Policies and Practices for Effectively and Efficiently Meeting ADA Paratransit Demand (2008)

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.

18 INTRODUCTION Chapter three reviewed the variety of policies and practices that transit agencies of different sizes and environments have used to serve the paratransit demands of riders with disabili- ties. This chapter highlights some of these policies and prac- tices, providing details of how transit agencies have carried out programs in the topic areas covered in the survey. Each of the following sections of this chapter provides an overview of the topic and the key issues facing transit agencies. Following this discussion are the specific poli- cies and practices. Information has been gathered from open-ended responses provided in the on-line survey (Questions 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 42), telephone interviews with transit agency staff, and sample documents provided by staff or from their agency websites. Areas covered include: • Eligibility policies, • Operating policies and practices, • Taxis and other flexible capacity, • Coordination of ADA paratransit with other transit services, • Improvements to fixed-route services, and • Incentives to use the fixed-route system. ELIGIBILITY POLICIES A transit agency’s process for determining eligibility is the gateway to its ADA-complementary paratransit service. The more accurately and precisely a transit agency designs and carries out its eligibility process, the more appropriately it can serve its riders—both on the fixed route and paratransit. An eligibility process that is too permissive may lead to pro- viding paratransit service to individuals who could otherwise use the fixed-route system for some or all of their transit trips. This could impose financial burdens on the transit agency, perhaps leading to less service or a lower quality of service for both fixed-route and paratransit riders. If a transit agency improperly denies eligibility to an individual, it is denying a civil right to that person. Even if a transit agency is making proper determinations but has an eligibility process that is unwieldy or burdensome for applicants, that process can dis- courage people from applying for eligibility and thus indi- rectly deprive them of paratransit service. Eligibility for ADA-complementary paratransit service is directly related to an individual with a disability not being able to use the fixed route. The ADA regulations set forth three categories of eligibility [49 CFR 37.123(e)]: 1. An individual with a disability (physical, sensory, or mental) who is unable, without the assistance of another individual, to board, ride, or disembark from a vehicle which is accessible to persons with a disability. 2. An individual with a disability who could use a fixed route if the vehicle were accessible, but accessible vehi- cles are not being used for the particular trip. 3. An individual with a disability who cannot get to or dis- embark from the fixed-route station or stop. The first eligibility category; that is, “navigating the sys- tem,” is the most common and well known. The second eligi- bility category is becoming less common and does not apply in many transit agencies as their fleets become fully compli- ant with the vehicle requirements of the ADA regulations. The third eligibility category is a function of the operating environment of a transit agency—the accessibility of the stops, stations, and paths of travel to and from them. An eligibility process generally includes the following components: • Public information and initial application, • Tracking and initial review of application, • Assessment of an applicant’s capabilities, • Eligibility determination, • Appeal and service suspension processes, and • Recertification. The transit industry has refined the policies and processes used to determine ADA paratransit eligibility. To track appli- cations, more agencies are now making use of automation to handle the great volume of data on its applicants. More transit agencies are conducting detailed and specialized applicant assessments. Easter Seals Project ACTION has developed ref- erence materials to help transit agencies in this area (http:// projectaction.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename= ESPA_free_resources&s_esLocation=FR). The National Transit Institute provides a training course, Comprehen- sive ADA Paratransit Eligibility (http://www.ntionline.com/ CourseInfo.asp?CourseNumber=FP011). More transit agen- cies now conduct in-person assessments with in-house or con- CHAPTER FOUR CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

19 tracted specialists. In addition, there have been changes in the appeal and suspension processes, in part owing to consumer input and FTA guidance on acceptable policies. However, the changes in eligibility policies and practices that are most likely to have a long-term impact on paratransit riderships relate to the ways in which transit agencies are refin- ing eligibility determinations. To encourage the use of fixed- route service, the regulations have always permitted transit agencies to give eligibility to paratransit riders on a conditional or trip-by-trip basis. 49 CFR 37.123(b) states that, “If an indi- vidual meets the eligibility criteria of this section with respect to some trips but not others, the individual shall be ADA para- transit eligible only for those trips for which he or she meets the criteria.” This means that depending on the environmental conditions, the path of travel, or a rider’s disability affecting the ability to use a fixed route, a transit agency is permitted to determine if a trip is feasible on a fixed route for that rider, or if that rider needs paratransit. For most transit agencies, the barrier to enforcing condi- tional and trip-by-trip eligibility has been matching the impair- ment conditions of a rider to daily operations. One responding transit agency noted that, “Conditional eligibility is applied frequently, although applicants are on the honor system to schedule paratransit trips when the trips meet the conditions of their eligibility. We have found that many conditions of eligi- bility will be difficult to enforce, especially when