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

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.

54 Survey Overview A primary focus of this project was to better understand whether and how fixed route transit agencies commingle ADA paratransit and “other” paratransit riders. To better understand the decision-making processes, we wanted to identify examples of transit agencies that (1) have recently begun to commingle riders, (2) have been commingling riders for several years or more, (3) no longer commingle riders, and (4) have never commingled riders. Transit agency contact information was obtained from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). The APTA distribution list was supplemented by our industry knowledge of other transit agencies to include some that were not APTA members and several systems that represented smaller agencies that were known to be ADA paratransit providers, but were not members of APTA. The survey was conducted at the end of 2006. We used an on-line survey tool to collect information from fixed route transit agencies to identify approaches to commingling ADA eligible and other paratransit riders on the same vehi- cle. The survey was supplemented by telephone calls to clarify information, along with a review of system brochures, reports, and other information provided by transit agencies that described the approach taken for providing paratransit services. The questionnaire was designed to direct transit agencies to answer the questions that were rele- vant to the type of service they offered. Specifically, we asked whether they provided the following: • ADA paratransit services only • ADA paratransit service AND other paratransit services using the SAME vehicles (i.e., com- mingling riders) • ADA paratransit services AND other paratransit services using DIFFERENT vehicles The remainder of the appendix provides an overview of the major survey findings. Characteristics of Survey Respondents Of the 275 transit agencies that were sent surveys, 121 responded for a response rate of 44%. Not included in that total were a few surveys that were eliminated either because they were dupli- cates or were substantially incomplete. Respondents represented 30 states and all 10 FTA regions and included a cross section of small, medium, and large transit agencies: • 39% of respondents represented service areas with a population from 200,000 to 999,999 • 32% represented service areas with a population from 50,000 to 199,999 • 24% represented service areas with a population of 1 million or more • 6% represented small urban and rural areas with a service area population of less than 50,000 A P P E N D I X A Transit Agency Survey Highlights

These results are not surprising given that ADA complementary paratransit service is provided in areas with fixed route service and because the primary source for the survey distribution was APTA members, which tends to represent large and medium sized operators. We also included about a dozen agencies that provide ADA paratransit services that were not included in the APTA membership database. Most respondents (95%) represented transit agencies (a few respondents were private con- tractors responding on behalf of transit agencies). Nearly half (47%) said they represented an independent agency with an appointed board of directors and about a quarter (22%) indicated that they represented a unit of city or municipal government. We asked survey respondents to define both their ADA service area as well as their “other” paratransit service area (if applicable). A total of 120 respondents reported on their ADA ser- vice areas and 86 respondents reported on their “other” paratransit service areas. Table A-1 shows the results. The first two columns indicate the responses to how the ADA paratransit service area was defined. The remaining columns describe how the “other” paratransit ser- vice area was defined compared with the corresponding ADA service area shown in the far left column. For example, the most frequent response was to define an ADA service area as a 3⁄4-mile corri- dor around fixed routes, as cited by 57% of respondents. Reading across the row, it can be seen that 8% of the respondents defined the “other” paratransit service area as the same 3⁄4-mile corri- dor, 22% defined it as a city/town, 32% defined it as a county, and so on. Also note that the total on the bottom of the 3⁄4-mile corridor column indicates that 7% of the “other” paratransit service areas corresponded to an ADA-defined 3⁄4-mile corridor service area. Overall, the most common “other” paratransit service area was described as a county (32%), followed by a city/town (26%) or other (25%). Respondents were also asked to indicate the level of passenger assistance provided for ADA paratransit and “other” paratransit riders, either: “curb-to-curb,” “door-to-door,” or “door- through-door.” Respondents were allowed to check more than one type of passenger assistance for each service. A total of 126 answers were given for ADA paratransit and 105 for “other” para- transit (see Table A-2). As in the previous table, the first two columns indicate the level of passen- ger assistance provided by ADA paratransit service and the remaining columns indicate the level of passenger assistance provided by “other” paratransit services. For example, 50% of the respon- dents reported providing “curb-to-curb” assistance for ADA paratransit riders. Reading across Transit Agency Survey Highlights 55 ADA Paratransit Other Paratransit Service Area Service Area Total 3/4 Mile Corridor City/Town County Multi- County Other Total 3/4 Mile corridor 57% (68) 8% (5) 22% (13) 32% ( 19) 7% (4) 32% (19) 100% 60 City/town 23% (28) 9% (3) 40% (14) 31% (11) 9% (3) 13% (4) 100% 35 County 12% (14) 11% (2) 16% (3) 58% (11) 0% (0) 16% (3) 100% 19 Multi-county region 4% (5) 0% (0) 14% (1) 14% (1) 57% (4) 14% (1) 100% (7) Other 4% (5) 0% (0) 25% (5) 15% (3) 20% (4) 40% (8) 100% (20) TOTAL 100% (120) 7% (10) 26% (36) 32% (45) 11% (15) 25% (35) 100% (141) NOTE: Although respondents were asked to indicate one answer in each category, several selected more than one answer. This is why the total answers in the “Other” paratransit section total more than 120. Table A-1. ADA and “other” paratransit service areas.

