National Academies Press: OpenBook

Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity

« Previous: Chapter 8 - Examples of Reported Practices and Tools
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 107

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.

99 As noted in Chapter 3, a number of transit systems across the country have operated ADA complementary and fixed-route transit services with an integrated vehicle operator workforce. In some cases, they have also achieved wage parity for opera- tors assigned to each mode. Other transit systems are consid- ering workforce integration and wage parity as a way to address ADA paratransit vehicle operator workforce issues. As part of this study, targeted research was conducted for sev- eral selected systems that have achieved or are moving toward workforce integration and wage parity. The research method- ology is first presented. Next, the salient experiences of the systems are discussed by topic. The report concludes by pre- senting the experiences of four systems in detail as case studies. A table that lists basic information about the systems involved in the study is provided at the end of this chapter. The protocol and interview form used to collect information from systems is also included as Appendix D. While the systems contacted had varying experiences, all spoke favorably of the decision to institute workforce integra- tion and/or wage parity. For these systems, the benefits from the change outweighed the associated costs and challenges. In some cases, systems reported significant performance improvements and cost savings, belying the view held by some in the transit industry that the benefits of integration and wage parity come only at a financial cost. These experiences suggest that insti- tuting workforce integration and wage parity, done correctly, is a “win-win” change for transit systems, operators, and riders with disabilities. Systems that have already made such a change are important resources for thinking about and instituting these changes in new contexts. While workforce integration and wage parity are not neces- sarily linked, the majority of the systems interviewed had insti- tuted both to some degree. Although many systems reported similar experiences and broad themes emerged, the research uncovered a great deal of diversity in terms of workforce struc- ture and the reasons for instituting workforce integration and/or wage parity. No system reported conducting any formal analysis of the benefits of changing to wage equity or an inte- grated workforce. In fact, some respondents reported their sys- tems began with these features, and others made the change decades ago and did not track the benefits over time. The study’s key findings include the following: • Systems consistently reported a number of general benefits that came with workforce integration and wage parity. Ben- efits reported include the ability to cut overtime and contrac- tor costs, a more satisfied union, better run coverage, fewer rider complaints, a stable workforce with low rates of absen- teeism, and increased disability sensitivity among operators. • Although some services cited financial benefits as a major reason for the move to workforce integration and/or wage parity, they also frequently said the commitments of local politicians or board members, complaints about contractor- provided service, and union demands were reasons for the change. • Systems often noted that operating costs increased when paratransit was brought in-house and wages were equalized. In the case of several services, however, respondents cited long-term cost savings due to improved productivity, in addition to expected benefits like efficiency, run coverage, workforce morale, and customer satisfaction. • The fact that workforce integration and wage parity often occurred simultaneous with the shift from contracted service to in-house service makes it difficult to isolate the benefits that can be exclusively attributed to workforce integration/wage parity. • Most systems saw union-related benefits that followed from workforce integration and/or wage parity, or at least the absence of significant union-related problems or issues. • Systems reported that their initial training period is shared for all operators, with additional training for specialized runs. When bringing paratransit in-house, systems generally modified training curricula to address the unique nature of both paratransit and fixed-route runs. C H A P T E R 9 Benefits and Issues Related to Workforce Integration and Wage Parity