passengers may reserve trips up to two days in advance.” Many transit agencies now certify applicants with con- ditional eligibility, but then provide service for any trip requested by that rider. Other agencies have enforced broad conditions, erring on the side of providing paratransit service if there is a question. For example, eligibility for paratransit service in hot (or cold) weather is a common condition, with a particular specific temperature threshold. But instead of using that temperature threshold on a day-to-day basis, an agency may substitute “the months of May to September” as the actual condition. “Trip-by-trip eligibility” tends to refer to evaluating a rider’s ability to use a fixed route or need to use paratransit for a spe- cific origin and destination. Therefore, knowledge of the path of travel is essential. This means that a transit agency must investigate and document the path of travel to the stops and/or stations that a rider would follow to use a fixed route; every trip origin and destination would require that same effort. This very labor- and data-intensive process stymies most agencies from investing the effort. As a result, trip-by-trip eligibility is used even less frequently than conditional eligibility. A way to increase the success of trip-by-trip eligibility is to have a travel training program. Travel training enables more ADA paratransit riders to use the fixed route for some of their trips. A discussion of travel training and some success stories appears in the Incentives to Use the Fixed Route System sec- tion later in this chapter. The following two case studies focus on two aspects of eli- gibility determination. The first case describes the process used by Access Services, Inc. (ASI) to evaluate individuals applying for ADA-complementary paratransit service. The second case describes the efforts by the King County Metro (Seattle, Washington) to implement both conditional and trip- by-trip eligibility. Access Services, Inc.—In-Person Functional Assessments ASI is the contractor that provides ADA-complementary para- transit service for the Los Angeles County (California) Metro- politan Transportation Authority and all other fixed-route transit services in Los Angeles County. In fiscal year 2005, ASI switched from an in-person interview to an in-person functional assessment for all individuals applying for para- transit service. The assessment begins with an interview, fol- lowed by a simulated transit walk if the assessor needs further information to make a determination. The simulated transit walk includes the following tasks: • Travel over five different sample terrains: gravel, smooth, cracked and potholed, soft turf, and unset paving blocks; • Travel up an incline without rest stops; • Travel up curb steps; • Travel up and down curb cuts; • Travel on left- and right-side sloped walks; • Identification of route numbers; • Use of a fare box; • Following multiple-step directions; and • Going from seated to standing position. During these tasks, the ASI evaluator observes the appli- cant’s short-term memory response, balance and endurance, and gait and speed. ASI staff believes that conducting functional assessments for all applicants has led to more accurate eligibility deter- minations. The largest change in the eligibility determination outcomes was an increase in “restricted” (conditional or trip-by-trip) eligibility from 0.4% in the three previous years (fiscal years 2002 to 2004) to 10.1% in fiscal year 2007 (first 9 months). Another notable pattern was the change in applicants who were determined not to be eligible for ADA service. In fiscal year 2005, the first year of functional assess- ments, 20.8% of applicants were found not eligible, com- pared with 11.0% for the previous three years. However, by fiscal year 2007 (first 9 months), the proportion of applicants found not eligible had decreased to 12.5%. Staff concluded that more individuals were self-selecting to not apply for ADA service because they understood that they would not be eligible.

King County Metro—Conditional and Trip-by-Trip Eligibility King County Metro (Washington State) provides public trans- portation in Seattle and surrounding King County. Its Metro Access service provides ADA-complementary paratransit ser- vice. As of the end of 2006, there were nearly 28,000 individ- uals certified to use Metro Access. Of this total, more than 80% are certified without any conditions. Metro has been making determinations of conditional eligibility since 1993, but did not begin to enforce the conditions until 2000. During the eligibility determination process Metro con- siders the following: • Conditions that occur while getting to and from a fixed- route bus – Seasonal conditions:  Extreme heat,  Extreme cold,  Extreme light,  Darkness, and  Snow and ice. – Variable conditions: “bad day” for riders with dis- abilities that cause temporary fatigue or temporary intensification of pain. – Pathway conditions:  Lack of curb cut,  Steep inclines,  Uneven surfaces,  Complex traffic, and  Distance. – Conditions that occur while boarding or alighting from a fixed-route bus:  Lack of boarding device (Metro has a 100% acces- sible fleet, but evaluates the need for a boarding device because the applicant may use the certifi- cation when traveling in other cities) and  Lack of accessible stop. – Conditions that occur while riding a fixed-route bus:  Bus-to-bus transfer and  Not travel trained. For each condition, Metro has provided a definition (and how Metro determines if that condition exists) stating how far in advance a rider can book a demand-responsive trip as a result of the condition, and stating whether a rider can receive subscription service as a result of the condition. For example, Metro defines “extreme heat” as 85°F or greater. Metro also assumes that there is a high likelihood for extreme heat during July and August; therefore, all days during these two months are automatically categorized as extreme heat days. For the remainder of the year if any part of King County is forecast to have a daytime high temperature of 85°F or higher for the next day then a rider with an extreme heat condition may book a trip for that day. Because the extreme heat condition is defined