three key components in the conguration of a bus interior; vehicle length, number of doors, and
the number of seats. For operational reasons the need for these variations are unlikely to change due to road, dwell time
constraints, and corridor capacity requirements respectively. Fig. 2 captures the variation in these three specications from
the review.
This research sets out to determine how the design of buses and systems of design for route bus bodywork manufacture
can reduce the negative effects of specication diversity. The question is located across three areas of knowledge; mass customisation, design and public transport. Accordingly this section undertakes a literature review of relevant areas in public
transport and mass customisation research. The bespoke manufacturing methodology is analysed, leading to an examination
of mass customisation. Mass customisation (MC) is an umbrella term used to describe the manufacturing and management
strategies for diverse product ranges. This section provides an introduction to MC principles and provides a critical analysis
resulting in a direction for this research. The review of knowledge in public transport determines the characteristics of bus
function within the transport system, and identies knowledge gaps in this area; particularly those related to the design of
vehicles and the complex milieu of user needs.
Economies of scale in modern production systems allow less expensive manufacture and assembly of complex, identical
goods which would otherwise be more expensive. Existing ideas of mass production were brought together in the Model T
Ford, in combination with the innovation of compartmentalised manual tasks in production. Henry Fords notion of standardisation offered customers ...any colour that he wants so long as it is black. (Batchelor, 1994).
Fords often quoted yet reputedly never uttered phrase (Batchelor, 1994) nevertheless neatly summarises the beauty and
boundaries of mass production the system will work if consumer demand is limited to the product in standardised form. In
the Model T case, the efciency of manufacture led to such an affordable product that customers overlooked deciencies; as
despite shortcomings the Model T still represented a signicant advance from the horse. Mass production endures as the
basis of efcient manufacture, the fundamental attributes being the repetition of tasks and components. The Model T Ford

Fig. 2. Seated capacity of vehicles, by bus length and number of doors.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

59

successfully captured the market in personal motorised transport and through further standardisation colour choice eventually being limited to black and larger economies of scale, the price of the vehicle dropped from its already low base of
$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916 (Batchelor, 1994).
Stan Davis suggests that manufacturers should ...mass-customise as much as necessary and as little as possible (in Gilmore
and Pine (2000)). A balance is desirable between customer satisfaction and efcient manufacture. It is important to balance
customer needs and manufacturing capabilities, the gap between these constraints being known as customer-sacrice
(Gilmore and Pine, 2000).
The notion of modularity can make MC seem a simple process, but the question remains as to which components are
modularised and which are standardised. Automotive manufacturers share both the platform for the car, and the smaller
components which are carried by this platform. This enables the design and manufacture of a range of cars with certain similarities yet difference in the marketplace (Brewer, 2004). A similar observation can be made in bus bodywork, where similar
chassis can be built into dissimilar bus vehicles.
Contemporary bus vehicle design is dominated by mechanical requirements. The task of detailing a useable, cost effective
bus capable of surviving the rigours of daily use for a lifespan of around 25 years is a signicant engineering challenge and
goes some way to justify a mechanical approach. With the added problems of product diversity and the disadvantages of
bespoke manufacturing it would appear the task is already rich with constraints. However, as has been argued elsewhere
(Napper et al., 2009) the needs of the passenger are somewhat more complex than having space in which to ride the bus,
and thereby form something of a bridge between the nature of the bus as a vehicle, and as a means for provision of public
transport. The review in this section is conducted to temper the quantitative operational knowledge with the qualitative
needs of passengers to protect the integrity of the user experience in a manufacturing-dominated research question.
A great deal of information exists in the transport research eld regarding the quantitative, utilitarian needs of the passenger. This mature knowledge is applied in transport planning to design efcient transport systems. At the periphery of
transport system knowledge are the qualitative needs of the passenger; issues such as comfort and image which themselves
affect passenger decision making and thus are connected with transport operations. Qualitative studies are unconventional
in the somewhat mathematical eld of transport research. Qualitative research in transport encourages an understanding of
why ridership gures stray from predictions, and is also particularly appropriate in the eld of public transport design.
Qualitative factors of transport are rarely the explicit subject of transport research. The resulting review is of the few direct sources of information, augmented by the broader transport planning literature, as there is a tendency to refer to qualitative factors as a knownunknown of transport research. Transport planning literature refers to qualitative factors in a
singular sense; this review aims to consolidate the disparate references into a cohesive body of knowledge. Design of a
bus interior requires this knowledge in order to understand all the constraints on the design, and to allow the design of a
higher-specication interior as a method of reducing the need for product diversity. In this review passenger needs have
been categorised spanning from the explicit needs of transport utility to the personal, physiological, psychological and social.
The literature review on user needs is summarised in the list below with direct references. The closest works to an
exhaustive list of user needs are the European Bus of the Future (UITP, 2006) and Schwartzs (1980) taxonomy of bus system
attributes, which itself lls out generic attribute categories identied by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971). Transport research
literature tends to rely on a few key empirical studies which appear accurate and very useful but unveriable in their fullness
describing user needs (for example, Prioni and Hensher, 2000). The user needs literature overlaps with transport psychology
and tends to fall back on central works such as Everett and Watson (1991) and Mayr (1959). User needs across the literature
examined in this research were elicited by means of survey work on transport modes, or derived from the psychological,
ergonomic and service elds. Importantly, the list below is an un-ranked collation of attributes given that journey length,
prevailing culture, expectations and price play a role in how important such needs are to passengers considering the whole
journey not just a set of separate reactions (Oborne, 1978a,b).
The incorporation of user needs into bus design is most effective when motivated by commercial means, such as contract
provision of transport services to a particular area which must uphold specied contractual standards; and in the tenders for
new bus vehicles used to full these contracts. Tenders for vehicles in the Australian metropolitan regions pertinent to this
research show that the literature resonates at an operational level by citing works directly in the case of UITPs European Bus
of the Future (New South Wales Ministry of Transport, 2007); or more generic, unreferenced but nevertheless literaturealigned calls for smooth journeys and comfortable temperatures (Government of Western Australia, 2010).
User needs are a demonstrably broad data set, increased by the inclusion of qualitative user requirements. Passengers
require the delivery of transport services in accordance with the following review ndings:
1. Ease of cognitive and physical access. Ensuring that the transport system is accessible physically by members of the public,
and also that the system of engagement with the transport network is understandable and can be effectively applied by
the user (Mayr, 1959; Oborne, 1978a,b; Schwartz, 1980; Newman and Kenworthy, 1991; Hensher, 1998; Booz Allen and
Hamilton, 2000; Friman et al., 2001; Friman and Grling, 2001; Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 2002; Bus Partnership Forum,
2003; Department for Transport, 2003; Litman, 2004; Howes and Rye, 2005; Nielsen et al., 2005; Beiro and Sarseld Cabral, 2007; Joewono and Kubota, 2007; Stradling et al., 2007a,b; Vuchic, 2007; Sweeney Research, 2008a,b).
2. Vehicular and personal safety. Users can be safe from personal attack or threat thereof, and that a driver may conduct the
vehicle in operation without incident (Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 2002; Braga, 2004; Department of Transport, 2008a,b,c;
Sweeney Research, 2008a; Litman, 2011).