• Among services that have an integrated workforce, there is a continuum of degrees of integration and a variety of pos- sibilities of organizing such a workforce. • Operator bidding preferences do not appear to compli- cate service provision or generate more than a minimal and expected level of frustration about desirable runs. Methodology The research began with the national survey results, which included data on 22 transit systems that had instituted, par- tially or completely, workforce integration and/or wage parity. Follow-up contact was successful with 20 of the 22 national survey respondents. Of these, it was learned that two did not in fact have integrated workforces and had not achieved wage parity. One additional system, which was identified by the research team after the survey was completed, was added to this sample. A total of 19 systems were therefore studied. A list of questions was developed that examined each sys- tem’s experiences with workforce integration and/or wage parity and verified information collected in the initial survey. The questions focused on topics including operator aware- ness of the needs of riders with disabilities, union issues, and the motivations behind instituting workforce integration and/ or wage parity. A copy of the questions and interview protocol is provided as Appendix D. In advance of each interview, participants were e-mailed a list of questions to be discussed in order to give them time to acquire the information as needed. Using the list of questions as a guide, semi-structured telephone interviews were then con- ducted, with follow-up calls and e-mails as needed. The data from the national survey plus the follow-up survey and inter- views were then analyzed for themes and findings. Table 9-1 provides a profile and general information of all 19 systems studied. The following sections present the main themes and findings identified by the research. The experiences of several systems that were particularly salient are then presented as case studies. Reasons for Workforce Integration and Wage Parity All of the systems with wage parity and an integrated work- force reported that the decision to equalize pay was made along with, or soon after, the decision to integrate the work- force. The systems with some form of integrated workforce fell into two broad categories, those that brought paratransit in-house following a period of time when it was contracted out, and those that started providing paratransit services in- house at the same time as fixed-route services. Roughly half of the services interviewed made the change in the last 10 years. Several other services equalized wages and integrated work- forces prior to the ADA, including Citibus, Lubbock, TX (1976); Pierce Transit, Tacoma, WA (1981); and CamTran, Johnstown, PA (1986). Respondents reported a number of standard reasons for instituting wage parity and an integrated workforce. These include a concern with the efficient use of resources on the part of local politicians or the transit agency itself; recognition of the comparable level of effort and skill required for opera- tors in both modes; frequent complaints about service pro- vided by a contractor; factors that made it easier for the service to simply operate paratransit in-house like the absence of qual- ified potential bidders or a relatively small service; union demands; and a management or board commitment to equal pay as a matter of fairness. Specific systems that made changes toward workforce inte- gration and wage parity cited the following reasons: • Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation (Triangle Transit), Morrisville, NC, formerly provided only com- muter service. But in expanding to an all-day service, the system was required to provide paratransit, which began in 2002. Because Triangle Transit was responsible for a rela- tively small service (6 paratransit operators), it seemed easier to operate in-house and train all operators together than to attempt to contract or train them separately. • Lawton Area Transit Service (LATS), Lawton, OK, took over the paratransit service in 2002 from a local contractor. The contractor’s performance was consistently unsatisfac- tory, oversight was problematic, and rider complaints were frequent. In taking paratransit in-house, LATS opted to pay paratransit operators $.50 more per hour because man- agement believed that the job was more demanding than fixed route. • Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority, Nashville, TN, equalized pay and integrated its workforce in 2003. In doing so, the system attempted to satisfy union demands for higher paratransit pay while creating a larger, more flexible pool of operators to improve run coverage. • Muncie Indiana Transit System (MITS), Muncie, IN, began cross-training its operators on both paratransit and fixed- route services in the mid-to-late 1990s in order to save money by reducing the need for overtime with a more flex- ible extraboard. MITS had operated fixed route and para- transit in-house since 1982 when the system took over a senior citizens service. Costs and Benefits of Workforce Integration and Wage Parity In general, respondents noted that operating costs increased when paratransit was brought in-house and when wages were equalized. Systems typically did not alter benefit packages 100

Turnover Name Paratransit Vehicle Operators Fixed Route Operators Notes: Annual Turnover Rate TrainingTraining StartingStarting MaxMax Paratransit Cost/Trip Paratransit Cost/Hour Notes LATS 4 33% $7.75 $10.25 $15.25 $7.75 $9.75 $14.75 $11.44 $27.55 Triangle Transit 6 none 0% $12.00 $12.00 $20.14 $12.00 $12.00 $20.14 $39.25 $68.84 CamTran 6 10 These figures are based on operator trends, since they can bid on paratransit or other modes. CamTran also operates a Metro fixed route service with 44 operators. 0% $8.50 $11.95 $15.93 $8.50 $11.95 $15.93 $56.49 Metro fixed route operators have a max pay of $18.31/hour MITS 11 37 0% $7.25 $11.84 $16.92 $7.25 $12.32 $17.60 $20.08 $61.92 MARTA 125 10% $11.23 $11.23 $14.62 $13.68 $13.68 $19.54 Pierce Transit 53 553 A section of the paratransit service, not included here, is contracted out. 0% $14.19 $15.77 $23.74 $14.19 $15.77 $23.74 $20.00 $40.04 Link Transit 82 All drivers operate both, with daily pull-out of 14-15 paratransit vans 18.3% $11.00 $14.50 $20.00 $11.00 $14.50 $20.00 $26.35 $78.77 CDTA 51 Plus 22 taxi cabs* 10% $10.00 $13.07 $18.67 Citibus 21 34 Extra Board Operators are full time and work in all departments 5% $9.50 $10.50 $15.00 $9.50 $10.50 $15.00 $23.26 $58.07 Hourly wages for paratransit vehicle operatorsWorkforce Size Hourly wages for fixed route vehicle operators Costs Table 9-1. Systems that have achieved or are working toward workforce integration and wage parity. (continued on next page)

