National Academies Press: OpenBook

Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations

« Previous: Chapter Two - Status of Integrated Services
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Service Design, Planning, and Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13993.
×
Page 15

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

IDEAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF INTEGRATED SERVICES This chapter presents a range of elements generally conducive to the provision of integrated services in a community. They are summarized here: • Disability community representatives are likely to be re- sistant to feeder service initially; however, early involve- ment in service design and educating consumers about the reason for implementing feeder or other integrated services usually leads to an overall acceptance in the community. In addition, agencies have found that con- sumers who are initially apprehensive about transferring to fixed-route become increasingly confident over time. • Paratransit service areas that are geographically elon- gated or constrained, with a central arterial corridor run- ning the length of the service area, and relatively frequent fixed-route service, are likely to be good candidates for feeder service. • Feeder service should be offered as an exclusive option for conditionally eligible riders (i.e., mandatory option), depending on the characteristics of a specific ride re- quest. Very few individuals are likely to use feeder on a voluntary basis. • Feeder service drivers need to be trained to understand special codes that indicate the conditions under which a rider can use fixed-route service. • Scheduling staff need to be educated about the value of providing integrated service, particularly feeder ser- vice. Since they would not necessarily be motivated to schedule a two-legged trip, which is more complicated and time-consuming than a direct paratransit trip, they need to understand what role integrated service plays in fulfilling the agency’s mission. • Integrated services are particularly effective in shifting paratransit riders when offered as part of a package of program revisions, including enhanced eligibility screen- ing and recertification, travel training, and heavily dis- counted fixed-route fares. Populations Served The synthesis survey was intended to identify programs de- signed with people with disabilities in mind or benefited this population. Feeder services identified in the survey primarily serve riders with disabilities, whereas other integrated services 10 often were open to the general public. Some paratransit pro- grams offer feeder service only to riders with specific eligi- bility conditions; these are referred to as mandatory feeder in this synthesis. Apart from mandatory feeder services, the proportion of riders with disabilities varied significantly in these programs. The staff person from the route deviation service in Asheville, North Carolina, estimates that roughly 40% of the riders on the system are people with disabilities. In Portland, Oregon, Ride Connection estimates that 81% of the riders on the various shuttle services in the region are ADA paratransit eligible, even though they are open to the general public. In the employer shuttle program administered by SamTrans, 14% of the riders are people with disabilities, even though the service was not necessarily designed with this population in mind. In the deviated fixed-route system in Amador County, California, 39% of the riders are elderly or disabled. Other sources indicate that while they have not quan- tified these proportions, a significant proportion of passengers on their integrated services are people with disabilities. Should Feeder Service Be Voluntary or Mandatory? At a number of systems identified in this synthesis, such as Pierce Transit (Tacoma), ACCESS (Pittsburgh), and UTA (Salt Lake City), if the eligibility process has determined a registrant is able to use fixed-route under certain condi- tions and a requested trip meets the system’s guidelines for feeder service, then the rider is offered only the feeder option. Pittsburgh also offers conditionally eligible riders an alternative if they would prefer to travel the whole trip on paratransit. This trip, known as convenience fare, costs twice the regular paratransit fare. In principle, feeder also could be provided as a voluntary option for riders. Since, in most cases, a feeder trip will have longer travel time than a direct paratransit trip, few users would choose this option unless there was a substantial fare incentive. Based on the experience of transit agencies that have successfully implemented feeder service, making this service mandatory is the only option that will guarantee suf- ficient use of the service to justify the efforts needed for widespread implementation. A number of transit agencies (e.g., Calgary, SamTrans, King County Metro) indicated they had offered feeder service on a non-mandatory (i.e., voluntary) basis, but had received CHAPTER THREE SERVICE DESIGN, PLANNING, AND OPERATIONS

