National Academies Press: OpenBook

Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders (2011)

Chapter: Section 1 - Planning Decision Process

« Previous: Background
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Section 1 - Planning Decision Process." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14474.
×
Page 29

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.

Section 1 provides guidance to fixed route transit agencies and others that are exploring options for commingling ADA and non-ADA paratransit riders on the same vehicles. This guidance was developed based on the research conducted for this project, including a survey of 121 transit agen- cies of all sizes from throughout the country, supplemented by site visits and extensive interviews with more than a dozen transit agencies. The research team also reviewed a variety of recent publi- cations from national and local sources. A summary of relevant materials is included in Appendix C. The intent of this Resource Guide is not to duplicate those resources, but to suggest a roadmap for navigating through the process of planning for commingled services that will feed into the operations of that service, including development of operating policies and procedures. The operation of commingled ADA and non-ADA paratransit services is the focus of Section 2 of this Resource Guide. During the planning of commingled paratransit services, transit agencies are encouraged to take an inclusive approach, involving all of its stakeholders including human service agencies, consumers, and others as appropriate. The issue of whether to commingle ADA and non-ADA riders may be seen as a facet of transportation coordination, which has been a topic in the transportation industry since the 1970s as an approach for providing more effective and efficient specialized transportation service. Transportation coordination has become a more relevant focus since 2007, when the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) adopted a requirement for development of a “coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan,” from which all projects funded with FTA Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 must be derived. Despite the emphasis on transportation coordination, the research team recognizes that for some transit agencies the answer is to not commingle riders, based on local resources and circum- stances. However, even if the decision is not to commingle riders, there may be other options for coordination identified as part of the process, including providing paratransit service for non-ADA riders using different vehicles or coordinating services with other existing transportation programs. As described in the introduction, the research team recognizes that sometimes the decision to commingle riders is based on the outcome of a formal planning process; other times the decision is based on political or funding decisions made with little formal planning input. Even if a formal planning decision process was not followed prior to the decision to commingle services, the information in this section will be useful to consider as a backdrop for establishing operating parameters and program guidelines. A graphic overview of the planning decision process is shown in Figure 1-1. In the electronic version of this report (available online at www.trb.org by searching for TCRP Report 143), each major component of the planning decision process is color coded as follows: A. “Define Purpose and Objectives for Commingling” is shown in red. B. “Identify Available Capacity and Funding” is shown in blue. 12 S E C T I O N 1 Planning Decision Process

Not compatible Provide ancillary services (e.g., coordinated training, maintenance) Provide resources to non- ADA programs (e.g., retired vehicles) Do not have capacity Yes, have capacity Yes, have additional funds Yes, have additional funds No, do not have additional funds Local decision (e.g., “saves money” or “improve service”) Local political decision (e.g., “makes sense”) External factors (e.g., merge with entity serving non-ADA riders) Compatible Add non-ADA riders to ADA paratransit service? Consider purpose of commingling Do not add non-ADA riders Feasible plan Yes, commingle ADA and non-ADA service using same vehicles No, do not serve non-ADA riders with separate vehicles Difference in program requirements between ADA paratransit and non-ADA programs Difference in rider groups between ADA paratransit and non- ADA programs Define goals & objectives for adding non- ADA riders Estimate impact of adding non-ADA riders on existing service hours and miles Assess existing capacity: are there empty seats on existing vehicles? Consider funding and its sustainability to support non-ADA service Consider other options for non-ADA riders Plan for additional capacity Plan to add non-ADA riders only to fill existing capacity Consider serving non- ADA riders, but use separate vehicles Develop plan to address program or rider-group differences Consider funding and its sustainability to support non-ADA service Legislation / regulation (e.g., FTA coordinated planning requirements) Do not have additional funds Consider service parameters for commingled service: same or different such as: - service area - days/hours - fare structure Consider compatibility of ADA paratransit service and non- ADA paratransit service No feasible plan CAPACITY & FUNDING PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES COMPATIBILITY SERVICE PARAMETERS Coordination between transit agency and non- ADA programs Yes, add non- ADA riders but use separate vehicles Environmental considerations (e.g., reduced VMT and carbon emissions) Figure 1-1. Planning decision flow chart.

C. “Evaluate Service Compatibility” is shown in orange. D. “Consider Primary Service Parameters” is shown in green. As with most projects of this nature, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers; however, commingling ADA and non-ADA riders without considering how the service will be organized and operated can lead to significant issues down the road. Even if the decision to commingle has already been made, careful planning will help to ensure successful implementation and ongoing success. A. Define Purpose and Objectives for Commingling Define Purpose What is the purpose of commingling ADA and non-ADA paratransit riders? The variation in answers may be surprising. For some communities, considering whether to expand the ADA paratransit service to include non-ADA paratransit riders may be out of necessity: there may simply be no other service available and people who do not qualify for ADA paratransit need transportation. In other communities, there may be a desire to eliminate what is perceived as duplication or fragmentation of existing services by combining resources so that service quality and availability may be improved. For other communities, the purpose may be to take advantage of available funding or a political requirement to provide service. With the advent of the FTA’s coordinated planning requirements, there also may be a desire to explore options that include expanding ADA paratransit. Finally, as environmental concerns grow, there also may be an interest in commingling trips from different services in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles needed and to take advantage of the associated reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and carbon emissions. Regardless of whether the decision is made by the transit agency and its partners or in response to forces outside the agency, it is important to understand and document the purpose of commingling trips. This effort will help the transit agency in developing an approach to providing the service that meets the needs of the target ridership and will also be important for subsequent evaluation of the commingled service. Because this Resource Guide is intended specifically to aid transit agencies that are considering commingling their ADA paratransit riders with non-ADA paratransit riders using the same vehicle fleet, it is important for transit agencies to ensure that the quality of their ADA paratransit service continues to meet the requirements of the ADA, even if that affects non-ADA riders. Discussion Seventy-four (60%) of the 121 transit agencies that replied to the survey conducted for this research reported that they provided trips to ADA and non-ADA paratransit riders. Of those, 64 transit agencies reported that they commingled riders; 10 reported that they provided service using different vehicles. As shown in Table 1-1, respondents to the survey question on factors influencing the decision to commingle indicated that the most common reason for initiating commingling on their paratransit service was the “demand for service” (78%). Where there is demand for specialized service from population groups in the community, such as older adults and others not eligible for ADA paratransit, it may be possible to open up the ADA paratransit service to serve other population groups. The second most common reason cited in the survey for the decision to commingle was “passenger needs” (57%), which can be seen as another version of “demand for service.” Both of 14 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders

these reasons can also be seen as underlying a local political decision to commingle. These were also the top two reasons for providing service to ADA and non-ADA riders on different vehicles. Responses from nine agencies are shown in the second column of data in Table 1-1 (67% each). The other two most frequent reasons given for deciding to commingle riders, according to the study’s survey, included a “transit management decision” (54%) and a “transit board decision” (45%). In a slight contrast, the agencies that chose to provide service to both rider groups using different vehicles cited “transit board decision,” “funding changes from public sources,” and “other external factors” as their third most common reasons for providing service to both rider groups (44% each). Interestingly, few survey respondents cited coordination requirements (21% of agencies commingling on the same vehicles and 11% of those using separate vehicles) as a reason behind their decision to commingle. It is possible that the decision-making reasons may change now that the FTA requirements for coordinated planning have been implemented as part of the United We Ride program. Another key interest for the study was identification of the non-ADA rider types that are being served by other paratransit services, particularly where ADA and non-ADA service is commingled on the same vehicles. A related issue was whether the other passenger groups that are served differ based on the practice of serving the varying passenger types on the same or different vehicles. Table 1-2 summarizes survey responses to the question: what types of “other” paratransit passengers are served? The responses are categorized by transit systems that commingle different passenger types on the same vehicles versus those that provide ADA and other paratransit services using different vehicles. The table shows that providing paratransit service for non-sponsored older adults continues to be part of many transit agency programs whether the riders are commingled on the same vehicles (60% of respondents commingling on the same vehicles) or served with different vehicles (44% of respondents commingling using separate vehicles). For commingling agencies using the same vehicles, providing trips for non-sponsored riders with disabilities (57%), other agency funded (57%) and/or general public riders (54%) were almost equally represented. In contrast, 67% of systems that provided service using different vehicles served general public riders, Planning Decision Process 15 Factor ADA + “Other” on Same Vehicles (N=58) ADA + “Other” on Different Vehicles (N=9) Demand for service 78% 67% Passenger needs 57% 67% Transit management decision 54% 33% Transit board decision 45% 44% Funding change from public sources 29% 44% Funding change from program sources 24% 0% Other external factors 24% 44% Coordination requirements 21% 11% Cost allocation 16% 0% Funding program requirements 16% 11% Scheduling/dispatching 16% 11% Other Internal factors 14% 11% Availability of technology 12% 11% Funding program reporting requirements 7% 11% ADA capacity constraints 4% 11% Insurance 4% 0% Table 1-1. Factors influencing the decision to provide “other” paratransit service.

33% serve non-sponsored riders with disabilities, and only 22% serve other agency funded trips (again, representing only 9 respondents). The case study research allowed for more in-depth assessment of the reasons underlying the decision to commingle ADA and non-ADA riders. According to this research, presented in Appendix B, common reasons for commingling included the following: • State coordination legislation: for several transit agencies, state legislation or even executive orders require the provision or coordination of transportation services for people who are transportation disadvantaged, for example, Florida and Pennsylvania. • External factors: at several transit agencies, a separate specialized transportation program and the ADA paratransit service were commingled after a merger between two organizations. • A local political decision made by the transit agency governing board: this decision was typically made at a city or county level, and was often articulated as “it just makes sense” to serve the additional non-ADA riders along with ADA paratransit riders. • A financial decision made by the transit agency governing board: in one case, the governing board determined that it would be more cost-effective to provide the specialized transportation service along with the ADA paratransit service, and in another case, the decision to add non-ADA riders was made after dedicated transit funding provided to the transit agency was reduced and the agency wanted to capture the transportation funds of the community’s human service agencies. Define Goals and Objectives Once the purpose of commingling is defined and documented, the transit agency should identify specific goals and objectives to support the decision. Although this step is sometimes neglected, it is important that all of the partners involved with commingling make this effort together. Articulating specific goals and objectives provides the transit agency and its partners with the foundation upon which to develop rider eligibility, service policies and operating procedures, and a framework for monitoring and evaluating the service over time. The specific goals and objectives will depend upon the purpose of commingling; the objectives should be measurable. For instance, a transit agency may decide it wants to expand paratransit service to provide trips for low-income individuals using funds from the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. Goals should be set to target the specific types of trips to be served. For example, the goal may be to provide demand response service for job interviews and short-term training programs to help non-working individuals gain employment. An objective may be to provide 20 trips per week, based on program eligibility. This information can be used later to set eligibility and op- erating parameters for the service so that it may be dovetailed into the existing ADA paratransit service, without compromising the quality of ADA service provided. 16 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders “Other” Paratransit Passengers ADA + “Other” on Same Vehicles N=63 ADA + “Other” on Different Vehicles N=9 Non-Sponsored Older Adults 60% 44% Non-Sponsored Persons with Disabilities 57% 33% Other Agency Funded 57% 22% General Public 54% 67% Medicaid 46% 11% Title III 44% 0% Non-Sponsored Low Income Persons 33% 22% Head Start 10% 0% Table 1-2. Composition of “other” paratransit passengers.