60

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

3. Physical and psychological comfort. Both contributing to comfort overall and related to physical and cognitive access. Much
of the literature speaks of comfort and a variety of denitions and attributes are relevant (Levis, 1978; Oborne, 1978a,b;
Richards, 1980; Richards et al., 1980; Schwartz, 1980; Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 2002; Howes and Rye, 2005; Stradling
et al., 2007a,b; Sweeney Research, 2008a,b; Litman, 2011).
4. Flexibility in using their transit time. That a passenger may be able to engage in work or leisure activities to their liking
while in transit (Newman and Kenworthy, 1991; Sheller, 2004; Stradling et al., 2007a,b; Sweeney Research, 2008b).
5. An aesthetically appealing environment. Offering a space of benign pleasance to the senses in order to minimise offence
(Newman and Kenworthy, 1991; Sheller, 2004; Sweeney Research, 2008b; Litman, 2011).
6. Cleanliness. A transport offering free from foreign matter from the operational environment such as dirt, dust, grafti and
their associated odours and material consequences (Richards, 1980; Friman et al., 2001; Friman and Grling, 2001; Commission for Integrated Transport, 2002; Joewono and Kubota, 2007; Stradling et al., 2007a,b; Sweeney Research, 2008a;
Litman, 2011).
7. Suitable space for a comfortable and useful journey. That the envelope of volume occupied by the passenger is appropriate
for use to the passenger needs (Australian Government Department of Infrastructure Transport Regional Development
and Local Government, 2006; Beiro and Sarseld Cabral, 2007; Stradling et al., 2007a,b; Sweeney Research, 2008a).
3. Methods
This research is concerned with the qualities of designed artefacts in this case route bus bodywork as well as the process of designing them. This research offers a method for dealing with diversity in products and specications in the route
bus bodywork industry. A proliferation of different specications has an adverse affect on the industry from base component
manufacture through to the transport system used by passengers. The problem is based in the design of the product itself as
well as the process of developing bus specications. Solutions to this problem will be product proposals, complemented by
their development process.
A route bus can be considered a compromise between the objectives of manufacturer and operator. A swing too far in
either direction could result in an operationally non-compliant vehicle or one impossible to manufacture. Reconciliation
of these two constraints will allow the manufacturer to meet customer needs in a manner sympathetic to its own business.
Operators implicitly require durable, reliable buses, but as discussed above collectively have different ideas on what form
the bus might take in meeting these and other requirements. Individually, operators require their own bus. Collectively however, operators require that a variety of buses can be produced, meeting the varied needs of individual companies while
upholding value for money and quality.
A third, and very important stakeholder group is passengers. The passenger requirements of the bus vehicle are closely
linked with the performance of the transport system there is a fundamental requirement for services meeting their needs
as travellers. The passenger interacts with the vehicle when using transport, resulting in an important physical dimension to
the service provided (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988, 1991). The passenger does not require a unique bus, but the bus supplied to the operator must maintain attributes desirable to the passenger such as comfort, reliability and journey information. This physical relationship precipitates product development as a necessary method in a research project of this nature.
This research aims to solve a problem rooted in the design, specication, manufacture and use of a product. The problem
therefore precipitates a direction towards a physical contribution to knowledge, complemented by an aim to improve how
this product might be arrived at. In parallel with the above aim and all its constituent parts is the broader aim of combining
the knowledge in the three elds of research locating this project: mass-customisation, design and public transport.
Design is a process of research resulting in the creation of artefacts. Design, like research, sets out to discover and create
that which does not exist (Nelson and Stolterman, 2003). Whether knowledge, products or indeed both are sought, the aim
of the process is the same. As the process of designing requires that decisions are made based on existing knowledge, the
design process encompasses information gathering, reection and synthesis into a statement of direction prior to the development of concept designs. The ideas are benchmarked against the constraints discovered early in the process and those
which are coming to light as part of the ideation process, and nally a conclusive position is reached where products might
be manufactured, and the process may seek improvement through iteration.
Design, then, like Science, is not so much a discipline as a range of disciplines united by a common intellectual approach, a
common language system and a common procedure. Design, like Science, is a way of looking at the world and imposing structure upon it. Design, then, can extend to any phenomenon to which we wish to pay designerly attention, just as Science can
extend to any phenomenon to which we wish to pay scientic attention. (Archer, 1981)
