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.
Relatively limited applications of integrated services are being provided in transit agencies throughout North America. However, despite their limited use, they may be found in all geographic regions and in transit systems of all sizes operating in urban, suburban, and rural environments. Transit agencies operate integrated services to: (1) contain the costs of increasing ADA paratransit demand; (2) pro- vide services in geographic areas that would not be possible otherwise owing to low densities that do not support fixed- route transit; (3) expand the range of options available to people with disabilities in a community; and (4) test the feasibility of implementing fixed-route service in a new service area. VARIETY OF SERVICE DESIGNS Integrated services can take a variety of forms. In this study the models have been limited to the following: ⢠Paratransit feeder service: Paratransit service exclusively for people with disabilities that feeds into fixed-route service (variations can include additional legs of fixed- route and paratransit service). ⢠General public demand-response feeder service: General public demand-response service that feeds into fixed- route service at bus stops, park-and-rides, and light rail stations. ⢠Route deviation feeder service: Fixed-route bus that de- viates for people with disabilities and older adults, and connects to the mainline fixed-route service. ⢠Community bus feeder/connector service: Community bus (service route model) in suburban and rural areas that connects with fixed-route service and other com- munity bus stops. ⢠Route or point deviations service: Fixed-route bus that deviates within specified corridors and at specified times of the day to pick up people with disabilities and older adults. ⢠Other integrated services: Assisted travel program that facilitates transfers between paratransit and fixed-route or two fixed-route modes at transit centers for those riders who would not be able to transfer unassisted; fare- free programs for paratransit registrants riding fixed- route service; shopping shuttles geared toward seniors and people with disabilities. 28 LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE Apart from a few exceptions where paratransit feeder service has been integrated into the service since shortly after the passage of the ADA, most systems only recently have begun to implement feeder service, and usually after the implemen- tation of an accurate eligibility screening process. Other in- tegrated services also were implemented in recent years, and for the most part have not been discontinued. POPULATIONS SERVED Feeder services tend to serve ADA paratransit registrants ex- clusively; however, most other integrated services cited in this study serve the general public, in which people with disabilities and older adults are significant components. When a package of models is implemented simultaneously, for example the initiation of accurate eligibility screening, travel training, free fixed-route for people with disabilities, and community cir- culators that connect to fixed route, the volume of fixed-route disability ridership can increase dramatically. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION, REASONS FOR DISCONTINUING OR NOT IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATED SERVICES Transit systems tend to avoid implementing feeder service because of the perception that this is a difficult model to implement and it is not worth alienating members of the com- munity who would prefer direct paratransit service. For some there is also the effort required to educate the community and consumers about nontraditional public transportation modes. Systems have discontinued integrated services because of the lack of expected ridership and productivities, lack of interest from riders, or the replacement of fixed-route service. PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1. Voluntary or Mandatory. Paratransit programs that have offered volunteer feeder service have had very limited success. The most effective programs have offered indi- viduals with the appropriate conditional eligibility the choice of a feeder trip or no trip at all. However, to avoid undue impact on the mobility of registrants, paratransit programs need to have well-substantiated information CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS
more than $700,000 annual savings in Pierce Transit and $139,000 for TransLink (formerly BC Transit). UTA has shown a significant shifting of trips off the ADA paratransit program as a result of the implementation of a package of services, including an enhanced eligibility screening process, feeder service, travel training, free fixed-route fares, and a buddy ride-along program. Annual savings are estimated at more than $350,000. Finally, Access Services Inc. estimates that the agency saves $26 million per annum as a result of the Free Fare Program, which entitles ADA paratransit registrants to ride fare free on fixed route. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Identifying the most effective ways of educating transit and paratransit staff about the need for integrated services would be helpful in the expansion of these services. In particular, documenting approaches that agencies have adopted to moti- vate scheduling staff to offer feeder trips rather than direct paratransit service would be valuable to share with the transit community. Transit agencies that have implemented integrated services may be required to justify the continuation of such services during fiscally constrained times. Staff could survey their in- tegrated service riders to determine the number who are ADA paratransit eligible. By translating these numbers into poten- tial costs if these trips had been taken on paratransit service, the agency may be able to explain to policy makers why they should be continued. Assuming that spiraling paratransit costs and recent trends in the expansion of in-person eligibility assessments and travel training could contribute to an increased interest in im- plementing feeder service, more formal documentation of the effectiveness of various elements of program implementation would be valuable. Examples of these elements include deter- mining skills needed for schedulers and dispatchers to use the multi-modal modules of the scheduling software, and how they can work together to facilitate integration; establishing productivity thresholds that are operationally feasible and cost-effective for integrated services; documenting transfer location criteria that easily could be replicable in other systems; documenting the most effective policies and procedures for integrated services; and disseminating these as models for other transit agencies to adopt. Transit agencies could benefit from wider dissemination of the economic benefits of fully engaging community- based transportation providers, such as those presented in this synthesis, in the implementation of innovative integrated services. 29 about the individualâs functional capabilities, as well as the environmental barriers associated with the specific trip request. 2. Transfer Locations. Common criteria for selecting transfer locations include shelter, seating, a telephone, staffing, and security. 3. Staff Training and Driver Selection. Most systems re- ported that no special training is given to drivers in in- tegrated services, other than the training that would normally be given to paratransit drivers and extending some form of this sensitivity training to fixed-route drivers. To conduct efficient trip screening for feeder trips and integration of fixed-route and paratransit schedules, schedulers and dispatchers may require ad- ditional training. The most important form of training for transit staff is conveying the importance of providing integrated services and how these can help conserve budget in a constrained funding environment. Gener- ating buy-in among all staff (including eligibility screeners, reservationists, and drivers) may be critical to the successful implementation of feeder service. 4. Marketing. Transit agencies employ a variety of ap- proaches to marketing integrated services. These gen- erally are intended to distinguish the service from either alternate modes of fixed route and paratransit. However, marketing is not generally practiced for mandatory feeder service, but rather efforts are focused on ensuring that the consumer understands when to expect a feeder trip and how to use it most effectively. 5. Technology. Transit agencies can adopt an incremen- tal approach to using technology for integrating ser- vices, starting with a manual approach to scheduling. Scheduling software modules that can easily integrate scheduling and dispatching information from both fixed-route and paratransit services are helpful, but not essential in the implementation of feeder service. In ad- dition, Automated Vehicle Locators, Mobile Data Ter- minals, and Estimated Time of Arrival technology can facilitate reduced wait times. Cell phones can be used effectively in the implementation of real-time demand- response service; however, safety concerns about their use while driving still require further research. COST SAVINGS A number of transit agencies have experienced significant cost savings as a result of the implementation of integrated services. For feeder service, the savings are largely a result of the reduction in paratransit demand and reduced paratransit distances as part of each trip is provided by fixed route. De- spite the difficulty of isolating the cost savings specifically attributable to feeder service, these have been estimated at