Annapolis Transit 35 Route deviation service fulfills paratransit responsibilities; 30 operators have served on 40% $11.00 $11.50 $17.00 $11.00 $11.50 $17.00 Metro RTA 7 7 6 8 3 203 Incls. 12 Special Services Operator: part-time paratransit operators at fixed wage, $10.68 8.3% $10.68 $12.92 $21.53 $10.68 $12.92 $21.53 $29.72 on buses, $15.78 on cabs San Joaquin RTD 8 105 There are 75 County operators and 104 Metro operators $10.88 $13.93 $17.42 $10.88 $13.93 $23.22 Wages split by Metro and County Service, not paratransit and fixed route MATA/MTM 9 260 28% $9.00 $12.00 $14.63 $12.00 $14.63 $19.81 $18.00 $32.00 PRN 65 21.54% $7.15 $8.15 $11.15 $7.15 $8.15 $9.15 Veolia Transportation (Irvine) 522 16.66% $9.00 $10.75 $14.06 $9.00 $10.75 $14.06 Veolia Transporation (DART) 320 45 48% $10.00 $10.50 $14.41 $10.00 $10.50 $14.41 $41.33 $58.42 Respondent could not verify Merced County Transit 24 20.83% $8.00 $10.45 $14.25 $8.00 $10.45 $14.25 Nashville Metro. Transit Authority Total workforce 300, and 292 operators perform fixed route and paratransit 12.00% $11.92 $11.92 $18.90 $11.92 $11.92 $18.90 $19.53 $44.31 UTA 2 860 Wage parity will be instituted in July 2009 $14.10 $18.24 $14.10 $18.24 Turnover Name Paratransit Vehicle Operators Fixed Route Operators Notes: Annual Turnover Rate TrainingTraining StartingStarting MaxMax Paratransit Cost/Trip Paratransit Cost/Hour Notes Hourly wages for paratransit vehicle operatorsWorkforce Size Hourly wages for fixed route vehicle operators Costs Table 9-1. (Continued).