The designerly enquiry (Archer, 1981) into the problem of specication diversity in route bus design requires that design decisions are based on research. Design as a research method allows a hypothesis to be tested in an experimental setting. The process of design forms the test, and should a successful result be forthcoming, the material artefact provides proof
for the existence and measure for the degree of this success. The design process tests possible solutions to the problem by
applying this knowledge in the generation and application of products.
The design studio research project uses established design methods (Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995; Green and Bonollo, 2002)
from task clarication and initial ideation through to nal documentation, to provide a means of hypothesis testing. Following the ideation process, the designs are taken through detailing stages, and in the case of the drivers area, prototyping and

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

61

manufacture. Following the studio experiment, it is possible to determine whether the hypothesis has been upheld, and this
information is then interpreted by means of discussion.
4. Design of a modular bus interior
The design of the bus interior follows on from similar work on the drivers area (Napper et al., 2010), where the problem
of specication diversity was reduced in the standardisation of several key components. While signicantly improving the
bus, the drivers area experiment was somewhat limited in scope as it dealt with a small part of the bus interior with notable
opportunities to standardise.
The new bus drivers area shows that it is possible to design and manufacture route bus components to reduce the problems caused by specication diversity. Product improvement was the main technique for meeting the conicting constraints
of manufacturing and customer needs. This was achieved by reducing the number of components and thus the noise generated by their intersection, relocating the electrical centres to new ceiling cavities creating more passenger and driver space,
and offering the driver more thermal control over their working environment. All of these features are standardised in the
new drivers area.
The principal difference between drivers area and interior experiments is that the interior needs to be a exible design in
order to t within different operational constraints doors, seating congurations, and vehicle lengths. Where the drivers
area necessitated a standardised approach to components, the interior may not.
The bus operator requires that the interior accommodates passengers, however the quantity and mobility of passengers at
any given time adds complexity. As illustrated above, a common feature of the bus is space for luggage and other personal
items such as prams and shopping. In addition to Australian Design Rule (ADR) constraints, the operator also requires a bus
suitable for their specic purpose. Two principal operational factors which broadly dene the bus vehicle length and passenger capacity have a considerable effect on the interior. Desired vehicle length will determine the type and length of
chassis used for example rigid or articulated. Chassis specication determines the placement of components such as
wheels, which materially intrude into the interior. The layout of seats, handrails and other items is also determined by
the desired seating capacity and door specications from the operator. The number of seats required is a balance of operational requirements, a key constraint of which is the peak capacity of the bus, or any public transport system (Litman, 2004).
This experiment hypothesises that it is possible to design and manufacture route bus components reducing the problems
caused by specication diversity.
4.1. Interior layouts
The status quo interior conguration in Australian route buses is seating-oriented. As shown in Figs. 39, the aim in these
congurations is to t seating around wheel arches and doors in such a way that maximises the number of seats. Included in
these layouts is a wheelchair area towards the front of the bus which also forms passenger seating in the absence of a wheelchair bound user. Placing as many seats as possible in the bus is a good way of ensuring the highest number of passengers are
carried in relative comfort, however when the seats are lled, the comfort for standees is severely compromised. Also, dwell
times may be affected at large interchanges such as railway stations where many passengers are trying to alight at the
same time. Fig. 6 shows an articulated vehicle where dwell times might be mitigated by the inclusion of a third door.
Dwell times are less of an issue in ex-urban services, where passengers are likely to be carried for longer journeys with
more distance between stops. Fig. 7 shows a bus layout for this situation, where the second door is sacriced for more seats.
This layout is shown on a 14.5 m chassis, which is only suitable for major roads to accommodate a large turning radius. Note
that in the analysis described in Section 3, no 14.5M buses were produced.
The difference between peak and off-peak passenger loadings can be signicant in certain service conditions. It stands to
reason that in off-peak periods most, if not all passengers could nd a seat in a typical Australian urban bus setting. When the
same vehicle is used in peak periods however, the seating limits the number of passengers which may be carried, as the principal limit is one of weight, and a standee requires no seat. Furthermore, standees require less oor area than passengers in
seats. An urban-oriented layout has been developed in this research as shown in Fig. 8 to test the proposition of