only one day ahead (other than July and August), Metro does not allow subscription service for a rider whose only condition 20 is extreme heat. Appendix D provides Metro’s full explanation of each of these conditions. The pathway conditions deal with architectural and envi- ronmental conditions that Metro does not control; the con- ditions are considered permanent until new information is available. Metro has been slowly compiling a detailed data- base of pathway barriers (public rights-of-way only). It has a complete database for downtown Seattle. The following are examples of pathway barriers: • Uneven terrain, • Slope in direction of travel greater than 8°, • Busy road or any road with at least four lanes, • Unmarked intersections, and • Improper or lack of curb cuts. Metro Access staff collects data in person for specific paths for frequent trips (defined as more than nine times over three months) made by riders certified since the beginning of 2006. Metro staff visits the origins and destinations, and review the paths to the bus stops for both inbound and outbound legs. They may identify paths that are accessible that are not neces- sarily the most direct paths between the origin and bus stop, but that are feasible and practical for the rider. They make measurements and take photographs of the sites. Metro has created a pathway review workbook (a set of spreadsheet tem- plates) to collect all the needed data to determine whether the pathways to and from the two ends of a requested trip are accessible. Appendix D also includes a completed pathway review workbook for a sample origin–destination pair evalu- ated by Metro Access staff. To implement the enforcement of these conditions, Metro enters each rider’s travel limitations in the automated client database (part of the Trapeze software). These data are used by the Trapeze certification module when a rider with conditional eligibility calls to request a trip. King County Metro estimated the savings from trips taken by conditionally eligible Metro Access riders on the fixed route rather than paratransit service (B. Sahm, personal com- munication, April 18, 2007). Metro staff reviewed the travel of 283 conditionally eligible riders from 2006 to early 2007 and found that 64 of these riders could use the fixed-route service instead of paratransit for particular round trips. This resulted in 7,528 passenger trips during this period taken on fixed route instead of Metro Access. In addition, 6 of the 64 riders deter- mined that they could use the fixed-route service for all of their transit trips and stopped using Metro Access entirely. This led to another 2,090 passenger trips taken on fixed-route instead of Metro Access service. The marginal cost of a Metro Access trip during this period was $22.70. The resulting cost savings resulting from trips taken by these 64 passengers on the fixed route rather than Metro Access service was $218,329. In the next phase of

21 analysis, Metro was planning to review the paratransit feeder trips of certain riders to determine if the riders could use fixed route instead of Metro Access on these feeder trips. OPERATING PRACTICES Included in this topic are all activities related to the daily oper- ations of a paratransit service. Major components include: • Accepting trip requests, • Scheduling trip requests, • Assigning trips to vehicle routes, • Dispatching vehicles, and • Monitoring operations. A major evolution in paratransit operations since the years before ADA and its early years was the increasing use of automation. Specialized software packages and other tech- nology are now available to help paratransit staff in all aspects of operations. For trip requests, some transit agencies are developing ways to allow riders to make the requests on-line. A number of sys- tems already allow riders to cancel or confirm trips through automated phone systems. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has an automated phone system that allows its paratransit rid- ers to make trip requests and have them confirmed in a single phone call. More details on this “Express Paratransit Booking” system are presented later in this section. Many paratransit operations, even smaller ones that provide fewer than 250 trips per day, use paratransit software for vehi- cle scheduling. Transit agencies use the software in different ways; some rely on the software to make most of the choices in assigning trips to routes, whereas other transit agencies use the software as an aid to trip assignment. Most transit agencies realize that a skilled and experienced scheduler is still crucial to review any vehicle routes created by the automated system and then to make adjustments as needed. There is also an increasing use of vehicles equipped with mobile data terminals (MDTs) and global positioning systems (GPS). Both of these technologies enable paratransit opera- tions to dispatch vehicles and monitor operations in real time. Using MDTs, text messages can be sent and received between a paratransit dispatcher and a driver. MDTs on vehicles could eventually eliminate the need for drivers to carry paper sched- ules (manifests). However, even when paratransit systems have this option, they tend to continue to use paper—partly because drivers prefer to keep them and partly as a manual backup to MDTs. One practice in use at systems with MDTs is “performing” trips—sending a message to dispatch that a pickup or drop off has occurred using the MDTs rather than the radio. This has reduced the use of radios for such routine communication and kept the radio lines available for other messages between driver and dispatcher. GPS allow dispatchers to track the location of vehicles in real time. Paratransit operations are making use of this tech- nology in several ways. For example, if a driver is lost, a dis- patcher can give the driver directions. A dispatcher can also view a map to decide which vehicle is best positioned to han- dle an additional trip. Using taxis as part of a paratransit vehicle fleet is a practice more common for larger paratransit operations. For the tran- sit agencies that carried fewer than 500 trips per day that responded to the survey, less than 20% used taxis. Of those carrying more than 500 trips per