the row, 77% of respondents reported providing curb-to-curb service for “other” paratransit riders, 19% provided “door-to-door” service for “other” paratransit services, and 4% reported providing “door-through-door” service. Overall, 52% (54) of the “other” paratransit service pro- vided curb-to-curb service. We also asked how far in advance trips requests were accepted for ADA paratransit trips and “other” paratransit trips (if applicable). First, we asked the minimum number of days in advance that a trip could be booked and then we asked the maximum number of days in advance a trip could be booked. Respondents could check one answer for each category of trip. The most com- mon answer for the minimum number of days reserved in advance was 1 day for both: ADA (75%) and “other” paratransit (62%). Same-day reservations were allowed by 20% of ADA para- transit and 23% of “other” paratransit services. Table A-3 illustrates the range of responses. The most common answer for the maximum number of days in advance was more than 7 for both: 51% for ADA paratransit and 54% for “other” paratransit service. Table A-4 illustrates the range of responses. We asked respondents to indicate the technologies currently being used in the provision of paratransit service; 105 answered. Of those responding, 91% indicated that they used scheduling and dispatching software, 44% used mobile data computers (MDCs) or mobile data terminals (MDTs), 41% used automatic vehicle location (AVL), and 19% used electronic record keeping and billing (see Figure A-1). This question is important in that we believe, as suggested in the literature review, that technology may be a useful tool to assist in facilitating coordination efforts by making it easier to communicate and easier to track eligibility and billing/invoicing. 56 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders ADA Paratransit “Other” Paratransit Service Passenger Assistance Total Curb-to- Curb Door-to- Door Door- through- Door Total Curb-to-Curb 50% (63) 77% (36) 19% (9) 4% (2) 100% (47) Door-to-Door 44% (55) 31% (15) 58% (28) 11% (5) 100% (48) Door-through- Door 6% (8) 30% (3) 50% (5) 20% (2) 100% (10) TOTAL 100% (126) 52% (54) 38% (42) 10% (9) 100% (105) NOTE: Although respondents were asked to indicate one answer in each category, several selected more than one answer. This is why the total answers in the “Other” paratransit section total more than 122. Table A-2. Level of passenger assistance provided. ADA Paratransit “Other” Paratransit Service Days In Advance Total Same Day 1 Day 2 Days Other Total Same Day 20% (22) 89% (10) 11% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (11) 1 Day 75% (81) 12% (7) 77% (44) 5% (3) 5% (3) 100% (57) 2 Days 3% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (2) 0% (0) 100% (2) Other 2% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 32% (1) 68% (2) 100% 0) TOTAL 100% (108) 23% (17) 62% (45) 10% (6) 5% (5) 100% (73) Table A-3. Minimum days in advance for trip requests.