Fig. 3. Typical seating-oriented interior layout of an 11.9M route bus.

62

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Fig. 4. Typical seating-oriented interior layout of a 12.5M route bus.

Fig. 5. Typical seating-oriented interior layout of a 14.5M route bus.

Fig. 6. Typical seating-oriented interior layout of an articulated route bus.

Fig. 7. Typical seating-oriented interior layout of a 14.5M route bus for ex-urban use, sacricing some dwell-time by substituting the rear door for an
additional row of seats.

Fig. 8. Urban-oriented layout providing more passenger accommodation by sacricing seats, in an 11.9M bus.

Fig. 9. Urban-oriented layout providing more passenger accommodation by sacricing seats, in an articulated bus.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

63

accommodating more passengers as standees. Seats are available in the rear of the vehicle, but the low-oor area is given
over to standee and wheelchair space. The combination of standee and wheelchair space is a new development for this layout, as wheelchair spaces are typically paired with fold-away seats in a normal layout such as Fig. 4. This layout proposal
may have the benet of maximising passenger capacity in peak periods, and also of minimising dwell times through easy
access to doors. The same principle is demonstrated in Fig. 9 for an articulated bus. The layout is not intended to determine
whether this type of interior conguration is operationally necessary, but to ensure versatility of interior components.
Following the study of present and potential layouts, the design moved into concept generation of product modules
which would be used to construct the interiors. These modules will subsequently be tested by conguring them into test
cases. In order to design a functioning Product Family Architecture (PFA), the modules are designed concurrently with the
module interfaces (Ulrich and Tung, 1991). The spatial interfaces of the product how it ts into the bus are separate from
the technical interfaces, with the former being typical of industrial design work, and the latter engineering (Sanchez, 2002);
although the design process in this experiment is mindful of the signicant overlap in skills between these two areas (Bonollo, 2001). MC literature recommends the complete design of modular interfaces prior to designing the modules themselves
(Sanchez, 2002) however in this instance this was found to pre-empt the design of a successful solution.
A system of components is used in existing bus interiors to create a functional interior space. In this research, the interior
components are developed as a modular system through the iterative and exploratory design studio process. The standing
and wheelchair space was designed to contain a perch-style seat, providing the short-distance or peak-period passenger with
an additional point of contact. The perch seat does not interfere with the carriage of passengers in wheelchairs.
The modular interfaces as well as the modules themselves demonstrated a simple customisation structure in concept
form. Several modular interfaces were created using empty space which would be utilised in the bus by passenger accommodation; thus introducing a sense of purpose to the interface itself. Other interfaces shared purposes too, such as modesty
panels and handrails. Modesty panels are also functionally necessary as the difference in head height between seated and
standing passengers can lead to psychologically uncomfortable postures in this situation.
Following concept development and renement, the project was taken into a detailing phase, which is concerned with the
mechanical details of modules, in particular how they fasten to the envelope in a manner conducive to modularity of the
system as a whole.