travel unassisted, combined with the characteristics of specific trip requests, can enable paratransit programs to assign some lengthy trips to feeder service. The largest systems with formalized, mandatory feeder programs all include detailed information on riders’ eligibil- ity conditions. Some also conduct environmental assessments in locations used by frequent riders to determine if there are any barriers that would not be apparent from reviewing a map. In Salt Lake City, a transit supervisor visits the home of every conditionally eligible rider to identify features that may pre- sent barriers to accessing the bus or light rail stop from their home. Moreover, UTA is identifying specific accessible locations along each bus route, and is adding markers for those locations in their scheduling software to expedite the trip booking process for trips requiring transfers. In Tacoma and Pittsburgh, each trip requested by a conditionally eligible rider is reviewed to determine if a fixed-route alternative is available for feeder service or for the whole trip. Fares and Multiple Transfers Paratransit feeder service requires fare coordination between the fixed-route and paratransit programs. Of the 15 systems in the survey that provided information about fares on trips that require a transfer, five charged a fare for the feeder leg only, five for the fixed-route leg only, four charged both the feeder and the fixed-route fares, and one is entirely fare-free. While fares are clearly just one component in overall service design, it is noteworthy that the systems with the lowest cost to the rider (i.e., fixed-route only or fare-free) also are among the most successful feeder programs. For Pittsburgh the rationale for charging fixed-route fare only is that paratransit riders should be given an incentive to use fixed-route where possi- ble, so it is preferable to charge the lower of the two fares. Apart from the system in Vancouver, British Columbia, where paratransit service between areas is often very limited or inconvenient and the fixed-route service is sufficiently attrac- tive to paratransit riders to override fare concerns, the three other systems that charge fares on both legs either have very limited usage or have been discontinued. Most systems that provide feeder service limit this option to a two-legged trip, with paratransit feeding into fixed-route on the out-bound trip and vice versa for the return. In Tacoma, feeder service involving three legs—paratransit to fixed-route to fixed-route—is not uncommon. Occasionally, usually when passengers cross county lines, they are required to travel from paratransit to two fixed-route legs. Similarly, in Salt Lake City riders may be required to transfer between two fixed- route buses if such a transfer is required of the general riding public (exceptions are made for riders whose condition ex- plicitly states “no transfers”). In Granite City, some passen- gers’ three-legged trip involves paratransit to fixed-route to paratransit. However, in systems that use this model, the level 11 close to zero responses. One paratransit rider who volunteered for feeder service in King County found that the buses always were full when he got dropped off at the transit stop. Since he did not have a visible disability, the driver did not know to ask passengers in the front seat to vacate their places for this rider. Other agencies in the synthesis sample offer voluntary, informal feeder service, such as in Sacramento and San Mateo County. In these instances it is difficult to establish the volume of usage, short of conducting an analysis of trips to transfer locations for a specified time period. Staff at SamTrans indicate that the usage of transfers to the commuter rail sys- tem is probably quite limited. In comparison, in Sacramento, the volume of trips by ADA paratransit card holders on both the light rail and fixed-route bus service suggests there is likely heavy usage of voluntary feeder service. In FY 2007, 841,000 ADA paratransit registrants rode on Sacramento’s bus system (4.8% of total ridership), and 354,000 registrants rode light rail (2.4% of the total). Part of the reason for this success is the package of services offered to people with disabilities, including extensive travel training, which is dis- cussed in more detail in the Case Study section of this report. As a result of this package of services, paratransit registrants appear to be taking a portion of their trips on paratransit and some on fixed-route services. Another possible exception to the ineffectiveness of the voluntary approach can be found in systems that have excep- tionally short headways and poor quality paratransit service. For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, where para- transit riders can transfer to a SkyTrain (elevated light rail) service that operates on less than two minute headways, many focus group participants indicated that they wel- comed the opportunity to use feeder service. An analysis of paratransit drop-offs at SkyTrain stations in 2007 indicated that more than 6,000 riders used paratransit to get to SkyTrain, in addition to those who rode paratransit to bus stops and the accessible commuter ferry service (C. Maruyama, TransLink, personal communication, Nov. 15, 2007). Eligibility Screening Feeder programs generally serve paratransit customers who, according to the eligibility definitions in the ADA, could use fixed-route service but cannot access a bus or train stop be- cause of their disability. An effective eligibility screening program is a necessary building block for determining which customers would be eligible for using feeder service. For those systems considering implementing feeder service, a critical first step may be to modify eligibility summary forms to provide more information about eligibility condi- tions. Because feeder service involves traveling between the registrant’s home and a bus/train stop and between a bus/train stop and the destination, it is essential to know ap- proximately how far the individual can travel unassisted, the impact of curb cuts and sidewalk conditions, and terrain and environmental issues. Knowing how far an individual can