Overall Findings The respondents to the TCRP Project B-34 survey represent a cross section of transit systems from 30 states and all 10 FTA regions. The large majority (100 out of 121 of the respondents) were from areas with populations of 50,000 and above, representing predominately urban areas. More than half of survey respondents mix ADA and other passenger trips on the same vehi- cle (64 transit systems [53% of respondents]). Adding in the respondents that serve ADA and Transit Agency Survey Highlights 57 Figure A-1. All respondents: use of technology. ADA Paratransit “Other” Paratransit Service Days In Advance Total Same Day 1 Day 2 Days 3-5 Days 6-7 Days > 7 Days Total Same Day 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1 Day 5% (5) 0% (0) 50 % (2) 0% (0) 25% (1) 0% (0) 25% (1) 100% (4) 2 Days 7% (7) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (5) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (5) 3-5 Days 13% (13) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 75% (6) 0% (0) 25% (2) 100% (8) 6-7 Days 24% (25) 0% (#) 6% (1) 0% 0) 0% (0 94% (16) 0% (0) 100% (17) > 7 Days 51% (54) 5% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (1) 3% (1) 89% (34) 100% (38) TOTAL 100% (105) 3% (2) 4% (3) 7% (5) 11% (8) 23% (17) 54% (37) 100% (71) Table A-4. Maximum days in advance for trip requests.

“other” passengers on different vehicles (10 systems) brings the total to 74 transit systems or 60% of respondents that serve both ADA and non-ADA paratransit riders. With the focus of the tran- sit industry in recent years on ADA paratransit and concerns about regulatory compliance and increasing costs and demand, this finding may be somewhat surprising, that is, that the major- ity of transit systems do commingle. Almost all respondents (91%) have invested in scheduling and dispatching software, and many (41% and 44%, respectively) have also invested in AVL or MDC/MDT technology. The one area where there is a difference in technology is in the use of electronic recordkeeping and billing software. The group of transit systems that commingle riders but on separate vehicles reports no use of electronic recordkeeping and billing software. While the size of this group is small, it is telling that this group is using separate vehicles for ADA and “other” paratransit ser- vice. Also, although there were only six systems serving areas of population less than 50,000, they represent half of the group using separate vehicles to provide “other” paratransit service. The survey asked respondents to indicate their reasons for providing “other” paratransit ser- vice beyond ADA. The primary reason indicated was “passenger needs.” Factors that would influ- ence those agencies not currently providing additional service to do so in the future are “demand for service” and “funding from agency/programs sponsor for additional trips” (55% for each fac- tor). The survey also asked questions about what factors led to the decision to provide “other” paratransit trips and who was involved in the decision-making. Table A-5 provides a summary of the factors that appear to influence the decision to provide “other” paratransit trips. As shown in the table, the top two factors stated for providing ADA and “other” paratransit trips were “demand for service” and “passenger needs.” This was true whether agencies use the same or dif- ferent vehicles to provide ADA and “other” paratransit. A key interest for the study was identification of the non-ADA eligible passenger types that were being served by “other” paratransit services, particularly where ADA and non-ADA service was commingled on the same vehicles. A related issue is to explore whether the “other” passenger groups that were served differed according to the practice of serving the different passenger types on the same or different vehicles. Table A-6 summarizes survey responses to the question that asked what types of “other” paratransit passengers are served, categorized by transit systems that commingled different passenger types on the same vehicles versus different vehicles. 58 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders 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 A-5. Factors influencing decision to provide “other” paratransit.