day, more than one-third used taxis, with nearly half of the largest operations (more than 1,000 daily trips) using them. A further discussion on taxis and other flexible capacity is presented later in this chapter. Dallas Area Rapid Transit: Express Booking DART offers Express Booking (XPB), an automated tele- phone system available at all times, to its paratransit riders to make trip reservations. It provides immediate confirmation of the trip request without making a confirmation call—or wait- ing for a confirmation call from DART—on the night before the trip. There are two ways to use XPB. The first is to set up a per- sonal trip list. This lets a rider identify a set of 10 destinations to which the rider frequently travels. Once this personal trip list is established, the rider can use XPB to book a trip to one of the destinations by specifying that destination, along with the date and time of travel. The second way to use XPB is for a rider to request a trip with the same origin and destination as he or she booked within the past three days. XPB offers a list of these potential trips. When the rider calls, he or she selects the origin and desti- nation, then provides the date and requested time; either a pickup or drop-off time can be requested. XPB will then pro- vide confirmation of the requested date and time or it will pro- vide a negotiated time within the allowed ±60 min negotiation window. XPB provides a pickup time (subject to a pickup win- dow of 0/+20 min) and an estimated drop-off time for all con- firmed trips. Riders can also use XPB to cancel up to two days’ worth of trips in one phone call. Riders can book only one round trip per call with XPB. The deadline for booking a trip using XPB is the same as booking a trip with a call taker (5:00 p.m. of the day before service). Another benefit DART offers XPB users is the ability to request a trip three days in advance; however, individuals who request a trip through a live call taker from Monday to Wednesday can only request a trip up to two days in advance. DART has been offering XPB since February 2000 as an additional feature to its existing interactive voice response

telephone system. As of early 2007, 28% of weekday trips for DART paratransit (approximately 700 of 2,500 total trips) were being booked through XPB. DART does not track the number of its riders who have used XPB. Regional Transportation Commission Washoe— Shopper Routes In addition to ADA-complementary paratransit service (Access), the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Washoe (Reno, Nevada) provides a set of four shopper routes for ADA riders. These four routes run on weekdays from 8:45 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (fixed route and Access operate seven days per week). Each route acts as a service route, with pick- ups and drop offs provided anywhere within each route’s geo- graphic area. Most of Reno is covered among the four routes, as well as the northern suburbs and the city of Sparks (to the immediate east). Although there is overlap in the service areas of the four routes, riders do not transfer from one route to another because of the difficulty in coordinating the routes and the resulting concern of potential long wait times for riders. These shopper routes do not accept advance reservations; they take only same-day requests. The vehicles assigned to the routes (one per route) travel past certain senior housing com- plexes approximately every 2 h. The housing complexes may place signs in their front windows to indicate that a resident wants a ride on the shopper route. If a rider boards at senior housing without a reservation, the rider tells the driver where he or she wants to go. The rider also arranges the return trip with the driver. The fare for a rider on a shopper route is the same as other ADA paratransit ($1.70 per trip). The drivers offer as much or more personal assistance as on Access paratransit service, as many riders will have packages from shopping. This type of service offers a combination of the benefits of fixed route (no need to reserve a trip and somewhat regular schedules) and paratransit (door-to-door, driver assistance available). The vehicle productivity for these routes is 3.6 pas- senger trips per vehicle-hour (based on 1,900 passenger trips and 525 vehicle-hours per month). This compares with a pro- ductivity of 2.6 passenger trips per vehicle-hour for Access service. RTC estimated its resulting annual savings from the shopper routes at $170,000. TAXIS AND OTHER FLEXIBLE CAPACITY This discussion focuses on the role of taxicabs in paratransit both to support ADA-complementary paratransit service as well as to meet the needs of those with impaired mobility. Although most taxicabs are sedans, changes in the automobile industry have helped to address some of the limitations of using sedans as a paratransit resource. The minivan, first man- ufactured domestically in 1983, led to the development of 22 taller vehicles that drive like sedans. By having car-like vehi- cles available for conversion to accessible vehicles, their use as taxicabs is possible. Furthermore, as described later in this section, manufacturers are developing specialized taxicab sedans that can accommodate wheelchairs. Taxicabs as Paratransit Vehicles The vehicles used to supply paratransit include low-floor buses, minibuses, vans, and sedans. Newly manufactured vans and buses are usually equipped with ramps or lifts. Most taxicabs are sedans and usually feature cargo areas sufficient to carry a folding wheelchair. For paratransit passengers who can travel in sedans, taxi- cabs have been used as paratransit vehicles for some time. The extent of their effectiveness and the ways in which taxicabs are used varies considerably from city to city. There are a num- ber of variables at play, such as the regulatory environment, marketplace conditions, enforcement, and training. In some systems where ADA-complementary paratransit is offered through a mixed fleet of vehicles that includes vans and sedans, the sedan service is often provided by taxicab companies that operate under contract. Sometimes these vehi- cles are equipped with meters and can be used for any paying customer. Other times, the taxis are