of coordination required usually implies that three-legged trips only occur on very long trips. In Pittsburgh these double feeders are generally provided for trips that are 10 to 15 miles. Delays to Vehicles and Passengers In most integrated services that require transfers, the para- transit driver does not wait for the fixed-route vehicle to ar- rive. Out of the 12 systems in the sample that responded to this question only two wait, and the remainder either do not wait or address this issue on a case-by-case basis. If the para- transit vehicle does not wait at the stop, that may be referred to as a drop and go transfer. Well-coordinated transfers and timely arrivals can increase the productivity on the paratransit system (one of the goals of a feeder program) while mini- mizing inconvenience to the customers. If paratransit vehicles wait for the transit vehicle to arrive, potential productivity gains can be negated if the vehicle has to wait a long time. Long waits are not unlikely considering the uncertainties of paratransit scheduling, and the need to ensure that the transfer is not missed. Drop and go operations may lead to long wait times and safety issues for customers, which may render this option unacceptable to some transit agencies and their communities. Most systems have wait times in the 5 to 10 minute range. However, even in a system such as Pierce Transit, where 30 and 60 minute fixed-route headways are not uncommon, wait times generally range between 5 and 20 minutes. How- ever, with the recent introduction of 15 minute headways on all trunk routes, the agency attempts to bring conditionally eligible riders into the trunk route corridors in order to mini- mize the amount of coordination required with fixed-route schedules. In Salt Lake City the average wait time for both the fixed-route and the paratransit vehicle is just 5 minutes. Under ideal conditions, such as those described in Vancouver, British Columbia, wait times are inconsequential owing to the frequency of fixed-route service. Provision also must be made for the eventuality that the transfer is missed. In this case, if the next fixed-route bus is not due for more than 10 or 15 minutes, it may be necessary to provide a direct paratransit trip to the rider’s destination. Agencies with comprehensive feeder programs provide paratransit-only guarantees for riders in the event that the bus is missed, which occurs infrequently. A less well-defined situation exists when a rider is being picked up from a train station or a bus stop and the incoming train or bus is running behind schedule. If the delay is minimal, say five minutes, the paratransit vehicle can generally wait for the rider without unduly impacting schedule adherence. However, if the fixed-route service is significantly late, the rider cannot be stranded and the paratransit program needs to establish a protocol for returning to pick up the individual 12 after the initial missed trip. A precedent for this situation may be found in the commonly used practice known as medical will calls, in which an individual whose medical appointment ended later than the paratransit pick-up time is required to wait until the next paratransit vehicle is available for this unsched- uled trip. Transit agency staff indicate that with the increased use of cell phones and inter-modal radio communication these situations can generally be effectively addressed, particularly since they are rare occurrences. However, it is important that transit agencies that operate integrated ser- vices that incorporate transfers develop protocols to address these situations. Transfer Locations Most systems that require transfers to fixed-route use trans- fer points that are safe and sheltered (see example, Figure 1). In Tacoma, Pierce Transit primarily uses Transit Centers or major park-and-ride facilities. These generally have a shelter, seating, a telephone, and serve multiple routes. These loca- tions are also priority areas for security. For systems in regions with more extreme weather conditions, such as Granite City, Illinois, heat and air conditioning are necessary elements at the transfer locations. Shopping malls or downtown transit centers, such as those used in Flint, Michigan, as transfer points, usually meet these criteria. Productivities and Productivity Thresholds Consistent with systemwide performance criteria for contin- uation of bus routes, productivity thresholds have been estab- lished for a small number of integrated services included in the survey. Establishing thresholds sometimes requires a paradigm shift for policy makers who may view integrated services as unproductive when comparing them to fixed-route services. However, in comparison to prevailing paratransit productivities, integrated services usually generate higher trips per hour. It is generally difficult to determine productivity FIGURE 1 Call-n-Ride transfer point in the Denver Metro Area.