when bringing paratransit in-house and integrating the workforce but rather extended those packages to paratransit operators. Few services were able to provide data that accounts for the cost and performance impact of the change. Several notable exceptions, however, reported that the change to an integrated workforce and wage parity reduced cost per trip or improved performance, sometimes dramatically. Chelan-Douglas Public Transit Benefit Area (Link Tran- sit), Wenatchee, WA, and City of Annapolis Department of Transportation (Annapolis Transit), Annapolis, MD, both reported performance improvements—with decreased cost per trip for the former and increased ridership for the latter. Both are discussed in case studies below. The respondent for Lawton Transit Management, Inc. (LATS), Lawton, OK, noted that cost per trip dropped from roughly $15 per hour to $11.44 per hour, an accomplishment that is notable because LATS opted to pay its paratransit operators $.50 more per hour than fixed-route operators. As the LATS respondent noted: We decided to pay paratransit a little more because it’s a more hands-on, more stressful, more demanding position. Operators need to [stand up] for each pick-up. This extra payment has helped with morale. Similarly, the respondent for MITS explained that cross- training its operators saved the system money by increasing the flexibility of the extra-board and reducing the need for overtime; this remained true even after the system equalized pay between fixed-route and paratransit operators. In addition to these specific increases in ridership and/or productivity, system respondents consistently reported a num- ber of general benefits that came with workforce integration and workforce parity. These include the following: • Cutting overtime and/or contractor costs; • A more satisfied union and/or workforce because of the elimination of wage disparities within the workforce; • A more flexible pool of workers in terms of run coverage (for example, operators may cover both modes on the same day); • The ability to pull operators from the pool of paratransit or fixed-route operators to cover runs on the other mode because operators are cross-trained; • The ability to more easily cover emergency pickups; and • Fewer rider complaints due to greater workforce oversight and/or a workforce that is trained on both fixed route and paratransit and thus more sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities. Union Issues The majority of the systems (16 out of 22 respondents to the national survey) had unionized paratransit workforces. In follow-up interviews, the majority of participants cited union-related benefits that followed from workforce integra- tion and/or wage parity or at least the absence of significant problems. Several services reported initial opposition from fixed-route operators in the union who feared that instituting wage parity would negatively affect their pay (including Utah Transit Authority, discussed in a case study below). The range of experiences with unions includes the following: • Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority reported the deci- sion to equalize wages and integrate the workforce was made in collaboration with the union, a move which resulted in a “big improvement” in operator morale as well as run coverage. • Link Transit noted problems in bringing paratransit in- house: three-quarters of the staff from the former para- transit provider joined the system but lost their seniority in run-selection because the contract defined seniority by Link application date. Even though such operators were making higher wages, they had lost a significant degree of authority. This created some staff resentment. • A new union representative with MATA/MTM in Mem- phis, TN, pushed for a progressive wage scale and more equal paratransit and fixed-route wages. Despite some resistance from fixed-route operators who had previously been paratransit operators, management and the union struck a deal in July 2008. As of May 2009, paratransit pay was commensurate with the 2nd tier of fixed-route pay. In the process of negotiations with the union, paratransit operators’ “transfer rights” to fixed route were eliminated. Prior to July 2008, all paratransit operators made the same pay and had the right to transfer to fixed route after 2 years, even in cases of poor performance. MATA/MTM manage- ment agreed that higher pay would attract more qualified paratransit operators who would stay longer especially after the transfer rights were eliminated. Management now reviews all paratransit operators who apply to work fixed route. Both the union and the MATA/MTM respondents report a much more content paratransit workforce. Varieties of Integration Among services that have an integrated workforce, there is a continuum of degrees of integration and a variety of possibili- ties of organizing such a workforce. All but two of the systems with wage parity and workforce integration—Triangle Transit, Morrisville, NC, and LATS, Lawton, OK—let operators bid for 103

runs by seniority. These two exceptions have relatively small paratransit workforces (4 and 6 operators) that are distinct from the fixed-route workforces. Generally, these operators work only one mode, and there is little regular cross-over. But in the case of both systems, managers are able to draw on the paratransit operators to cover fixed-route runs as needed. The remaining services employ a diverse set of arrangements to structure their integrated workforces. Services including Metro RTD in Akron, OH, and CamTran in Johnstown, PA, maintain separate urban and rural services with a pay differ- ential determined by bus size. Across this diversity, operator bidding preferences do not appear to complicate service pro- vision or generate more than a minimal and expected level of frustration over desirable runs. A number of systems noted that operators often tend to prefer either paratransit or fixed- route runs and consistently bid for them. Some respondents noted that paratransit presented an attractive bidding option because of the convenience of a fixed schedule. In the case of Pierce Transit in Tacoma, WA, the paratransit service that complements fixed-route evening hours is provided by a con- tractor. As a result, the more convenient service hours of the in-house paratransit program, which also has wage parity, is so popular that operators must have at least 10 years senior- ity to have a chance of securing a paratransit run. In another example of how characteristics of the paratransit program may keep operators loyal to that program when wages are equalized, City Access (Lubbock, TX) operators prefer para- transit because it does not operate with split shifts the way fixed route does. The following are several examples of the diverse possible arrangements for workforce integration (others are discussed as case studies): • Among the roughly 300 operators in the Nashville Metro- politan Transit Authority workforce, 292 perform both paratransit and fixed-route service. Depending on the bid, operators may cover a fixed-route run or may cover a split- service package that includes both paratransit and fixed- route coverage. Nine operators cover only paratransit runs as a result of a “grandfather clause” agreement reached with the union. • Metro Regional Transit Authority (Metro RTA) in Akron, OH, has 203 fixed-route and paratransit operators. Through four yearly sign-ups, operators may bid for base runs on the fixed route and paratransit modes; extraboard service; vacation coverage (where they fill in for operators on vaca- tion); or split-service packages. In addition to the regular operators, the agency employs 12 Special Service Operators (SSOs). SSOs drive small buses and are not required to have a CDL. They cover only paratransit routes, work part- time, and make a fixed wage that is less than the wage of regular operators (starting wages of $10.68/hour versus $12.92/hour). SSOs have the option of moving into full- time employment but roughly half have no interest in doing so. • A private for-profit contractor, Veolia Transportation in Dallas, TX, employs 320 paratransit operators and 45 fixed- route operators under a pilot program called Innovative Services which offers on-call drop-off service at fixed points within a zone. Operators are trained for 3 weeks to drive paratransit and may seek additional training of 2 weeks per zone to drive Innovative Services which uses paratransit vehicles. Training Systems with integrated workforces and wage parity begin with a shared training period for all operators. When bring- ing paratransit in-house, systems in the study sample gener- ally modified training curricula to address the unique nature of both paratransit and fixed-route runs. Annapolis Tran- sit reported the curriculum was expanded to include more awareness training about riders with disabilities, as well as information on ADA requirements and how to board riders who use wheelchairs. The Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority extended its training period by one week to prepare operators for expanded service. Several of these systems also require additional training for operators who wish to cover specialized runs. Veolia of Dal- las, for example, trains all operators for 3 weeks to cover para- transit runs then requires an additional 2 weeks of training for each zone an operator might work on the fixed-route service (as stated previously). Conversely, Triangle Transit trains its operators together, with an additional 2 weeks for paratransit operators, who may be pulled to cover fixed-route runs as needed. Respondents frequently noted such shared training benefits the system as a whole. The respondent from Metro RTA summarizes this perspective: “Operators are trained about all aspects of service. That means folks who have come in from fixed route can be sent out to make emergency para- transit pickups. This works to Metro RTA’s advantage.” Case Studies The following more detailed case studies describe the expe- riences of four systems that instituted wage parity and/or workforce integration. Instituting Full Workforce Integration and Wage Parity: Chelan-Douglas Public Transit Benefit Area (Link Transit), Wenatchee, WA Link Transit began operations in 1991. During the first 4 years of operations, a local senior services non-profit pro- 104