dedicated to paratransit service. The drivers of these vehicles are often better trained, providing a better quality of service to paratransit passengers. Accessible Minivans First manufactured domestically in 1983, the minivan led to the development of taller vehicles that drive like sedans. By having car-like vehicles available for conversion to accessible vehicles, their use as taxicabs is possible. With the advent of wheelchair-accessible minivans, it has become more practical for regulatory authorities to require that a certain percentage of the taxi fleet be wheelchair accessible. In some cities, regula- tors have required operators to convert a portion of their fleets. In other cities, regulators have issued additional licenses exclu- sively for accessible taxis. This has been particularly effective in systems with taxi medallions where demand exceeds supply. Although not universally true, those operating minivans that are wheelchair accessible have been able to carry more pas- sengers or people with large quantities of luggage than would otherwise be able to travel together in a sedan. Accessible Sedans Sedans are another vehicle alternative for some paratransit services. Pioneered in England, the accessible taxi sedan is one of the latest trends in vehicles (see Figure 1). The Lon- don Taxi is distributed in the United States through London Taxis of North America (www.londontaxisna.com). These

23 ble taxicab in the United States. Its major impediment is its rel- atively high initial purchase price, approximately double the cost of a typical domestic taxicab. It is possible that, over time, the cost to own such a vehicle will prove comparable to the ownership costs of a typical taxicab sedan. In terms of its proposed cost of approximately $25,000, the Standard Taxicab shows promise. Once it is deployed as a revenue-generating taxicab, more will be known about its potential for addressing the need for accessible taxicabs. King County Metro Case Study (Accessible Minivans) An ongoing partnership among King County Metro (Wash- ington State), King County’s Licensing Division, and the city of Seattle is coordinating a demonstration project to provide accessible taxi service for people who use wheelchairs in King County. The program was intended to determine the potential effects of introducing low-floor accessible taxis into the 800- vehicle fleet of city and county taxis. Metro provided eight of its supervisor vehicles, which had approximately 30,000 miles of use, for these accessible taxis. The operators of these 8 vehi- cles are 16 cab drivers who formed a driver group and affil- iated with one of the major taxi companies for automated dispatching services. The driver group was required to obtain $1 million in liability coverage, the same level as other taxi companies participating in the Metro Access over- flow program. By providing the vehicles from its own paratransit fleet, King County Metro addressed one of the key financial issues of using accessible minivans as taxicabs. As a result, taxi drivers did not have to invest in a more costly vehicle to pro- vide service. Fares charged and other services are the same as taxi sedans. The program has worked reasonably well from an opera- tional perspective. Monthly, they have received approximately 50 dispatch calls for Metro Access trips, 30 calls for overflow Metro Access trips, and hundreds of general public trips. Early in the project, each accessible cab provided only seven to nine trips per month for wheelchair customers. There are a few ongoing challenges. First, the size of the fleet is small and cannot adequately cover a large geographic area. If a rider who uses a wheelchair calls for an accessible taxi, the response time, although same day, is usually much longer than for calling a nonaccessible taxi. Obtaining affordable insurance also proved to be a problem, as the asso- ciation could not get onto a larger group insurance program and required extra time (four months) to obtain insurance. Their annual insurance costs amount to $10,000 per vehicle— more than three times as expensive as for other taxis. The mini- vans get better gas mileage than the vehicles typically used as cabs (Crown Victorias); however, the cost savings are not FIGURE 1 Accessible taxi sedan. FIGURE 2 Standard taxicab. vehicles were priced at $49,000 in a 2005 New York Times article (Motavalli 2005). A new sedan-based taxi called the Standard Taxicab is being marketed and developed by the Vehicle Production Group, LLC. This vehicle is designed and engineered specifically for taxicab and paratransit fleets and is expected to cost approximately $25,000 according to a 2006 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Harrell 2006). Information on its use for wheelchairs is available at www. standardtaxi.com/disabled.html. Figure 2 shows a Standard Taxicab. Because the London Taxi has a long record of effectiveness as a taxicab in England, it is most likely suitable as an accessi-

enough to offset the higher insurance costs. Finally, the sup- plied vehicles will eventually need rehabilitation or replace- ment, which will require a significant financial outlay to keep the service in operation. Appendix E provides other findings from this demonstration project. Opportunities for Improved Efficiency Taxicabs are a more efficient vehicle for system operators because they can be used for other revenue purposes. As fleets continue to include converted minivans or purpose-built vehi- cles such as the Standard Taxi, the efficiencies can be realized in the other direction. In other words, when general taxi busi- ness is slow, the accessible taxis can be used to further supple- ment paratransit operations. In addition, companies with the vehicles are finding that there is demand for accessible taxi- cabs from people in the disabled community not eligible for subsidized paratransit (Lave and Mathias 1998). Taxi companies are changing by adopting sophisticated dis- patching capabilities and by entering into contracts to provide other transportation services. Companies are actively compet- ing with private paratransit contractors for health maintenance organizations and Medicaid transportation contracts and for ADA service (Lave and Mathias 