4.2. Concept modular bus interior

Product diversity has been reduced from a purpose-fabricated system of near innite variation, to nine key components
as shown in Fig. 10. Two types of model were created, at the mechanical level and the whole-interior level. The mechanical
level model was concerned with the mechanical detailing of extrusions and handrails shown in Figs. 11 and 12. A second set
of models at the interior level determines the effectiveness of the components in creating a complete bus interior. Models
were developed around the Volvo B12BLE family and represent present and possible future interior specications. The interior level models created four proof cases.
Figs. 13 and 14 represent a typical 12.5M, 43 seat metropolitan route bus, demonstrating that the modular interior system
meets present market requirements; the functional characteristics of the interior from an operators perspective are quantitatively unchanged. This case, as with the following cases, also illustrates the aesthetic benets of a unied family of interior components, with continuity of form creating a unied interior whole.
Figs. 15 and 16 show an 11.9M conguration with 41 seats. This further illustrates the ability of the modular system to
accommodate congurations in the present market. This conguration shows that the modular system is exible in accommodating a different seat pattern, including six longitudinal seats (shown in yellow1) minimising the shorter vehicle length on
the seated capacity.
Figs. 17 and 18 are based on an articulated bus for high-density urban service the New South Wales State Transit
Authority (NSW STA) metrobus (New South Wales Ministry of Transport, 2007). This specication may point towards
the future of bus interior designs, away from a strict focus on seated-capacity. The specication is characterised by a seating
conguration maximising passenger capacity in light of a specic inner-urban and CBD route. It also aims to minimise the
impact of loading and unloading on dwell time. This case illustrates the ability of the modular interior to meet unusual
specications.
Figs. 19 and 20 illustrate a completely conceptual specication for a route bus, and aims to show the extent to which the
modular interior can depart from current trends. This case serves to illustrate the capabilities of the modular system within
the same envelope as the rst three cases. The present suite of components can be used to create a range of interior specications, of which this is one; and the modular system can also be augmented with further components to accommodate
signicant change in bus interiors into the future the buses prospective service life of 25 years is re-emphasised at this
point. This specication shows an articulated bus congured for metro service, and as such the provision of standing room
for short trips, reminiscent of streetcars, highlighted by the green colouring in Fig. 19.
1

For interpretation of colour in Figs. 15, 16 and 19, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.

64

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Fig. 10. The nine key components of the modular bus interior.

5. Results and discussion

The modular bus interior demonstrates that an MC approach to bus design can be applied where standardisation is
sought, with product diversity being reduced from a bespoke system to nine key components in a modular system as shown
in Fig. 21. Fig. 21 also estimates the work saving in hours of the modular interior compared to the bespoke interior. The
MC approach allows the specication process to t within a narrower range of components, without limiting function. For
example, the handrail is a component of the modesty panel, and the two components share mounting hardware. The modular interior suggests a less laborious specication process and smaller component inventories because of fewer components
and a more controlled system. This component reduction also serves to reduce labour and increase opportunities for higher
quality in manufacturing. Finally, more streamlined bus maintenance is possible for operators through the use of common
components, xtures and fastening hardware. The bus design task has also been changed; generating a complete interior is
now a matter of component conguration rather than component design. Thus, it is determined that the hypothesis has been
upheld in the route bus interior, and indeed it is possible to design and manufacture route bus components reducing the
problems caused by specication diversity, as suggested by Fig. 22.
Evidence from commercial tenders and the current specication process suggests that the two key decisions affecting
interior specication are vehicle length and number of doors. The requirement for the maximum number of seats is a tacit
requirement of bus specication, save for exceptional cases such as case three above. In creating the interior t out to meet
specications, the modular system has fewer variables, allowing the specication process to focus on desired functional
characteristics of the bus, rather than in re-engineering the components to t within an ever-changing envelope. The specication process is thereby made less labour intensive. Paint and fabric colours and material types are intended to be part of
the modularity of the system, affording the operator cosmetic customisation to augment mechanical function with little or
no impact on the production system. Cosmetic choices complete the interior specication process.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

65

Fig. 11. Seat assembly attached via nearside stanchion to the overhead handrail.

Fig. 12. Modesty panel assembly.

The specication process benets from the reduction of variables. The PFA sets out parameters for interior specication
instead of redesigning each time, resulting in less interaction between the bus operator, sales personnel and engineering. A
congurator system could further reduce the interaction improving the experience of specication and the end result

66

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Fig. 13. Typical route bus layout - 12.5m.

Fig. 14. Typical route bus layout - 12.5m.

(Blecker et al., 2004b; Cross et al., 2009). Professional, or expert consumers such as bus operators are noted for their ability
to specify complex products and their increased likelihood of reaching a desirable end product, without the usual negative
experiences of ordinary consumers (Dellaert and Stremersch, 2005).
Reduction in the number of components will save inventory cost, and likely reduce the cost of components used as they
are subject to economies of scale in production. Part reduction will ow onto reduce the number of processes necessary in
the manufacture of the interior, making quality control a more nite task. Overall the benets to manufacturing of the modular interior will be of better product quality and reduced manufacturing time, in line with the expected outcomes of an MC
approach.
Results of the bus interior project demonstrate that modular design is an appropriate strategy to reduce components and
designs, where a broader functional scope necessitates exibility, and manufacturing constraints require standardisation.
This was achieved by sharing components across products and by creating a modular system of interfaces between them.
The cases also illustrate the ability of the modular interior to meet unusual specications.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

67

Fig. 15. Typical route bus layout - 11.9m.