vided ADA paratransit service. Because of complaints about the quality of the service, Link put the paratransit contract out for bid. Two contractors were interested, but reportedly were unable to compete for the contract because they could not secure appropriately-zoned land for an operations base and did not want to use a Link facility. After the lack of response from potential contractors, Link staff members approached the organization’s board and recommended paratransit ser- vice be brought in-house, although without wage parity. Sev- eral board members, however, argued for wage parity for the benefit of the operators. When paratransit was brought in- house, roughly three-quarters of the senior services non-profit’s staff joined, all of whom were operators rather than managers. In advance of taking over paratransit service in January 1996, Link purchased new software, radio systems, and vehicles. Matching state funds from a now-repealed tax supported this transition. Link management decided to train paratransit operators using the fixed-route training program in order to instill a “guest service” (Disney model) attitude toward riders. Fol- lowing the decision for wage parity and a shared training pro- gram, management then opted to integrate the workforce. As the respondent noted, “Once they’d trained them and paid them equally, they said, why not intermix the two workforces? It wasn’t a conscious decision, but done in order to get the cul- ture they wanted.” Today Link has 60 full-time and roughly 20 part-time operators. Operators bid for runs based on sen- iority; some of these runs are mixed, but the majority is either fixed route or paratransit. Link reports operators tend to select runs based more on hours and days than whether the run is paratransit or fixed route. The Link respondent noted the decision to integrate the workforces and institute wage parity presented some chal- lenges. Today, there is some frustration with changing work assignments and split shifts, as well as some lasting resent- ment for the loss of seniority by operators who joined from the non-profit, because this affected their schedules. In addi- tion, when Link opted to institute wage parity while bringing paratransit in-house, the system saw a large jump in hourly operating expenses. In 1995, the maximum wages of fixed- route operators was $12.95/hour, while it was $5.50/hour for paratransit operators. The current maximum wage is $20/hour, and Link reports the total cost per revenue hour is $78.77, up from $45 per hour in 1995. There was an initial cost increase of between 30 and 40 percent per hour when paratransit was brought in-house. Over time, however, Link reports that benefits have out- weighed the costs. With higher wages, turnover rates among paratransit operators dropped early on after the change. The long-term advantages—the workforce’s efficiency, stability, and longevity—are reflected in the system’s performance sta- tistics. Despite a cost per hour that is high for the State of Washington, the cost per passenger is reportedly the lowest ($26.35). The average staff tenure is 13 years, and the respon- dent reports high job satisfaction. Paratransit service produc- tivity is between 3.2 and 3.4 passengers per hour, despite a large service area of 3,500 square miles; the respondent related, “the stable work force means that operators don’t get lost.” The system reports an on-time performance of 94% and no more than one paratransit complaint per month in the past year. Absenteeism remains very low, with only 200 missed days for 80 operators last year. Among the roughly 300 daily trips, runs are rarely dropped because of a broad extraboard. In evaluating whether to contract paratransit service out again, Link has determined that the in-house efficiency is so high that it eliminates the cost of recruiting and training and generates a relatively low cost per passenger. Finally, the Link respon- dent reports that 25 percent of its paratransit passengers have moved to fixed route in the past 7 years. In large part, this is due to marketing and the fact that riders know fixed-route operators from their experience on paratransit, where they learn to attend to riders’ unique needs. Integration of an Alternative to Paratransit: The City of Annapolis Department of Transportation (Annapolis Transit), Annapolis, MD Annapolis Transit provides a route deviation service, known as the Brown Route. People with disabilities and older adults pay $0.50 (half the fixed-route fare) if they catch the Brown Route at a bus stop, and $2 if they wish to travel on a demand-response curbside basis. Most people who are able choose the bus stop for financial and spontaneity reasons. Wage parity and workforce integration were both instituted 18 years ago when the City brought in-house the program that had been operated by the Office on Aging. With three vehicles in the fleet, the Office’s program employed three operators and a supervisor. With the change, the Office on Aging employ- ees all came to work for the City’s Transportation Depart- ment. Previously, the operators had been paid for the time that they were not driving (e.g., while waiting for riders who were attending programs). At the time of the change, opera- tors’ wages were increased, as were their work demands, since they were put in operation throughout the day and service hours were extended from 6 pm to 8 pm daily. Initially, the shift was opposed by the head of the Office on Aging, but the Mayor was a driving force. He was concerned about the unproductive use of resources. Within one year after the Office on Aging program was brought under the aus- pices of Annapolis Transit, ridership increased from 16,000 to 26,000. Ridership continued to expand to the current level of over 200,000 annual trips. Such an increase was the result of two factors. First was the increase in service span despite 105