1998). Having vehicles that can operate either as paratransit vehicles or as taxis for the gen- eral public provides maximum flexibility for taxicab compa- nies that also serve as contractors for paratransit services. COORDINATION OF ADA PARATRANSIT WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Coordination of transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged has been an ongoing activity and goal since the 1970s. In 1980, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published two documents: Planning Guidelines for Coordinated Transportation Services (Applied Resource Inte- gration Ltd. 1980a) and Implementation Guidelines for Coor- dinated Agency Transportation Services (Applied Resource Integration Ltd. 1980b). Although the technology certainly has evolved (and the department no longer exists), much of the guidance in these two documents remains valid. More recently at the federal level, 2004 Presidential Executive Order 13330 created an interdepartmental Federal Council on Access and Mobility to undertake collective and individual departmental actions to reduce duplication among federally funded human service transportation services; increase the efficient delivery of such services; and expand transportation access for older individuals, persons with dis- abilities, persons with low income, children, and other dis- advantaged populations within their own communities. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU created a requirement that a locally developed, coordinated public transit/human service planning process and an initial plan be developed by 2007 as a condition 24 of receiving funding for certain programs directed at meeting the needs of older individuals, persons with disabilities, and low-income persons. The plan must be developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation providers and public, private, and non-profit human service providers and participation by the public. Complete plans, including coordination with the full range of existing human service transportation providers, are required by fiscal year 2008. The current public face of coordination at the federal level is the United We Ride program (www.unitedweride.gov). It is intended to gather all the information and technical assistance at one location. It also provides links to all of the state action plans for coordination. A number of states have mandated some level of coordina- tion. According to a recent TCRP report, at least 12 states fund local public transportation for older adults and persons with disabilities: Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin (TranSystems et al. 2004). More coordination at the local and regional level is taking place—a requirement of receiving transportation funding from the nine federal departments that, along with the Social Secu- rity Administration and the National Council on Disabilities, comprise the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. The references cited in chapter two, along with the website for United We Ride, provide extensive information on current coordination activities. However, as cited in chapter three, the respondents to the survey overall did not see themselves as car- rying out many innovative policies or practices in coordina- tion. The following paragraphs present some of the transit agency responses to the open-ended question on coordination (Question 34). Transit agencies in several states, including California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, indicated that they are the county or regional transportation coordinator or broker. Other transit agencies contract for their ADA paratransit service with an agency that is doing the county coordination or with a private operator that also has transportation contracts with social ser- vice agencies. For some of the agencies, ADA rides are a small portion of their total paratransit operation. For example, the Red Rose Transit Authority (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) wrote that “ADA comprises about 10% of the total trips.” Here are some examples of coordination activities by respondents to the survey: • Santa Fe Trails (Santa Fe, New Mexico) indicated that it has “a coordinated call center which gives transportation

25 information including a commuter service provided by New Mexico DOT, rural transportation information, fixed-route Santa Fe Trails, and Santa Fe Ride paratran- sit service.” • Intercity Transit (Olympia, Washington) responded that, in addition to coordinating service with the two other transit operators in its county, it also provides travel train- ing to the clients of those transit operators. • The Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Ken- tucky), as part of a new local mobility council, is offering other agencies free vehicle maintenance and a new vehi- cle lending program. Mason County (Washington State)—School Buses Mason County (Washington State) Transit operates a combi- nation of eight fixed routes, route deviation, zone service, and general public dial-a-ride service. Five of the routes make con- nections with transit service to adjacent counties. It has a fleet of 35 vans and small buses. Since 1999, Mason County has been supplementing its fleet with four school buses from Shelton and North Mason, two school districts in the county. The four buses operate week- days from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Each vehicle averages 435 rides per month in portions of the county that otherwise would not have service. The riders consist primarily of students going home after attending after-school activities and residents com- ing home from work, shopping, or other events. The economics of the arrangement work well for Mason Transit and the school district. In 2006, the cost to Mason Transit was $1.85 per vehicle-mile, plus $22.50 per vehicle- hour. The average daily mileage per bus was 30 miles and there was a minimum of two hours per bus per day. This yields a cost per passenger trip of approximately $4.80. A portion of the service is funded through Washington State’s Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation, which encourages this type of partnership. The general manager says that he has not heard any opinions