13 levels for both feeder services and route deviation services, as these are usually integrated into systemwide paratransit or fixed-route services, and it is not possible to isolate the por- tions of trips that can be attributed to the integrated service component. However, Table 3 indicates that a few programs have established three to four trips per hour as minimum productivity thresholds for continuation of their integrated services. Overall, productivities range from just over two in rural areas to almost 10 trips per hour in suburban Broward County, Florida, and where comparative information is avail- able, the productivities of the integrated service almost always exceed that of the paratransit program in that area. Staff Training and Driver Selection Most systems indicate that training provided to integrated ser- vices staff is the same as that provided to paratransit staff. However, in Pittsburgh drivers are trained to read special codes in their manifests that include fixed-route bus time information. Schedulers also are trained about the mission of the various integrated service programs, and are provided specialized train- ing on the importance of on-time performance and reliability, particularly when transfers to fixed-route are involved. In Broward County, drivers in the Community Bus Service are required to undergo both municipality and county trainings. Overall, given that integrated services can contribute to an increase in fixed-route ridership by people with disabilities, bus drivers may need to receive additional sensitivity train- ing if this is not already incorporated into the driver training curriculum. At the UTA system, the staff person explained the agency’s approach to bus driver training as follows: When the free fare program was implemented, staff retrained the fixed-route drivers with the following message: “our vehicles are all 100% accessible, now your attitudes must be 100% accessible and inclusive. Either you as the fixed-route drivers can help passengers with the transition to fixed-route and make sure it’s successful, or the paratransit department will have to take your operating money to continue providing transportation to our disabled population” (Cheryl Beveridge, personal communication, March 6, 2008). Driver selection for integrated services is generally bid based on seniority. Drivers select their own assignments through the markup procedure outlined in the labor agree- ments. In Sacramento, all drivers in the regional transit sys- tem are hired into Community Bus first, with an option to move into “big buses” over time. In contrast to this approach, in Laketran, Ohio, drivers selected for integrated service are likely to have been with the agency for a few years and have a full understanding of the system and the customers’ needs. Vehicles Used in Integrated Services Vehicles used in integrated services are almost invariably the same as those used in paratransit services, although many systems dedicate specific vehicles to these programs. While the same vehicle types may be used as in paratransit, vehicles in integrated services often are branded differently to distin- guish them from other services. In Whatcom County, small vehicles (less than 29 feet) in the deviation service also are used as backup for paratransit, while those longer than 29 feet are used for deviated and fixed-route services. COST SAVINGS Since integrated service is often provided as part of a package of innovative service models, it is often challenging to isolate the cost benefits that can be attributed to these services. How- ever, a number of interesting findings have been documented. In the in-depth analysis conducted as part of the TCRP Web Document 2: Evaluating Transit Options for Individuals with Disabilities, (Multisystems and Crain & Associates 1997) cost savings from feeder service were calculated at Pierce Transit and BC Transit (now known as TransLink). Annual operating savings from reduced paratransit vehicle time were estimated at $139,000 for BC Transit (1.3% of total para- transit budget) and $147,000 at Pierce Transit (1.2%). Since BC Transit operated in a non-ADA environment, feeder service provided travel opportunities that might not exist otherwise, and did not previously exist. Therefore there was no basis for calculating any savings from reduced demand. However, the reduction in demand at Pierce Transit resulted in a cost savings estimated at $709,000, which, combined with the savings from the reduced paratransit vehicle time, represented 7.5% of the total paratransit budget. In the sample included in this synthesis, the San Joaquin Regional Transit District estimates that total transit service operating cost was reduced by 50% in the rural areas where route deviation services replaced separate fixed-route and para- transit service in San Joaquin County. A number of sampled agencies indicated that they assumed there were cost savings simply because of the lower costs per trips of the different modes, but have not documented this assumed savings. UTA has introduced a package of measures to encourage fixed-route usage for its ADA paratransit registrants. The agency has documented very significant savings that can be attributed to the introduction of more accurate eligibility screenings, feeder service, free fixed-route fares for ADA paratransit eligible riders, and a buddy ride-along program. Annual savings accrued from the resultant decline in para- transit ridership have exceeded $350,000 four out of five years since 2002. WTA serving northwestern Washington state, estimates that annual cost savings of as much as $350,000 have been accrued from the provision of FLEX service instead of fixed- route and complementary paratransit service in their rural areas. Route deviations account for about 9% of the total trips on this service, many for individuals who would be ADA paratransit eligible.