only a minor increase in operators from three to five and no increase in vehicles. Second was the substantial increase in productivity that resulted from serving Annapolis riders who needed rides throughout the day. Augmenting this increase in productivity, the city provides some support to a volunteer driver program to serve individuals who need door-to-door transportation. According to the Annapolis Transit respon- dent, general service quality did not change after the shift, except that the newer vehicles provided a more comfortable ride, and added service hours gave riders more options. Today, the agency bids all routes on an annual basis. There is no extraboard. As a result, operators work overtime fairly often because there are 13 paid holidays. Following the switch to an integrated workforce, operator training was expanded to include more passenger sensitivity training. All operators are expected to be familiar with the ADA requirements and how to board riders who use wheelchairs. Annapolis Transit’s total workforce is 35, including regular fixed route operators. At different times, 30 of these operators have chosen to oper- ate the Brown Route. Five explicitly do not choose the route because they would rather not provide the extra service required to serve riders who use wheelchairs. Most experi- enced operators are happy to drive the Brown Route; the resistance comes from the newer operators. The system-wide cost per hour is $37.25 for direct operating costs, with 49,462 out of 218,438 annual trips made for people with disabilities. All full-time operators are represented by the same union. According to the Annapolis Transit respondent, the union is very pleased with the current arrangement because it has resulted in more full-time employment for operators. Partially Integrating the Workforce and Equalizing Wages: San Joaquin Regional Transit (San Joaquin RTD), Stockton, CA San Joaquin RTD took its ADA paratransit service in-house in 2002. Prior to that year, it had been operated by a contrac- tor. During the time when the service was contracted, mem- bers of the disability community complained to the mayor and city council that buses frequently missed pickups, leaving people stranded. RTD administrators tried to work with the contractor to address these issues, but after several months with little improvement, RTD decided to cancel the contract. When the ADA service problems became apparent, RTD had just hired a new assistant general manager who was eager to improve the ADA service. She was soon promoted to general manager/CEO, and in her new position, she put in place improvements that ensured RTD would deliver highly reliable ADA service. The county service was awarded to RTD in 1994 under enabling legislation that required that services be put out to bid at least once every 5 years. In 2000, during collective bar- gaining with the union that represented RTD operators, the union agreed to include ADA paratransit services in a Mem- orandum of Understanding (MOU) that covered the county services. When RTD put the county and ADA services out for bid in 2004, there were no bidders and the services continued to be operated by RTD. San Joaquin RTD oversees two service divisions—Stockton’s fixed-route metro services including BRT and San Joaquin County services. There are 104 urban fixed-route operators and 68 county operators, a figure that includes about 20 para- transit operators at any given time, depending on run selec- tion. ADA paratransit service in Stockton is grouped under the county services through the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In addition to the ADA complementary paratransit service for the Stockton metropolitan area, RTD’s County operation includes county-wide general public Dial-a-Ride, deviated fixed-route service for unincorporated areas, an interregional commuter service, and intercity fixed-route service. All county services are operated at a different site and at three-quarters pay of the Stockton municipal services. The top hourly pay for the municipal services is $23.22, while the top rate for county services is $17.42. The county training wage is $10.88, and starting pay after completion of training is $13.93. This pay differential is summarized in a MOU with the union. The workforces of all county services are integrated and have wage parity. One-third of the paratransit operators are on Dial-a- Ride, while the other two-thirds assist in covering other runs as needed. All operators receive the same training, and the benefits packages of both fixed route and county are almost identical. When there is an operator opening in the metro ser- vice, county operators may bid by seniority on that opening, where they would have a higher pay rate. The system respon- dent noted that some county operators prefer to stay within the county services, however, in order to keep seniority, or because they enjoy Dial-a-Ride service. As a result of an integrated county services workforce, the system can more easily and efficiently cover all runs, includ- ing periods when multiple operators take vacations. In an emergency, supervisors are also trained to make pickups. The system respondent notes that, in general, fixed-route and paratransit operators are more knowledgeable and produc- tive because of their experiences with multiple modes. The respondent added that having a variety of operators serve on ADA paratransit runs has increased their sensitivity to people with disabilities. The Dynamics of Recently Instituting Wage Parity: Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Salt Lake City, UT UTA has been in a 30-month planning process to equal- ize fixed-route and paratransit operator wages and benefits. 106