Fig. 16. Typical route bus layout - 11.9m.

In reference to the user needs discovered in the literature review, the implementation of a design process generically and
the MC process more specically, give an alternative view to creating transport more in tune with user needs. The basic premise of improvement is the notion that the mere presence of an element, for example passenger amenity for a productive
journey, is not sufcient to meet passenger needs. The passenger-centric viewpoint taken in the design described above results in a process of design whereby specic passenger behaviours are identied and incorporated as design requirements.
More specically, the modular design described in this paper offers the following advantages:
1. Ease of cognitive and physical access component reduction through modular interface design, as distinct from module
design, leading to a reduction in components and simplication of the vehicle interior.
2. Vehicular and personal safety the incorporation of functional features such as grab-rails as modular interfaces offers
increased function for personal safety.
3. Physical and psychological comfort psychological comfort increased in the offer of more appropriate interiors to particular bus applications, disentangling the pervasive relationship between passenger capacity and seat provision.

68

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Fig. 17. Typical route bus layout - Articulated.

Fig. 18. Typical route bus layout - Articulated.

4. Flexibility in using their transit time as impacted through comfort, and the provision of interior modules given to particular work or leisure pursuits, for example computer use.
5. An aesthetically appealing environment reduced visual clutter and an integration of fastening features to modules and
modular interfaces.
6. Cleanliness the vehicle is more easily cleaned if the number of surfaces and the existence of acute angles between these
surfaces is reduced.
7. Suitable space for a comfortable and useful journey as with 3 and 4.
The reduction of components is concurrent with improvements in product function which is, in turn improved by maintaining mechanical properties and improving their aesthetic delivery and the likelihood of correct, useable specication. This
advantage exists in addition to the demonstrated outcome of a rationalised specication process, simplifying generation of
the bus interior, with subsequent reductions in engineering labour.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

69

Fig. 19. Non-typical route bus layout - Conceptual articulated layout.

Fig. 20. Non-typical route bus layout - Conceptual articulated layout.

User requirements necessitate signicant scope for variation in the bus interior and as such, the reliance on a modular
system is higher in the interior than in the drivers area. This result serves to strengthen the conclusions from a previous
experiment conducted through to manufacture and eld implementation in the bus drivers area (Napper, 2011), both documented as four interventions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Determine user needs before the bus specication process.

Designs to be developed by the manufacturer in response to user needs.
This design should be standardised where possible, as suggested by the user needs.
Where user needs dictate product variations, apply a mass customisation approach to accommodate these needs.

The critical difference in these results is that the generation of a standardised design represented by intervention three
is severely limited by the user needs being so diverse in the bus interior. Despite this, intervention three was interpreted to

70

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Fig. 21. Comparison of components in the old and new interiors.

Fig. 22. Interventions into, and the resulting new bus specication, design and manufacture process.

dictate the generation of a standardised suite of products, enabling the manufacturer to maintain control over the products
and therefore reduce the negative effects of product diversity. This system was carried out in line with intervention four, by
developing a controlled modular system of components.
The increase in variation is driven indirectly by chassis selection and directly through interior needs. The functional objectives of manufacture were met in the modular interior by standardising the components and operations within a dened
product architecture. By employing a design process the manufacturer, operator and passenger objectives were represented.
Better manufacturing will benet the operator with regards to cost and quality. A bus which meets operator needs is a benet to the business of the manufacturer.

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

71

The bus interior deals with the limitations of the drivers area project by demonstrating the same advantages of design
and MC in a different setting within the single product. While the same principles were applied, the result of a more systematic approach was necessitated by diverse functional requirements throughout the interior, as opposed to the compartmentalised diversity accommodated in the drivers area. This second experiment has strengthened the ndings of the rst, by
exposing the method to a different set of conditions which has shown that they remain valuable in the reduction of the negative effects of product diversity.