Perhaps equally important to investigating the different passenger types served by transit sys- tems that mix passenger types is determining the funding sources used for serving the “other” passengers, particularly since “funding from agency/program sponsors” was noted as a primary factor that would influence those not commingling to do so. Interestingly, the responses shown in Table A-6 suggest that a number of “other” passenger groups that are commingled do not have specific programmatic funding sources attached, for example, the “non-sponsored” older adults, “non-sponsored” persons with disabilities, and general public riders. In some cases it may be that there are local or other funding sources that contribute to a transit systems’ ability to serve these riders in addition to their ADA riders. The findings from the survey also provided the research team with baseline information from which to determine potential case studies and to structure the interview guide for the case study research. Responses to the survey questions about factors that contributed to a decision to commingle—or not—provided material for the initial structuring of the decision framework developed for the Resource Guide. Detailed Survey Findings The survey asked respondents to indicate whether they (1) provided ADA complementary paratransit only, (2) provided a combination of ADA complementary paratransit and “other paratransit” services using the SAME vehicles for both (i.e., commingling), or (3) provided a com- bination of ADA complementary paratransit and “other paratransit” services using DIFFERENT vehicles for each rider type. More than half of the respondents (53%) reported that they pro- vided both ADA paratransit and other paratransit services using the same vehicles; about 39% indicated that they provided ADA paratransit service only; and about 8% indicated that they pro- vided ADA paratransit and other paratransit services using different vehicles (see Figure A-2). It is interesting to note that these results are comparable when the same question was asked in a survey of fixed route transit agencies conducted for TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 60. In that survey, 39% reported that they provided ADA complementary paratransit only, 49% provided ADA and other paratransit using the same vehicles, and 12% provided ADA and other paratransit using different vehicles (Gerty 2005). The remainder of the survey highlights focuses on the results for each of these three para- transit service delivery strategies: 1. Transit agencies providing ADA and “other” paratransit service using the same vehicles (i.e., commingling riders) Transit Agency Survey Highlights 59 “Other” Paratransit Passengers ADA + “Other” on Same Vehicles N=63 ADA + “Other” on Different Vehicles N=9 Non-Sponsored Older Adults 60% 44% Other Agency Funded 57% 22% Non-Sponsored Persons with Disabilities 57% 33% General Public 54% 67% Medicaid 46% 11% Title III 44% 0% Non-Sponsored Low Income Persons 33% 22% Head Start 10% 0% Table A-6. Composition of “other” paratransit passengers.

2. Transit agencies providing ADA and “other” paratransit services using different vehicles; and 3. Transit agencies providing ADA-only paratransit service Agencies Providing ADA and Other Paratransit Services on the SAME Vehicles—Commingling Highlights A total of 64 (53%) of the survey respondents indicated that they currently provide ADA and “other” paratransit service on the SAME vehicles. In response to the question of when ADA ser- vice was started, 69% answered before 1996. The three most cited categories of “other” paratran- sit passengers served were “non-sponsored older adults” (60%), “non-sponsored persons with disabilities” and “other agency funded passengers” (both 57%), and “Medicaid” and “general public” (both 46%). Figure A-3 shows the range of “other” passenger groups served. We asked respondents whether the service days and hours varied for ADA versus “other” para- transit services. A total of 61 respondents answered the question for weekdays. Out of that num- ber, 64% indicated they had the same service hours for ADA and “Other” on weekdays. For Sat- urday, 52 respondents answered and 63% indicated that the hours were the same for ADA and “other” service. For Sunday, 41 respondents answered and 66% indicated that the hours were the same for ADA and “other” service. Respondents were also asked to select the factors that led to the decision to provide “other” paratransit service. They were allowed to select more than one response from the list of fac- tors provided. An overwhelming number of respondents cited “demand for service” (78%) as a factor. “Passenger needs” (57%), “transit management decision” (54%), and “transit board decision” (45%) were the top four factors. Figure A-4 shows the range of responses to this question. Of the 64 respondents who indicated that they provide ADA and “other” paratransit services on the same vehicles, 91% indicated that they utilize a form of technology to assist with providing 60 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Figure A-2. Paratransit service currently provided.

Transit Agency Survey Highlights 61 Figure A-3. Serving ADA and “other” riders using the same vehicle: categories of “other” passenger groups served. Figure A-4. Serving ADA and “other” riders using the same vehicle: factors affecting the decision to provide “other” paratransit service.

service. Most agencies (89%) indicated that they used scheduling and dispatching software. In addition, 42% indicated they used AVL and 48% indicated they used MDCs or MDTs. Addition- ally, 25% indicated using electronic recordkeeping and billing software (see Figure A-5). Discussion Interestingly, of the more common “other” passenger types that are mixed with ADA riders, two are “non-sponsored seniors” and “non-sponsored people with disabilities,” suggesting that the transit systems do not receive specific programmatic funding to transport these riders. The use of technology appears to be prevalent among those that commingle riders on the same vehicles, with the large majority using scheduling/dispatch software and more than one-third using MDTs/MDCs and AVL. Agencies Providing ADA and Other Paratransit Service Using DIFFERENT Vehicles Highlights Ten of the agencies responding to the survey indicated that they provided ADA and “other” paratransit service on DIFFERENT vehicles. Nine of the agencies started providing ADA service prior to 1996; six agencies indicated that they were providing “other” paratransit service prior to 1996. One agency started providing “other” paratransit service between 1996 and 2000, and three agencies started “other” paratransit service in 2000 or later. 62 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Figure A-5. Serving ADA and “other” riders using the same vehicle: use of technology.