This change, which will equalize the maximum wage rate to $18.24 per hour for both fixed-route and paratransit opera- tors, was expected to be fully implemented in July 2009. At the time of the interview—the Spring of 2009—UTA’s workforce of 806 fixed route and paratransit operators was not inte- grated. Job openings in all modes are posted, and agency staff members are given priority over applications from outside. Management supported the decision to equalize wages, which came about as a result of a number of factors. Paratran- sit operators complained that they felt the wage differential reflected a lack of respect for the work that they perform. At the time that wage parity was being considered, paratransit ridership decreased due to implementation of a package of improvements that included in-person eligibility assessments, free fixed-route fares for paratransit registrants, travel train- ing, and feeder service. These measures led to a slight improve- ment in paratransit efficiency, from 3.0 trips per hour in 2005 to 3.14 in 2007 to close to 3.3 in 2008. However, even this small increase in efficiency allowed UTA to reduce its para- transit workforce from 106 to 82 thus enabling the agency to assume the costs from increased wages. The union was initially resistant because of concern that par- ity would result in a reduction in fixed-route operator wages. But a progressive union representative helped to persuade union membership that the change was a positive develop- ment. The union president at the time when this change was first proposed was very supportive of wage parity, arguing that all operators should be treated equally and fairly. While his views were initially unpopular among many of the fixed-route operators, this has gradually shifted over time. A union respon- dent said that at this point, only a minority of operators oppose the impending change. UTA’s union respondent suggested that other agencies considering such a move should involve fixed-route operators early on in the discussion as a way of building support. When the decision was made to include wage parity in the forthcoming contract, “morale shot up” among paratransit operators, and two fixed route operators have already shifted to paratransit in anticipation of the move. 107

Next: Chapter 10 - Case Studies of Procurement and Contracting Best Practices »
Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 142: Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations provides guidance for understanding the relationships that influence and enhance operator recruitment, retention, and performance in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services.

Appendixes to TCRP Report 142 were published electronically as TCRP Web-Only Document 50: Survey Instrument, Productivity Charts, and Interview Protocol for Case Studies for TCRP Report 142.

  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!