about the ride quality of the school buses from his passengers. Mason Transit plans to continue this arrangement. It is also working with the school district to apply for grant funds to acquire “dual use vehicles,” which will have seatbelts and may offer better seating. The general manager believes that a key to this arrange- ment is that Mason Transit contracts for the school bus drivers along with the school buses, which was an important factor for the school district’s comfort in using the school buses for other purposes. This arrangement also provided additional work for the school bus drivers. Although the gen- eral manger is getting Mason Transit drivers trained and cer- tified to operate the school buses, there is no plan to replace the school bus drivers with Mason Transit drivers. There was some initial opposition from the state superintendent of pub- lic instruction because of concerns about having the general public and students riding together. However, Mason Transit and the school districts were able to overcome this hurdle— in part, because these school buses were assuming the role of general public transit vehicles. IMPROVEMENTS TO FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE Since the enactment of the ADA, one of the greatest changes in public transportation accessibility is the proportion of acces- sible vehicles in transit agencies’ fixed-route fleets. According to the 2006 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book (2006), 96.9% of its members’ buses are accessible for mobility devices, but not necessarily fully compliant for other acces- sibility requirements. These numbers will continue to increase as transit agencies replace the older vehicles with new, acces- sible vehicles. The big remaining challenge facing transit agencies in increasing the accessibility of fixed-route service is improv- ing the environment in which they operate. Rail operators often control some of the components of the paths used to reach their platforms and trains, such as station facilities, parking lots, and paths between the facility and the drop off or pickup locations. In these cases, they can control the design of accessible paths and sometimes the maintenance as well. Bus operators, in contrast, often have limited control of their envi- ronment. Some bus operators have transfer centers, commuter parking lots, intermodal transit centers, or other dedicated transit facilities for which they may oversee the design and maintenance. Most locations where riders board or alight from buses, however, are bus stops on sidewalks along public streets. When there are shelters, the transit agency often designs the shelter and bus stop pad. However, beyond that (literally), the transit agency usually relies on another entity to provide an accessible path. In jurisdictions where the transit agency is a municipal agency, the municipality may set forth uniform design and construction standards that lead to coordinated accessibility planning for sidewalks, curb cuts, crosswalks, and other elements of public pedestrian ways. This may simplify the administrative process and the allocation of financial bur- den for the accessibility improvements. The task is much more challenging, however, when the transit agency is sep- arate from the municipality and/or operates in more than one municipality. Some transit agencies have been proactive in developing design guidelines for transit facilities and paths of travel. These guidelines are useful for their own staff and contrac- tors. In addition, they can share these guidelines with the municipalities to promote the proper design for accessibility. In the best case, the transit agency can have its design stan- dards incorporated directly in the standards of its city or county. The following section provides an example of this.

Transit Authority of River City Design Manual The Transit Authority of River City (TARC) in Louisville, Kentucky, has prepared the Transit Standards Manual: A Ref- erence Guide (2006). TARC’s website states that: TARC works with planners and developers throughout the com- munity to ensure that new developments can accommodate transit riders. When a new development is constructed, or when a prop- erty is redeveloped, there are requirements in Louisville Metro’s Land Development Code for transit amenities. The Transit Standards Manual is a companion document to the Land Development Code. Although this document is not prepared solely for issues of accessibility, it incorporates the accessibility requirements for accessible paths, stops, and bus shelters. Appendix F presents excerpts from the Standards Manual that includes design guidance related to accessibil- ity. The entire Standards Manual is available at http://www. ridetarc.org/inside-tarc/transit-standards.asp. INCENTIVES TO USE THE FIXED-ROUTE SYSTEM Under the ADA, the primary goal for public transportation is to make fixed-route service accessible to the greatest number of potential riders. ADA-complementary paratran- sit service comes into play only when a transit agency and a rider determine that, as a result of the rider’s disability, it is not possible for the rider to use fixed-route service. In general, fixed-route service offers riders two incentives over paratransit: 1. Greater flexibility in scheduling and traveling. Although some transit agencies are providing paratransit trips on a same-day basis, most agencies require reservations at least one day ahead, as permitted in the regulations. Using fixed-route service requires no such planning. Flexibility in planning a trip is limited to service fre- quency on the fixed route. 2. Lower fares. The fare on an ADA-complementary para- transit trip may be as much as twice the fare on a com- parable fixed-route trip. Fare Incentives The FTA requires grantees to charge no more than half fare to persons with disabilities (as well as senior citizens) during off-peak times on the fixed route. Many transit agencies have instituted fare incentives for ADA riders that go beyond this. They are allowed to ride for free on the fixed route. Further- more, an increasing number of transit agencies also permit the ADA rider’s personal care attendant to ride for free. This is an important addition, because some ADA riders would not be able to (or would not feel comfortable) riding the fixed route unaccompanied. This double fare incentive removes this barrier. 