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.

28 From 1992, the first year of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-complementary paratransit service, to 2004, paratransit ridership in the United States increased by 58.3%, to more than 114 million trips, most of which were ADA-complementary paratransit trips. Although growth in paratransit ridership has slowed since the early 1990s, over a 5-year period (1999 to 2004), paratransit ridership rose by 14%. Nevertheless, this rate of increase far exceeds public transit as a whole for the same period (4.4%). Paratransit ridership is slightly more than 1% of the total transit ridership. However, as stated earlier, an agency’s costs to provide paratransit trips are disproportionate to the ridership share. In 2004, paratransit comprised 9% of transit operating costs. The operating cost per trip for paratran- sit service was $22.14. For all other modes, the operating cost per trip was $2.75. These figures and trends are prompting transit agencies to seek ways to meet the growing demand for ADA-complemen- tary paratransit service more effectively and efficiently. This synthesis identifies policies and practices, both proven and promising, from fellow paratransit operators. Transit agencies of different sizes are improving the effi- ciency of ADA paratransit service. They are providing better and more flexible service to individuals who rely on paratran- sit service to travel to work, to school, to medical appoint- ments, to shopping, and to anywhere else that fixed-route service can take them. • For eligibility determination, King County Metro (Wash- ington State) has invested much effort in developing poli- cies for making determinations of conditional eligibility. The agency also invests staff resources to collect the path- way data necessary to make determinations for trip-by-trip eligibility. The agency has used its paratransit software to make use of these determinations in its daily Metro Access operations. Access Services, Inc. (paratransit contractor in Los Angeles) conducts in-person functional assessments of all applicants for ADA paratransit. Although the portion of applicants determined not eligible has increased only slightly (11% to 12.5%) since switching to in-person func- tional assessments, the portion of conditional or trip-by- trip determinations has increased from 0.4% to 10.1%. • Technology has helped paratransit operations handle an increasing number of trips, clients, and vehicles. Trip scheduling software is much more sophisticated, although a person skilled in scheduling is still crucial to make the best use of the software. Mobile data terminals in vehicles and global positioning systems for tracking vehicle move- ment have aided drivers and dispatchers, especially in the ad hoc world of paratransit. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, Texas) has an automated system that allows its riders to request and confirm trips over the phone without the need of a call taker. This option makes trip requests more convenient for riders and less labor-intensive for the agency. • Paratransit coordination can involve much more than daily service delivery. In states where coordination has been mandated for a long period, transit agencies have served as the county or regional service coordinator or broker. Beyond daily operations, examples of coordina- tion reported in the survey include joint travel training (Intercity Transit, Olympia, Washington), vehicle main- tenance and vehicle lending (Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, Kentucky), and a regional call center for transit information (Santa Fe Trails, New Mexico). • Two transit systems that have demonstrated significant benefits from their travel training programs are: Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Washoe (Reno, Nevada), which found a net savings of $233,000 for one year; and Intercity Transit (Olympia, Washington), which had a “very conservative” annual savings of $260,000. As demonstrated in a small transit system such as Sandy (Oregon) Area Metro (SAM), travel training can have the added benefit of gaining fixed-route transit riders who had never ridden transit before. SAM’s Travel Adventures program targets and trains not only persons with disabilities, but anyone who is uncomfortable or unfamiliar with riding a bus. Despite the success stories, the transit industry could do more to serve its ADA paratransit riders more effectively and efficiently. There can be greater efforts to make the fixed route more accessible and inviting to current and future paratransit riders. Transit agencies must realize the idea that an accessible fixed route benefits them as well as their riders. The intent of the ADA and the department of transportation regulations is for riders to use fixed-route service whenever possible. ADA paratransit is meant to be the safety net, a costlier transit mode provided for riders unable to use fixed-route service. The responses to the survey indicated that the most com- mon practice of transit agencies for improving fixed-route accessibility has been increasing the accessibility of their vehicles. This is not surprising, because the ADA regulations CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

29 have mandated the acquisition of accessible vehicles. It is surprising, however, that among the survey respondents only 56% reported that they had a travel training program. Based on the findings summarized earlier (and presented in more detail in chapter four), a good investment for transit agencies to promote use of the fixed route for persons with disabilities would be to develop or expand travel training programs. The survey also showed that a smaller portion of transit agencies make improvements to stops and paths, as these ele- ments are often out of a transit agency’s control. But a transit agency’s interests are well served when it works with agen- cies responsible for pathways and private partners to design and create an environment that makes it easier for all riders, whether disabled or not, to use fixed-route transit. Topics for further study would include a more comprehen- sive study of transit agency policies and practices that have lead to increased fixed-route ridership by persons with dis- abilities. The research would gather information from transit agencies about what they have done to attract persons with disabilities to their fixed-route service. This would encompass changes in areas such as policies, operations, vehicles, facili- ties, and operating environment. The research would evaluate policies and practices to determine their success and to judge their potential for transferability to other agencies. An inter- esting portion of this research would be to learn how transit agencies measure their fixed-route ridership of persons with disabilities. It would be helpful to transit agencies to have a more wide- spread dissemination of a workbook or software application for collecting data on pathway barriers, along with instruc- tions for its use, similar to the workbook described in the case study on King County Metro’s conditional and trip-by-trip eligibility process. As noted, many transit agencies are already making determinations of conditional and trip-by-trip eligibil- ity, but are not enforcing the conditions because of the lack of data. Transit agencies would still need to collect the data and make the judgments for each trip; however, the workbook would help them to make comprehensive and consistent determinations. Taxis could play a larger role in the provision of ADA- complementary paratransit service and other types of flexible transit for persons with disabilities. In rural areas, school buses could also provide flexible capacity. The survey shows that a small set of respondents used taxis for ADA-complementary paratransit service: 16% as regular contractors, 21% as over- flow contractors, and 12% as same-day contractors. The devel- opment of more widely available accessible taxis could spur a greater use of them by paratransit operators. For school buses, the barriers to greater use appear to be physical, institutional, and regulatory in nature. The Mason Transit case study shows how one transit agency has made good use of school buses. The ongoing TCRP research, Vehicle Guide for Integrating Non-Urban School and Public Transportation Services [Proj- ect A-19A(2)] should provide useful findings and recommen- dations in this area. Although fleet size is not currently a capacity limitation for most paratransit operators, taxis and school buses can provide transit agencies with lower-cost capacity without the need for a long-term capital commitment. There should be continued efforts to integrate these vehicles into paratransit operations.