System Name Service Type(s) Annual Integrated Service Ridership Annual Paratransit Ridership Current Productivity of Integrated Service (Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour) Current Paratransit Productivity (Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour) Productivity Threshold (Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour) Feeder Service 2,500 ACCESS Transportation Systems (Allegheny County) Demand-response local circulators which also serve major transit stops 1.7 million 2.3 3.8 Agency for Community Transit, Granite City IL Feeder approx. 30,000 120,000 Amador Regional Transit System Point/Route Deviation 106,042 N/A Broward County Paratransit Services Circulator or Community Bus 2,178,863 834,204 9.5 1.7 5 Laketran Feeder Service/Demand Responsive Connector 1,040 337,000 Mason Transit, WA Demand Responsive Connector 55,466 2.3 Mountain Mobility, Asheville, NC Point/Route Deviation 8,238, 40% disabled (est.) 113,961 2.2 OTS (Honolulu, HI) Point/Route Deviation 83,697, disabled 1,314 807,935 7.7 2.5 4 Demand Responsive Connector 19,600 Feeder 8,536 Pierce Transit Point/Route Deviation 120,000 363,000 3 Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO) Demand Responsive Connector 303,323 – 5,000 people with disabilities 596,384 4.7 1.2 3 Sacramento Regional Transit District Circulator/Community Bus Route Deviation 397,311, about 15,000 disabled 12.3 Stockton, CA Hopper service Route Deviation Connector 135,000 84,000 4.6 3 Whatcom Transportation Authority Circulator or Community Bus Route Deviation 1,446 95,754 159,177 2.3 9.6 3.1 UTA, Salt Lake City Feeder N/A 484,000 2.2 Lane Transit District Feeder Service 404 121,074 TransLink Vancouver N/A = not available. Feeder Service over 6,000 1,087,000 2.1 TABLE 3 RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITIES

15 Another example that illustrates the substantial savings that can be accrued through shifting paratransit riders onto inte- grated service may be found in the Denver region Call-n-Ride program. By taking into account the difference between an ADA paratransit ride (approximately $50 per trip) and a Call-n- Ride trip ($15 per trip) and documenting the percentage of rid- ers who board with an ADA card, the agency has estimated that annual savings in 2008 could reach $458,000. These estimates include both amortized capital as well as operating costs. Fixed-route fare incentives represent another significant cost saving that is not based on service operations, but rather a policy that promotes integration of fixed-route and paratransit services. In Los Angeles, ASI offers paratransit riders a Free Fare Program to ride the various fixed-route systems in the county. ASI estimates that in 2007 1.3 mil- lion fixed-route trips were taken by ADA paratransit regis- trants, which represented a cost savings to the agency of $26 million.

Next: Chapter Four - Marketing and Technology Used in Integrated Services »
Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 76: Integration of Paratransit and Fixed-Route Transit Services explores the experiences of transit agencies that have attempted to depart from the traditional binary model of separate fixed-route and paratransit services by seeking a variety of ways to integrate their services. Options examined in the report include the provision of paratransit feeder services, community bus or circulators, connectors, fixed-route fare incentives, and route deviation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!