As with agencies providing other service on the same vehicles, respondents were asked who they served, and what factors led to the decision to provide other service. Two-thirds (6) of respondents mentioned serving “general public” paratransit trips, followed by non-sponsored older adults (4). Figure A-6 shows the range of answers to this question. It should be noted that the passenger groups specified in the “other” category included JARC and a suburban service for general public, other agency non-funded, sedan vouchers, and will call programs. We asked respondents whether the service days and hours varied for ADA versus “other” paratransit services. A total of 9 respondents answered the question for weekdays. Out of that number, 22% indicated they had the same service hours for ADA and “other” on weekdays. For Saturday service, 9 respondents answered and 22% indicated that the hours were the same for ADA and “other” service. For Sunday service, 9 respondents answered and 22% indicated that the hours were the same for ADA and “other” service. With regard to the factors that led to the decision to provide other service, the most frequently cited factor was “demand for service” and “passenger needs” (6 out of 9 for each factor). Other factors cited were “funding change from public source,” “transit board decision,” and other “external factors” (4 out of 9 for each). When this group was asked who was involved in the deci- sion to provide “other” paratransit service, “transit agency director/CEO” and “transit agency board” were indicated in 8 out of the 9 responses. It is important to note that in two-thirds of the responses “community leaders” were identified as being involved with the decision. Figure A-7 shows the range of responses to this question. The “who” in the other category included: a court settlement agreement, a mobility advisory board, and human service agencies. Finally, this group of respondents was asked what factors led to the decision to provide other service on DIFFERENT vehicles. Two-thirds (6) of the respondents to this question indicated “demand for service” as the primary factor; “transit management decision” was the second most frequent factor mentioned (4 out of 9). Transit Agency Survey Highlights 63 Figure A-6. Serving ADA and “other” paratransit riders using different vehicles: categories of “other” passengers served.

Out of the nine agencies in this category that responded to the technology question, all indi- cated that they used scheduling and dispatching software. Two-thirds (6) indicated that they used AVL or MDC/MDT software to provide service. None of the respondents indicated that they used electronic recordkeeping and billing software. Discussion Based on the survey results, this group of transit systems that served a mix of ADA and non- ADA passengers using different vehicles is the smallest cohort with only 10 respondents in this group. Recognizing that this is a small sample of systems, the most commonly cited group of “other” passenger type was general public. This can be contrasted with systems that mix riders using the same vehicles, which more frequently indicated that they serve seniors and persons with disabilities. Agencies Providing ADA-Only Paratransit Service Highlights As stated earlier, 39% of the survey respondents indicated that they provided ADA paratran- sit service only. These respondents were asked when they began providing ADA paratransit ser- vice. Of the 44 respondents answering this question, 80% began providing ADA service prior to 1996 and 20% began providing ADA service during or after 1996. Respondents also were asked whether they ever had provided “other” paratransit service since beginning ADA service. Forty-one of 47 respondents answered the question. Of those, more than half (56%) indicated they had not. Of the 18 respondents that had provided “other” paratransit services, the most common trips provided were for Medicaid eligible individuals, other agency- funded passengers, and non-sponsored older adults (39% for each); along with non-sponsored persons with disabilities (28%) (see Table A-7). A follow-up question was asked to find out from agencies that had formerly provided “other” paratransit service when the “other” service was stopped. Fourteen respondents answered this question. Of those, almost half (43%) indicated that “other” paratransit service was stopped 64 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Figure A-7. Serving ADA and “other” paratransit riders using different vehicles: who was involved in the decision to serve “other” passengers?