Discussion In relation to defining goals and objectives for commingling ADA and non-ADA riders, there was little evidence from this research that the transit agencies that commingle their ADA riders with non-ADA riders have established goals and objectives specifically addressing commingling. However, based on the case study research, there are several examples where defined goals and objectives for commingling would have been particularly useful for the transit agency. For example, in one case, the decision to commingle non-ADA riders with the transit agency’s ADA paratransit service was made by the state legislature, which mandated that anyone receiving dialysis treatment would be automatically eligible for ADA paratransit service. Although this did not measurably impact the ADA program in the first few years, in more recent years the transit agency found that this group of riders had added significantly to the growing demand and costs for ADA paratransit service, a service that now consumes more than one-third of the transit agency’s total operating budget. The decision by the state legislature to commingle riders receiving dialysis treatment, regardless of ADA status, came only with a modest initial grant, but without any continuing funding. By defining the purpose behind commingling and identifying program goals and objectives when the decision was first made, the transit agency may have been able to better define service parameters and more quickly identify the need to secure additional funding to sustain service. B. Identify Available Capacity and Funding The second set of planning decisions shown in Figure 1-1 involves an identification of whether there are sufficient resources—both in terms of capacity and funding—to add trips to existing ADA paratransit service. The capacity issue is really two-fold: (a) is there sufficient capacity already in place to meet the ADA paratransit regulatory requirements and (b) is there sufficient excess capacity to add service to accommodate non-ADA riders without affecting the transit agency’s ability to meet its ADA obligations? If capacity is not available, then funding to support adding capacity becomes the next critical issue. Assess Existing Capacity: Are There Empty Seats on Existing ADA Paratransit Vehicles? One of the key considerations when planning for commingling riders is system capacity. Does the transit agency have “empty seats” (i.e., capacity) on its ADA paratransit service to accommodate non-ADA riders? Is there capacity during all parts of the service day or just during certain parts, for example, off-peak times? Or would the addition of non-ADA riders require adding capacity to continue to meet the demand for ADA paratransit service? Discussion Capacity can be assessed initially by analyzing existing ridership and trip patterns by time of day and comparing this information with available revenue hours of service. A simplified example of this assessment uses a fictitious transit agency that operates from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays with 12 revenue service vehicles. The existing capacity of this agency is shown in Figure 1-2, with revenue hours shown by time of day. In this example, the assessment for one sample weekday is shown. In practice, however, the assessment should be done for a longer sample time period such as two weeks using different months that exhibit normal to high ridership (for example, during fall or spring, avoiding holidays), depending on the seasonal ridership patterns of the individual paratransit service. The assessment should be done separately for weekday and weekend days, since ridership patterns vary by day of the week. If ridership varies significantly by weekday, then Planning Decision Process 17

the assessment should be done by day of the week, so that Mondays are assessed, Tuesdays are assessed, and so forth. Ridership patterns are then assessed, with an examination of scheduled trips and completed trips by time of day, and these patterns are then reviewed in light of available capacity. Figure 1-3 depicts this assessment, using the same fictitious transit agency, with capacity shown in terms of revenue vehicles deployed by hour of the day. The analysis shows the productivity (passenger 18 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Sample Day: Hours of Service Beginning at: Vehicles in Service 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Total Vehicle 1 oooo oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo oo 8 Vehicle 2 oo oooo oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo 8 Vehicle 3 oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo oooo oo 8 Vehicle 4 oooo oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo oo 8 Vehicle 5 oo oooo oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo 8 Vehicle 6 oo oooo oooo oooo oo oooo oooo oooo oooo 8 Vehicle 7 oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo 10 Vehicle 8 oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo 10 Vehicle 9 oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo 10 Vehicle 10 oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo 10 Vehicle 11 oo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oo 10 Vehicle 12 oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo 10 Revenue Hours 1.5 2 5 10 10 11 11 11.5 11.5 10 9 6 6 2 1.5 108 Note: oooo oo 1 hour revenue service ½ hour revenue service Figure 1-2. Simple example of assessing capacity by time of day. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6: 00 a .m . 1 2 3 7: 00 a .m . 8: 00 a .m . 9: 00 a .m . 10 :0 0 a. m . 11 :0 0 a. m . 12 n oo n 1: 00 p .m . 2: 00 p .m . 3: 00 p. m . 4: 00 p . m . 5: 00 p. m . 6: 00 p .m . 7: 00 p. m . 8: 00 p .m . 2. 3 1. 6 2. 5 2. 5 3 .0 2. 4 3. 2 2. 7 3. 4 2. 4 3. 2 3. 0 2. 9 2. 8 3 .1 2. 7 3. 4 3. 0 3. 7 3. 2 3. 11 3. 3 2. 5 2. 8 2. 5 2. 5 2. 0 2. 0 2. 0 . 67 Hour of Day 3.5 5 15 32 34 36 32 36 40 37 28 15 15 4 3 Scheduled Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Completed Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Scheduled Passenger Trips Number of Revenue Vehicles per Hour Figure 1-3. Example of scheduled versus completed passenger trips per revenue hour.