26 RTC Washoe has a fare incentive for ADA riders who use its Citilift paratransit to or from a Citifare fixed-route bus. The regular ADA-complementary paratransit service fare is $1.70, which is the same as the fixed-route bus fare. Half fare on the bus is 85 cents. However, if a paratransit rider takes a feeder trip to or from a fixed route, then RTC charges only 55 cents for the entire trip. Travel Training Travel training is not a new idea. Among the survey respon- dents, 56% stated that they had a travel training program. Excluding the group of the smallest operations (those provid- ing fewer than 250 daily paratransit trips), the proportion increases to 73%. The primary benefit of travel training is giving riders the chance to take advantage of the flexibility of fixed-route service. Some travel training programs are directed toward ADA riders with cognitive disabilities. The travel training they receive is often for a specific round trip; for example, between home and work or home and another com- mon destination. Other travel training programs are broader in scope. Many older individuals who apply for ADA-complementary para- transit service have rarely used public transportation; they have traveled by private automobile all their lives. If transit agencies are referring potential paratransit riders to fixed-route service, they must realize that riding a bus (or train) is a new experience for many of these individuals; therefore, travel training should include teaching these individuals the basics of public transportation. • How to read a map and bus schedule, • Where to wait for a bus, • How to board and pay the fare, and • How to signal for the desired stop. The Sandy (Oregon) Area Metro (SAM) has developed a travel training program, Transit Adventures, directed to these new users of public transportation. Sandy’s fixed-route service began in 2000. Located 35 miles southeast of downtown Port- land, Sandy had previously been part of the TriMet (Portland) transit district. Later in 2000, Sandy began general public dial- a-ride, which served several purposes: ADA-complementary paratransit service; feeder to fixed route, both for general pub- lic and ADA riders; and local door-to-door service. To help introduce all of its residents to the fixed route, staff began offering Transit Adventures each month. The city’s trainer (guide) leads a group of between 4 and 15 participants on a day- long trip using several transit modes. The training is open to everyone, although most participants are 55 or older. The guide selects a “fun” destination in or near Portland; for example, a museum, historical site, marketplace, or tourist destination. By traveling into Portland, the participants also use the light rail and streetcar. Sandy’s transit manager estimates a monthly

27 cost for Transit Adventures of $200 to $300. This includes time to research and plan the trip, eight hours to guide the trip, and expenses to market the program and pay for non-SAM fares. There is no cost to SAM operations, because the partic- ipants ride on regularly scheduled fixed-route service. The participants enjoy the training, with as many as 50 indi- viduals taking part multiple times. Several participants have become comfortable with using transit on their own for longer trips to medical appointments. Several participants have since become trainers themselves. According to the transit manager, “seniors take ownership of SAM and become transit users.” Although a majority of transit agencies provide travel train- ing, there are few quantitative analyses of the benefits of travel training to a transit agency. There were two transit agencies that provided estimates of their savings. The first, RTC Washoe, analyzed its travel training program in 2004. The Northern Nevada Center for Independent Living had travel instructors who worked with 71 individuals with disabilities. They evaluated the individuals’ abilities to use public trans- portation and taught those with the ability to use RTC Ride fixed route (previously called Citifare) or a combination of fixed route and RTC Access (previously called CitiLift). The mobility training program worked to identify which form of public transportation best met the ability and needs of the per- son with a disability. If someone was unable to use RTC Ride, he or she was eligible for the more costly paratransit service. The age range of the trainees varied, with 20% between the ages of 18 to 22, 54% between 23 and 59, and 27% age 60 and over. After completing training, of the 71 trainees, 44% (31) used RTC Ride only, 34% (24) used RTC Access only, and 7% (5) used a combination of Ride and Access. The remaining 15% (11) did not complete the travel training. The 31 trainees who only rode RTC Ride took an average of 264 rides weekly, or 13,728 rides yearly. During calendar year 2004, a total of 921 training hours were used, with an average of 13 h per person. The cost to RTC was $31,287 and the average training cost per trainee was approximately $441. The cost of providing those 13,728 trips on RTC Ride was estimated at approximately $36,000. The comparable cost of Access rides would have been more than $300,000. Thus, the net savings of this program to RTC was approximately $233,000 annually. The second reporting agency, Intercity Transit (Olympia, Washington), conducts its travel training in-house. They con- centrate on regular riders; for example, people with jobs or who regularly go to the senior center or community center. In 2006, its trainer trained 97 individuals who used its Dial-A- Lift paratransit program. According to the Dial-A-Lift man- ager, the cost savings per trip diverted from paratransit to fixed route is $27 to $30 versus $3. A very conservative estimate of trips per rider is 10 per month. This yields a savings of $314,280 annually (97 riders × 10 trips/rider/ month × 12 months/year × $27 savings/trip). The cost for travel training, which includes a full-time trainer, travel, materials, and supplies, is approximately $55,000 per year. That yields a net annual savings to Intercity Transit of $260,000.