6. Conclusions
This test determined the repeatability of previous research in the drivers area by examining the same problem in a different experimental setting. While the rst two interventions were applied in the same way, the modular interior has shown
that interventions three and four are implemented in a slightly different manner.
Intervention one in the modular interior required an understanding of passenger needs. The literature review serving this
purpose concluded that the qualitative elements of public transport have a signicant effect on public transport performance. This conclusion is signicant for the successful design of route buses as it claries and broadens the notion of product
function.
In applying intervention two, the modular interior seeks to rationalise components without reduction of function. The
project was carried out in a different context of variation, as the interior of the bus is comprised of many functional elements
over a larger physical envelope. Signicantly, interior variations are found in the envelope and in the interior conguration
both dictated by the functional requirements of bus operation. This means that the generation of a standardised design was
not strictly possible; the standardised design is itself a modular system which is strictly controlled by the manufacturer.
Intervention four has been most expedient in the development of an interior to reduce the negative effects of product
diversity, as it is on the whole a modular system.
The holistic view of product function was a critical element in reducing product diversity; including an awareness of the
commodity the bus is used to create public transport. Design of public transport must account for the whole stakeholder
chain, as opposed to one-up or one-down as is currently the case, with some stakeholders separated from the commodity of
public transport. Design of capital goods must be carried out in light of end use. This forms part of the argument above in
which knowledge of product function makes the design of a higher-specication product more likely, and thus more freely
allows accommodation of specication diversity. The modular interior reduces the time necessary to generate an interior
conguration for a bus. Using standardised parts from a set modular system changes the interior conguration task from
one of bespoke, individualised design to one of component specication. This is possible because the interfaces between
the modules have been determined to allow the exible deployment of components. At present, interior specication takes
several weeks of engineering time depending on the nature of the specication and to what extent precedents can be reused. The modular interior can be congured in only a few hours and is constructed from a limited inventory of standardised
components.
The interventions full the aim of this research by reducing the negative impacts of specication diversity in route bus
bodywork design through both design methods and designed artefacts. An understanding of user needs (1) will allow the
determination of whether and to what extent product variation is necessary. The understanding of user needs allows the
manufacturer to develop (2) a standardised product if such an outcome is possible within the scope of those needs (3). When
needs dictate functional differences in the product, a modular system can satisfy these needs and minimise the negative impact on the machinations of manufacture, customer specication and use (4).
The experiments have shown that the interventions into bespoke route bus bodywork manufacturing have benetted the
complete user cross-section and manufacturer by offering a more cost effective product closely aligned with user needs, conducive to efcient quality manufacture.
This research has identied a new method for balancing the needs of manufacturers with end users in the area of vehicle
design for public transport. The paper shows that although the eld exhibits a thorough understanding of the end user in
particular passenger needs, further work towards a typology of user needs is required to offer a more complete understanding and practical grounding into how they may be incorporated into the public transport user experience.

References
Acha, V., Davies, A., et al, 2004. Exploring the capital goods economy: complex product systems in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change 13 (3), 505529.
Archer, B., 1981. A view of the nature of design research. In: Design, Science, Method: Proceedings of the 1980 Design Research Society Conference:
[Conference Organized by the Design Research Society in collaboration with Portsmouth Polytechnic], Westbury House, Guildford.
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure Transport Regional Development and Local Government, 2006. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design
Rule 58/00 Requirements for Omnibuses Designed for Hire and Reward) 2006, Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. 58/00.
Batchelor, R., 1994. Henry Ford, Mass Production, Modernism, and Design. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Beiro, G., Sarseld Cabral, J.A., 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study. Transport Policy 14 (6), 478
489.
Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., 2002. Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus. Transport Policy 9 (2), 107116.
Blecker, T., Abdelka, N., et al., 2004b. Product conguration systems: State-of-the-art, conceptualization and extensions. In: Hamadou, A.B., Gargouri, F.,
Jmaiel, M. (Eds.), Intelligence Articielle. Genie Logiciel & Soussee, Tunisia.