trips per revenue hour) throughout the service day, for both scheduled and completed passenger trips. For time periods during the service day that show a productivity below a certain threshold, for example below the system’s average productivity or below a level that the system manager believes is achievable, there may be “empty seats” available. Of course, the transit agency would need to analyze those specific periods in more detail. How much service is actually provided during those time periods? Do those time periods have lower productivity because the passenger trips are long with limited opportunity for shared riding? Are there proportionately more riders in wheelchairs served during those time periods, which will tend to increase dwell times and impact productivity? Are there other legitimate factors that impact the lower productivity during those times? This more detailed analysis also may indicate that the paratransit system could accommodate additional passenger trips during those times. (It may also be possible to adjust revenue hours to add some capacity, depending on operator shifts and staffing arrangements.) In Figure 1-3, the data indicate that there are lower productivity periods during the early morning and early evening hours given the current vehicle and operator schedule. However, these are time periods with a limited number of revenue vehicles in service. The data indicate that the midday hour also shows some capacity, as there are just 32 passenger trips scheduled and all 12 vehicles are deployed. If the transit agency could serve as many passenger trips that hour as it does during the 2 p.m. hour (40 passenger trips served), then there is available capacity. This assessment of capacity can also be done with some computerized scheduling/dispatch systems, which can estimate slack time and also run “what if” test scenarios with various assump- tions about productivity, trip length, and distribution, among other factors. If potential available capacity is identified, the transit agency would then need to consider whether or not it would be adequate to support the trip demand and patterns of non-ADA riders that might be commingled. This is clearly a simplistic example for a very small transit agency. But the point is an agency that is considering adding non-ADA riders to its ADA paratransit service should formally assess its capacity and its ability to serve additional passenger trips and plan to make adjustments accordingly. Estimate Impacts of Adding Non-ADA Riders Once the transit agency has assessed its current capacity, it can then estimate the impacts of adding non-ADA riders: how will the additional riders impact service hours and miles? Is there enough capacity on the existing system to accommodate the additional trips? This will likely be a rough estimate, unless there are good data on the ridership numbers and patterns of the non-ADA riders that will be added. However, a rough estimate is adequate for planning purposes. Discussion Estimating demand for paratransit services is complicated by the fact that an individual’s choice to use a particular paratransit service is partially related to service attributes and cost, which vary by individual paratransit service. Compared with fixed route transit, the service attributes that affect paratransit demand and ridership are more complex and include factors such as the advance notice required to book a trip and whether a trip can be scheduled at the desired time (Spielberg et al. 2004). The degree of driver assistance to riders is another attribute that may affect individuals’ demand for and use of paratransit. To estimate the additional ridership that might be expected, data are needed on the following: • The size of the non-ADA market group that will be served • The number of estimated trips that this group might take on the paratransit service Planning Decision Process 19

Depending on the non-ADA riders to be added, information on the estimated size of the group can be obtained through Census data or potentially through local sources. If clients from one or more human service agencies are to be added to the ADA paratransit program, informa- tion could be obtained from the relevant agencies. Assuming, as one example, the transit agency’s governing body has proposed that non-ADA eligible seniors in the community should be served by the ADA paratransit service, information about that group is needed including the following: • What is the definition of “senior” for purposes of eligibility for the service (e.g., 55 and older, 60 and older, 65 and older, 70 and older, 75 and older)? • What is the estimated size of the senior group (using available Census data)? • What is the overlap of that senior group with ADA eligible riders? With information on the estimated size of the non-ADA rider group to be added, the next step is to estimate their potential trip-making on the ADA service. Generally, this would require information on their trip rate; that is, how many trips they would be expected to take on the ADA paratransit service on an average week or month. There is some information available about trip demand for paratransit and specialized trans- portation services available from various sources that may be useful. Appendix C identifies a number of published sources that could be consulted. If trip rate data are not readily available for the non-ADA ridership group that is being added, the transit agency could develop an estimate based on its current ADA ridership. For example, the agency can identify the average number of trips per week or per month by an active rider, defined as those riders who actually use the service, as opposed to those who have become certified but are not active riders. The definition of an active rider may depend on the transit agency, but often it is defined as an eligible person who took at least one trip during a 12-month period. Depending on the similarity of the non-ADA rider group being added to the current ADA ridership, this average could serve to estimate expected trips from the non-ADA riders that are being commingled. It may be useful to use a high and low figure, based on the current ridership patterns, which would frame a range of estimated trips that might be expected per new rider. With the estimated size of the non-ADA rider group to be commingled and a trip rate, the number of new trips that might be expected can then be determined. This should be seen as a rough number but will provide useful information for planning purposes. However, unless there is primary data on the trip-making of the non-ADA riders to be added, the estimate will not indicate the time periods during the day when the new trips might be needed, although the estimate can serve to show the extent to which existing capacity can meet the increased demand. Developing such an estimate of the new demand for service that will be experienced with new, non-ADA riders added is less science than art, but it is a useful exercise to try to anticipate the ridership impacts of adding the non-ADA riders to the ADA paratransit service. Funding and Sustainability Once capacity is considered, the transit agency must assess its existing resources to determine whether there is adequate funding to support the addition of non-ADA riders for the foreseeable future. The project’s case study research demonstrated that commingling is more successful and sustainable when funding is provided for the non-ADA riders that are added. This may seem an obvious point but it is one that the research team found deserves emphasis. When assessing funding, the “foreseeable future” is likely a short time horizon since transit funding can change year to year based on factors outside the control of the transit agency. Despite 20 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders

this, the transit agency should take stock of its funding resources and the sustainability of that funding. Experience in the transit industry with ADA paratransit has shown that costs to operate ADA paratransit services have often grown significantly year to year with increases in demand, particularly in larger urban areas. The addition of new non-ADA riders on the ADA service will impact funding requirements into the future. Should the transit agency have capacity to add the non-ADA riders, then funding may not be a significant concern in the short term. In such cases, the transit agency can accommodate the non-ADA riders to the extent that there is space to serve the additional passenger trips without negatively impacting the ADA paratransit service. Nonetheless, an assessment of funding available to support the non-ADA service is recommended. Discussion As might be expected, the study’s survey findings indicate that funding has played an important role in transit agencies’ decisions regarding commingling. For those transit agency respondents that indicated that they commingle their ADA paratransit riders with non-ADA riders, funding was among the most frequently cited factors impacting the agencies’ decision to commingle. (The most frequently mentioned factor was demand for service. Three funding-related factors combined to become the second most frequent factor, and passenger needs was the third most cited factor.) For those transit agency respondents that indicated they had commingled their ADA para- transit service with non-ADA riders in the past but no longer did so (16 agency respondents), funding was the second most frequent reason noted for the discontinuation of commingling, tied with transit management decision. (ADA capacity constraints were the most frequent reasons cited.) Transit agencies that do not commingle were also asked through the survey what factors, if any, would lead them to add non-ADA riders to their paratransit service in the future. According to the 23 agencies that responded to the question, funding from an agency or program sponsor, along with demand for service, were the top two factors. The case study research also underscored the importance of funding in relation to decisions about commingling and the sustainability of commingling. Most of the case study sites spoke to the importance of funding and maintaining funding resources; in several cases, funding was a key factor in decisions to maintain commingling. Funding Sources Used to Support Commingling. According to the study’s case study research, transit agencies that commingle use a variety of funds to support commingling. Table 1-3 shows the sources of non-FTA funding, beyond passenger fares that were used to fund operations for those case study transit agencies that commingle ADA and non-ADA riders. Planning Decision Process 21 Other Operating Funds No. of Transit Agencies N=14 Medicaid 6 Older Americans Act funds (Title III) 4 Other federal human service agency funds 9 State funds, dedicated to transit 8 State funds, discretionary 2 Local funds, dedicated to transit 3 Local funds, discretionary 1 Table 1-3. Sources of operating funds beyond FTA and fares supporting commingled services.

Although human service transportation funds from programs such as Medicaid and Area Agencies on Aging are important for supporting the practice of commingling, there are numerous transit agencies that commingle non-ADA riders without human service program funding. According to the study’s survey, transit agencies that commingle ADA and non-ADA riders using the same vehicles (53% of survey respondents) indicated that “non-sponsored older adults” are the most frequent of the “other paratransit” passengers that they served; funding for these non-sponsored riders comes from state and local sources, typically state funding dedicated to transit. When funding for the commingled service becomes insufficient or is no longer available, a transit agency may have to reconsider its decision to commingle. Of the case study sites included in this project, two completely ended commingling due to funding cutbacks, and another two “un-mingled” (i.e., separated) a previously commingled non-ADA rider group because of funding issues. Both of these latter sites involved Medicaid transportation, and this experience raises important considerations for commingling with Medicaid. Several points to consider follow. ADA Paratransit Level of Service Requirements. As described in the introduction, when providing ADA paratransit service, a transit agency must meet the U.S. DOT’s ADA regulatory requirements. For example, in addition to the ADA paratransit eligibility standards described in 49 CFR §37.123, these regulations include service criteria, which must be met by ADA comple- mentary paratransit service programs as outlined in 49 CFR §37.131. These criteria are shown in Table 1-4. Some of these ADA requirements function essentially as performance standards, establishing a level of service that is often higher than required by other specialized transportation services (Kittelson et al. 2003). What this means in practice is that the service, in terms of attributes such as trip reservations and on-time performance, is often better—for all riders including non-ADA riders—than other specialized transportation services in the community. Commingling ADA and Medicaid riders. The case study research revealed significant findings for commingling ADA paratransit service with Medicaid transportation; in particular, when the level of transportation service required (e.g., on-time performance, on-board travel time) is less rigorous for Medicaid customers than that required by ADA paratransit (this issue may 22 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Table 1-4. Key ADA paratransit service criteria. Same Service Area Operate in the same service area as the fixed route system, which generally includes a ¾-mile corridor on either side of a fixed route as described in 49 CFR §131(a). Comparable Response Time Have a comparable response time, where response time is defined as the elapsed time between a request for service and the provision of service. Comparability is defined as accommodating trip requests for ADA paratransit eligible individuals at any requested time on a particular day in response to a request for service made during normal business hours on the previous day as described in 49 CFR §131(b). Comparable Fares Have comparable fares. Comparability is defined as fares that are no more than twice the base, non-discounted adult fare for fixed route services as described in 49 CFR §131(c). No Trip Priorities Meet requests for any trip purpose (i.e., no trip purpose restrictions) as described in 49 CFR §131(d). Same Day/Hours of Service Operate during the same days and hours as the fixed route service as described in 49 CFR §131(e). No Capacity Constraints Operate without capacity constraints for ADA trips requested by ADA eligible passengers (e.g., no waiting lists, trip caps, or patterns and practices of a substantial number of trip denials, untimely pick- ups or excessively long trips) as set out in 49 CFR §131(f).