before 1996 and 57% indicated that “other” paratransit service was stopped after 2000; no respondents reported ending “other” service between 1996 and 2000. Respondents were then asked why they stopped providing “other” paratransit service. Sixteen respondents answered this question. More than half (56%) cited “ADA capacity constraints.” A “transit management” or “transit board” decision was cited by 38% and 31% of the respondents, respectively. Figure A-8 shows the full range of responses to that question. In addition to asking what “other” paratransit services had been provided in the past, we asked whether agencies have considered providing “other” paratransit services in the future. Forty-five Transit Agency Survey Highlights 65 Figure A-8. Serving ADA-only: why “other” paratransit service was stopped. Table A-7. ADA-only—“other” paratransit trips provided at any time since ADA service began. Other Service Number of Responses Percentage Medicaid 7 39% Other Agency Funded 7 39% Non-Sponsored Older Adults 7 39% Non Sponsored Persons with Disabilities 5 28% Title III 2 11% Head Start 2 11% General Public 3 11% Non-Sponsored Low Income Individuals 1 6%

respondents answered this question. Of those, more than half (58%) answered “no” or “don’t know.” Of the 19 respondents that indicated they have considered providing “other” service in the future, 13 of them have considered providing service for older adults, 11 for Medicaid pas- sengers, 10 for other people with disabilities, and 7 for the general public. When asked what factors would enter into the decision for providing “other” paratransit serv- ice, 33 respondents answered. Thirty percent indicated “N/A” (not applicable). Of the remain- ing 23 respondents, the most commonly cited factors were “funding from agency/program spon- sor” and “demand for service” (78% each), followed by “ADA paratransit capacity constraints” (70%), coordination requirements (61%), funding from city/county council (52%), and regula- tory/policy change (48%). Table A-8 shows the range of factors and the frequency with which they were selected. Respondents also were asked if they were to provide “other” paratransit services, would they do so using the same vehicles used to provide ADA paratransit or different vehicles. Thirty-seven respondents answered this question. Of those responding, 35% indicated they would consider using the same vehicles, 3% indicated they would consider using different vehicles, and 16% said they did not know. Another 46% indicated the question was not applicable. Out of the 47 respondents who indicated providing ADA service only, 43 indicated that they uti- lize some form of technology to provide service. Ninety-one percent of agencies indicated that they used scheduling and dispatching software. In addition, 33% indicated they used AVL technology, 33% used MDCs/MDTs, and 14% indicated using electronic recordkeeping and billing software. Discussion Assuming that the survey respondents are generally representative, at least of those in urban areas, the results indicate that transit systems that provide ADA-only paratransit service are in the minority. This finding was somewhat surprising, that is, the majority of transit systems do serve “other” paratransit rider types, particularly given that the focus of the transit industry since the mid-1990s has been on providing ADA complementary paratransit with ongoing concerns about funding, demand, and the ability to meet ADA regulatory requirements. The survey was designed to include questions that captured basic information about those transit systems that currently serve only ADA riders and did serve “other” rider types in the past. Survey results show that the four most common types of rider groups formerly served include the following: • Medicaid passengers • “Other agency” funded passengers • Non-sponsored older adults • Non-sponsored persons with disabilities 66 Resource Guide for Commingling ADA and Non-ADA Paratransit Riders Table A-8. ADA-only—factors that would enter into the decision to provide “other” paratransit service. Factors Number of Responses Percent Funding from City/County Council 12 52% Funding from Agency/Program Sponsor 18 78% ADA Capacity Constraints 16 70% Regulatory/Policy Change 11 48% Coordination Requirements 14 61% Availability of Technology 4 17% Demand for Service 18 78% Insurance 4 15% Other 1 4%

The primary reason cited for discontinuing the mixing of passenger types was, as might be expected, ADA paratransit capacity constraints. As the transit system worked to ensure that it could meet demand from ADA riders, it was apparently difficult to also ensure capacity and service for non-ADA riders, given available resources. The survey results indicate other reasons for the discontinuance, such as transit board and transit management decision and funding program changes. References Gerty, R. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 60: Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Para- transit. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2005. Transit Agency Survey Highlights 67