72

R. Napper / Transportation Research Part C 38 (2014) 5672

Bonollo, E., 2001. The connection between engineering and industrial design. In: N. Sasanelli (Ed.), Bollettino della Comunita Scientica in Australasia.
Italian Embassy, Canberra, Ufcio dellAddetto Scientico Comitato di Redazione, pp. 1932.
Booz Allen, Hamilton, 2000. Valuation of Public Transport Attributes. Transfund New Zealand Research Programme 19992000.
Braga, B., 2004. Factors in creating the perfect seat. Metro 100 (3), 6264.
Brewer, J.C., 2004. Do I have to be exible? Automotive Industries 184 (12), 42.
Bus Partnership Forum, 2003. Understanding Customer Needs. Bus Partnership Forum. Department for Transport, London.
Commission for Integrated Transport, 2002. Public Attitudes to Transport in England. Commission for Integrated Transport, London.
Cross, R., Seidel, R., et al, 2009. Design communication for mass customisation. International Journal of Mass Customisation 3 (2).
Dellaert, B.G.C., Stremersch, S., 2005. Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing
Research (JMR) 42 (2), 219227.
Department for Transport, 2003. Attitudes to Local Bus Services. Department for Transport, London.
Department of Transport, 2008a. Track Record 34. Department of Transport. Public Transport Division, Melbourne.
Department of Transport, 2008b. Track Record 35. Department of Transport. Public Transport Division, Melbourne.
Department of Transport, 2008c. Track Record 36. Department of Transport. Public Transport Division, Melbourne.
Everett, P., Watson, B., 1991. Psychological contributions to transportation. In: Stokols, D., Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, vol. 2.
Krieger, Malabar, Florida.
Friman, M., Grling, T., 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. II. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 8 (2), 105114.
Friman, M., Edvardsson, B., et al, 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. I. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 8 (2), 95104.
Gilmore, J., Pine, B.J., 2000. Markets of One: Creating Customer Unique Value through Mass Customization. Harvard Business School, Boston.
Government of Western Australia, 2010. Supply and Delivery of Buses to the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (Request for Tender). Public
Transport Authority, Perth.
Green, L., Bonollo, E., 2002. The development of a suite of design methods appropriate for teaching product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education
6 (1), 4551.
Grifn, T., Catling, D., et al, 2005. Public Transport Mode Options and Technical Solutions. HiTrans, Oslo.
Hensher, D.A., 1998. The imbalance between car and public transport use in urban Australia: why does it exist? Transport Policy 5 (4), 193204.
Hensher, D., 1999. A bus-based transitway or light rail? Continuing the saga on choice versus blind commitment. Road and Transport Research 8 (3), 321.
Howes, A., Rye, T., 2005. Public Transport Citizens Requirements. HiTrans, Oslo.
Joewono, T., Kubota, H., 2007. User satisfaction with paratransit in competition with motorization in Indonesia: anticipation of future implications.
Transportation 34 (3), 337354.
Levis, J.A., 1978. The seated bus passenger a review. Applied Ergonomics 9 (3), 143150.
Litman, T., 2004. Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Litman, T., 2011. Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.
Mayr, R., 1959. Comfort in railway travel. The Railway Gazette (9 October), 266269.
Napper, R., 2007. Route bus transport stakeholders, vehicles and new design directions. In: 29th Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research.
University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Napper, R., 2011. Minimising variation in transit bus design: Balancing operational and manufacturing needs. Transportation Research Board 90th Annual
Meeting. TRB, Washington DC.
Napper, R., Burns, K., et al., 2009. Bus design guidelines: complementing planning with vehicle design. 32nd Australasian Transport Research Forum,
Auckland.
Napper, R., Burns, K., et al., 2010. Reducing variation not function: Lessons from applied route bus design research. 33rd Australasian Transport Research
Forum. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra.
Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E., 2003. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence.
Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
New South Wales Ministry of Transport, 2007. Metropolitan Bus Fleet Procurement Minimum Specications. Ministry of Transport, MoT.
Newman, P., Kenworthy, J., 1991. Towards a More Sustainable Canberra. Murdoch University, Perth.
Nielsen, G., Nelson, J., et al, 2005. Public Transport Planning the Networks. HiTrans, Oslo.
Oborne, D.J., 1978a. Passenger comfort an overview. Applied Ergonomics 9 (3), 131136.
Oborne, D.J., 1978b. Techniques available for the assessment of passenger comfort. Applied Ergonomics 9, 4549.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., et al, 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49 (4), 41
50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., et al, 1988. Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64
(1), 12.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., et al, 1991. Renement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 67 (4), 420.
Prioni, P., Hensher, D., 2000. Measuring service quality in scheduled bus services. Journal of Public Transport 3 (2), 5174.
Richards, L.G., 1980. On the psychology or passenger comfort. In: Oborne, D.J., Levis, J.A., Ergonomics Society (Great Britain) (Eds.), Human Factors in
Transport Research/Transport Systems, Workspace, Information and Safety. Academic Press, London.
Richards, L.G., Jacobsen, I.D., et al., 1980. Passenger security in public transportation: psychological and environmental factors. In: Oborne, D.J., Levis, J.A.,
Ergonomics Society (Great Britain) (Eds.), Human Factors in Transport Research. Academic Press, London, pp. 280290.
Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, F.F., 1971. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Free Press, New York, New York.
Sanchez, R., 2002. Using modularity to manage the interactions of technical and industrial design. Design Management Journal 2 (Academic Review), 819.
Schwartz, M.L., 1980. Motivations and barriers to riders acceptance of bus transit. Transportation Journal 19 (4), 5362.
Sheller, M., 2004. Automotive emotions: feeling the car. Theory Culture Society 21 (45), 221242.
Stradling, S., Carreno, M., et al, 2007a. Passenger perceptions and the ideal urban bus journey experience. Transport Policy 14, 283292.
Stradling, S.G., Anable, J., et al, 2007b. Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: a six-step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41 (1), 98106.
Sweeney Research, 2008a. Expectations and Experience of Public Transport Users. Metlink, Melbourne.
Sweeney Research, 2008b. Bus Evaluation. Metlink, Melbourne.
UITP, 2006. European Bus of the Future, Functional Features and Recommendations. UITP, Brussels.
Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S., 1995. Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ulrich, K., Tung, K., 1991. Fundamentals of Product Modularity. Issues in Design/Manufacture Integration. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design
Engineering Division (Publication) DE. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Atlanta, pp. 7379.
Vuchic, V., 1981. Urban Public Transportation: Systems and Technology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Vuchic, V.R., 2007. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.