also apply to other agency-funded transportation). The higher level of service provided by ADA paratransit service compared with various other paratransit services has cost impacts, resulting in costs for ADA paratransit service and specifically costs per trip that are typically higher than other specialized transportation services. When the cost for transportation service exceeds what Medicaid or other program sponsors of specialized transportation are willing to fund, commingling ADA paratransit with the non-ADA riders becomes problematic. The Medicaid Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program (NEMT) does not have specific level of service requirements set at the federal level; however, there may be requirements established at the state level because Medicaid is administered at the state level as a joint federal-state program. Experience with Medicaid transportation across the country, however, indicates that typically Medicaid NEMT does not have the range of requirements that govern ADA paratransit, which then subsequently raises the level of service to riders. Impact on operating costs. Applying a higher level of service as required by ADA to other riders will likely impact operating costs for the transit agency. As operating costs increase, sponsors of non-ADA riders in commingled ADA paratransit services may question whether they want to fund the trips at the higher cost. This has been a particular issue with Medicaid transportation, as Medicaid agencies in many states have increasingly moved to new models and structures to contain costs, including capitated rates. These agencies may offer payment schemes that provide reimbursement at levels considerably less than the actual cost of the trips. Where a transit agency commingles Medicaid trips, it may determine at some point that it cannot continue to serve the Medicaid trips at the maximum reimbursement levels offered. In some Florida communities with an extensive history of coordinated and commingled transportation, the transit agency has determined that it can no longer commingle ADA and Medicaid riders because payment levels from the Medicaid sponsor did not cover operating costs. Furthermore, this project found that, at one transit agency, some of the Medicaid riders who are also ADA eligible have continued to ride the transit agency’s ADA paratransit service rather than move to the new Medicaid transportation provider, presumably preferring the higher level of service provided by ADA paratransit, even though Medicaid transportation is free, whereas ADA paratransit requires a fare. This situation leaves the transit agency with the responsibility for providing those Medicaid trips, but without any funds from the Medicaid agency. On the other end of the spectrum is the coordinated and commingled paratransit service in Pittsburgh, known as ACCESS. This program, which began in the late 1970s as a federal demonstration program testing the brokerage concept for specialized transportation in a large metropolitan region, recognizes that the addition of ADA paratransit into the coordination mix in the 1990s generally increased the overall level of service because of ADA’s high service standards. This higher level of service improves paratransit service for all riders, including those who are not ADA eligible. That the other agencies involved with ACCESS have continued to participate and to fund trips that are now somewhat more expensive given the higher level of service resulting from ADA’s requirements is a testament to ACCESS’s success and, significantly, the availability of funding from sponsors of non-ADA riders. If Funding Is Available to Support “Other” Riders Available funding to support the non-ADA riders is a preferred scenario for a transit agency that pursues commingled service. The use levels of the non-ADA riders that are commingled should be tracked and monitored against the funding that is provided to ensure that all sponsor- ing agencies are paying their fair share of the operating costs. This will allow the transit agency to monitor whether the funding is sufficient to support the non-ADA riders’ trip-making and to negotiate changes over time. Planning Decision Process 23

If Funding Is Not Available to Support “Other” Riders Should the transit agency find that there is not sufficient additional funding for commingled service or that the funding appears to be very short term, it has three basic options: • To commingle only to the extent that capacity allows (if the capacity estimate suggests excess capacity), • To seek additional funding to support the non-ADA service, or • Not to commingle its ADA paratransit service with non-ADA riders. These options, discussed below, assume that the transit agency is responsible for decision- making on commingling, which is not always the case. Commingle to the Extent Capacity Allows. This is a straightforward option. Should the determination of capacity find that there is existing capacity on the existing ADA paratransit service, the transit agency may decide to add other non-ADA service to the extent that new trips can be accommodated, keeping in mind the need to provide unconstrained ADA paratransit service. This decision and the fact that commingling is being implemented without new funding or with limited short-term funds should be documented. Ridership by the non-ADA riders should also be tracked and monitored. If demand grows later and operating funds become limited, the decision framework for commingling may need to be re-visited. Seek Additional Funding. Alternatively, the transit agency can try to find other funding to support the non-ADA service. Depending on the non-ADA rider group to be commingled, there may be funding sources available locally, such as human service agencies. A case in point: One of this project’s case study sites was able to secure local human service agency funding when it lost state transit funding. When the state announced transit funding reductions, the transit agency promptly approached the key human service agencies in its community whose clients used the transit agency’s paratransit service and requested funding. With very few transportation options in the rural area, the human service agencies agreed to the request and provided lump sum payments to the transit agency, ranging from $5,000 up to $65,000, with several of the agencies continuing to provide the payments each year. Even though these annual subsidy amounts are not guaranteed, and not all agencies provide an annual subsidy each year, these local contributions are a significant source of the agency’s operating budget. In a year with generous contributions, the annual subsidy funds from the human service agencies constitute as much as one-third of the transit agency’s total operating funds. Decide Not to Commingle. If the transit agency is responsible for the decision concerning whether or not to commingle, it may decide not to commingle riders because of the lack of funding to support the added transportation service. This is not necessarily a negative outcome, as there are other ways that the transit agency can support specialized transportation in the community. Consider Other Options to Support Transportation for Non-ADA Riders Even if a transit agency decides not to commingle ADA and other riders, it can still support and participate in coordinated transportation efforts to improve specialized transportation locally. In fact, FTA now requires a local coordinated planning effort. Additionally, there are various ways that a transit agency might coordinate, short of commingling non-ADA service with its ADA paratransit program, including the following options. 24 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders

Provide Retired Paratransit Vehicles to Other Community-Based Paratransit Providers The transit agency could consider a program where retired paratransit vehicles, still in operable condition, are provided to non-profit organizations in the community that operate specialized transportation. A number of larger transit agencies have such programs; one of the agencies has a well-organized process that includes an application form for non-profits to express their interest in obtaining a donated vehicle. This transit agency also informs the non-profits about the costs for maintaining the vehicles, based on its own experience, so they have a better understanding of ongoing operating costs. In addition, the transit agency provides information for obtaining vehicle insurance. In some cases, transit agencies also support the provision of service by providing maintenance, insurance, driver training, and other in-kind services. Coordinate Vehicle Operator Training Program with Other Community-Based Providers With this option, the transit agency could consider expanding its vehicle operator training program to include other transportation organizations. Such a coordinated vehicle operator training program could be managed and conducted by a transit system itself, or the coordinated training could be organized through a third-party such as the state’s RTAP program (Rural Transit Assistance Program). Share Maintenance Capabilities Where a transit agency has capacity in its maintenance function, it may be possible to offer maintenance services to small agencies in the community that have transportation programs but lack in-house maintenance. One example of such an arrangement was planned and spearheaded by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), which partnered with the Springfield Mass Transit District (SMTD) to offer maintenance services to smaller community-based agencies operating in the rural areas around Springfield. This arrangement resulted in the Regional Maintenance Center, provided through SMTD’s maintenance department. This center serves non-profit agencies within a 60-mile radius of Springfield, providing non-routine maintenance and repair services for paratransit vehicles on a pre-scheduled basis (KFH Group et al. 2001). Develop Partnerships with Community-Based Human Service Agencies The development of partnerships with local human service agencies is a form of transportation coordination, with an objective of improving specialized transportation effectiveness and efficiency. Coordination can take various forms, and recent research found a number of public transit agencies that have developed partnerships with local human service agencies, allowing these agencies to transport their own clients in a more cost-effective manner than possible for the public transit system (KFH Group et al. 2008). The specific parameters of the partnerships vary: some have the transit agencies providing vehicles and additional support such as driver training and vehicle maintenance to the human service agencies; others involve provision of operating funds to support the agencies’ own transportation service and the agencies become contractors to the public transportation system, serving riders who otherwise might be passengers of the public transit system’s paratransit service. The human service agencies also benefit in that they have more control over their transportation service, with the ability to schedule trips and outings for their clients as they see fit, without having to conform to the public transit agency’s hours and other operating policies and procedures. Support Mobility Management Initiatives Local communities are increasingly implementing mobility management as a strategy to improve the use of transportation resources and link those needing transportation with Planning Decision Process 25

available services. In some communities, the public transit agency has taken on the role as the mobility manager. This may be more responsibility than some transit agencies may want, but there may be related activities that the transit agency could extend to non-ADA riders, such as a travel training program. A transit agency might also lend its experience in operating a call center to another local agency developing a one-stop transportation information center, which is among the common mobility management strategies. Or the transit agency could even offer its call center as the provider of one-stop transportation information. A large suburban county in Virginia that operates extensive transit service is considering designation of its transit information center, operated by a contractor, as the county’s designated one-stop center for all transportation information. Additional funding available for mobility management, such as that included within FTA’s New Freedom and JARC programs, could be sought to help finance the extra resources that would be needed to expand the call center for a more broad-based information provision. C. Evaluate Service Compatibility The third component in the planning phase shown in Figure 1-1 is evaluating whether riders and transportation services are compatible and, if not, can adjustments be made to serve them or do the transit agency and its partners need to find another solution to provide service. When planning the commingling of ADA and non-ADA riders, the issue of service compati- bility must be considered. This analysis involves considering both the mixing of various types of riders on the same vehicle and the mixing of different types of transportation service. Will the different types of riders be compatible on the same vehicle, sharing rides together? What about the different types or levels of transportation service that the different groups receive? Are the types of transportation service related to driver assistance policies and rider policies similar or different? Compatibility of Different Types of Rider Groups The issue of mixing types of riders is subjective, and it may involve stereotyping of certain types of paratransit riders, which should be avoided. But the reality is that there may be certain types of rider groups that would typically not do well traveling together on the same paratransit vehicle. One of the case study transit agencies, a paratransit program serving as the public transit system in its very rural area, indicated that among its non-ADA riders are middle and high school students who have been temporarily banned from the public school bus service because of poor behavior. When these students then turn to the public transit system for some of their trip needs, there can be concerns when such students are traveling on the same vehicle as seniors or very young children. In such cases, the vehicle operators may be given discretion to appropriately modify their manifest so as to minimize the shared time on the vehicle for the different rider types. On the issue of rider type compatibility, ACCESS in Pittsburgh, another case study transit system, noted that it takes a “common sense” approach to commingling. With the size of the ACCESS service and high degree of coordination that the system achieves, there have been situations where the mixing of different rider types on the same vehicle has caused problems. When this happens, ACCESS takes steps to mitigate problems by separating riders onto different vehicles if necessary. The transit agency also educates its riders on the benefits of ride-sharing, particularly those benefits that result in a higher level of service and lower fares. Another consideration under compatibility is vehicle operators’ ability to serve different rider types. Toward this end, operator training is critical to ensure that the staff understands 26 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders

the range of disabilities that may be encountered when providing service. This includes not only physical disabilities but cognitive disabilities as well, which riders may exhibit in un- expected ways. Operator training should expose the operators to the range of both physical and cognitive disabilities that riders may have and help them understand how best to assist these differing needs. Compatibility of Different Types of Transportation Services Closely related to compatibility of types of riders is the compatibility of different types of transportation service. In this context, transportation service refers predominately to the assistance provided to riders in using the service but also includes, among other service attri- butes, fare payment procedures for the riders. The transit agency must consider whether the service it provides through its ADA paratransit program is appropriate for the rider group(s) to be commingled. If, for example, the transit agency’s ADA paratransit service is primarily a curb-to-curb model with door-to-door service provided only for those riders who require such assistance, then it may not be appropriate to commingle a rider group when all the riders in that group need door-to-door or door-through-door service to effectively travel. On the other hand, if the to-be commingled service is primarily subscription service, the transit agency may determine that it can commingle the rider group on its paratransit service if the sponsoring agency provides or funds an aide on the vehicle to assist with the riders’ needs in boarding and alighting. Or there may be other arrangements that could be designed such that the non-ADA rider group could be successfully added onto the agency’s ADA service. Sometimes questions arise when different geographic areas are served to accommodate different sponsoring agencies. For example, one transit agency that was not part of this study received complaints from its ADA customers when service was provided to JARC beneficiaries to loca- tions outside of the ADA service area. The bottom line is that transit agencies should review any differences in service requirements for the rider group(s) that may be commingled and determine their effect on daily operations. If there are differences, they will need to be clearly communicated to customers to minimize confusion and misunderstanding. In the final analysis, it may be determined that it is not possible to commingle all riders. In that case, the transit agency may either elect to serve some customers using separate vehicles or not to serve them at all. This decision will likely be based on a combined analysis of resources and compatibility and may require backtracking to reexamine funding and/or capacity factors. If at this point it is decided that any differences can be accommodated, it is time to move into the final planning phase, which considers practical matters such as defining service area, days and hours of service, and so on. D. Consider Primary Service Parameters Finally, assuming the plan is to move forward to commingle ADA and other riders, the transit agency needs to consider the primary service parameters and how they should be structured to accommodate the needs of riders and funding providers. Service or operating parameters refer to the key characteristics of the paratransit service that define and structure the paratransit operation, including the service area, service span (days and hours of service), reservation time period, and fare structure. These parameters are governed initially by ADA regulations, which means that a transit agency contemplating—or implementing—commingled ADA and non-ADA paratransit services must consider the extent to which the ADA paratransit service parameters Planning Decision Process 27

(i.e., ADA paratransit service criteria) would also apply to or conflict with the other non-ADA service. If external factors require that a transit agency commingle its ADA service with non-ADA service, rather than making that decision as part of a formal planning process, there may be little choice as to the new parameters that must be incorporated. For example, if the transit agency’s governing board determines that Medicaid NEMT service will also be provided beyond the ADA paratransit service area, then the service policies and procedures governing that service will need to be incorporated and implemented, regardless of whether the service mix is a “good fit.” The transit agency will then need to operationalize those new parameters and, to the extent they are different from the ADA service parameters, the transit agency will need to ensure that riders understand the differences in practice. On the other hand, a transit agency may have some discretion on setting the service parameters for the non-ADA service. In this instance, the transit agency may decide to blend certain of the parameters so that they are the same for both ADA and non-ADA riders. The transit agency could decide to use the ADA fare structure for the non-ADA riders (assuming there are no fare structure restrictions that apply to the non-ADA service). Or, the transit agency may set up different parameters for the non-ADA riders from the ones that structure service for the ADA eligible riders. But again, where the service parameters are different, it is critical that the riders and vehicle operators understand the differences in those parameters and know which ones apply for any given rider. Discussion From a transit agency as well as a rider perspective, key parameters to be considered for commingled service include those related to the ADA paratransit requirements (listed in Table 1-4) including, for example, the geographic service area where riders may travel, the days and hours that paratransit service is offered, advance reservation policies, and fare structure, including policies for attendants traveling with the passenger and companions. During the planning stage, it is recommended that these operating parameters be considered at a policy level, that is, to what extent the transit agency can adopt the same parameters for the commingled paratransit service, or whether there must be differences to meet programmatic requirements of the commingled services. From both a policy and an operational perspective, implementation of commingled service will likely be more feasible if operating parameters are uniform across the entire service. This may not be possible, though, due to requirements of the commingled services. It is during the planning process when the transit agency should consider these issues and their impact on commingled operations. Section 2 of this Resource Guide addresses the operationalizing of operating parameters into service policies. There is no “right” or “wrong” way to address this aspect of commingling, as long as the ADA requirements are met. What is important is ensuring that the service parameters can be imple- mented by the transit agency and, once operationalized as service policies, are clearly defined and continually articulated to the riders. Operations staff must be thoroughly familiar with the service policies and procedures as well and rider and caregiver education must be conducted, which is particularly critical when the operating parameters are different. One of the project’s case study transit agencies was required to add service for seniors to its ADA paratransit program, resulting in a commingled service. The funding program sponsor for the senior service required that each of its riders sign the trip manifest, attesting to the fact that the trip was taken. This was not a difficult practice to implement, but the transit agency determined that it would also apply the policy to its ADA riders. While the ADA has no require- ment for riders to sign manifests, the transit agency decided it would be better to have a standard policy that applies to all riders rather than differentiate among riders regarding this service 28 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders

requirement. Establishing a standard policy also eliminates the need to educate the different rider groups on different policies and makes vehicle operator training somewhat easier, as there is no need to differentiate the practice by type of rider. The survey data and the case study research findings show that transit agencies that commingle do not necessarily use the same parameters for their paratransit service. If there are differences, they tend to be with the service area and fare structure. Differences in service area seem to cause problems for several of the transit agencies interviewed, and this could be because the difference is so readily apparent to riders. Differences in reservation hours or fares are less visible to riders, but if some riders can access certain valued destinations and others cannot, this will be more difficult for riders and the community to accept. Planning Decision Process 29

Next: Section 2 - Operations Decision Process »
Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 143: Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders is designed to help public transit agencies explore whether and how to commingle Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) paratransit and non-ADA paratransit riders.

The guide is designed to help practitioners define the purposes and objectives for commingling riders, identify potential capacity and funding, evaluate service compatibility, and consider primary service parameters.

  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!