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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public transit agencies In North America have developed and implemented innovative services, programs, and technologies In recent years In an effort to provide improved and more cost-effective transportation to customers with disabilities. These innovative service options and enhancements have been designed to promote greater use of fixed route service and Me appropriate use of paratransit services. Alternative operating approaches' such as service routes, route deviation, and point deviation, have been used to develop transit services that better meet the specific travel needs of persons with disabilities. A survey of 548 public transit systems in the United States and Canada conducted as part of this research identified over 20 innovative operational models, support services, and technologies that are currently being used. This report examines in detail the effectiveness of the following selected service options and enhancements: service routes feeder service · route deviation · low-floor buses · fare Incentives Sixteen case studies of transit systems which had implemented one or more of the above options were conducted. Using evaluation methodologies developed as part of the research, the costs and benefits of each of the above service alternatives was estimated. Rider responses, implementation issues, and over qualitative factors were also considered.
The findings from these case studies indicate that some systems have been very successful in encouraging paratransit riders to use fixed route service and in better meeting the travel needs of riders with disabilities. In Madison County, Illinois, the introduction of local service routes, combined with a travel training program and expanded marketing efforts, produced a 16% increase In total fixed route ridership, a 3040% decrease In trips by paratransit, and annual paratransit savings of more than $650,000. The success of the Madison County program is due in part to the fact that a large portion of the fixed route system was redesigned around the service route concept. Several other systems studied also had success applying the service route concept. In Richmond HiD, Ontario, a service route program attracted 30% of the paratransit demand in its service area. In Margate, Florida, a network of service routes also diverted an estimated 30% of the paratransit demand in the town and allowed the county bans* system to streamline regional bus service serving the community. The use of route deviation on one rural route In York, Pennsylvania enabled Me transit system to serve approximately 15,000 trips per year by fixed route rather than paratransit. An estimated 50% of an paratransit trips in that particular route corridor were served by deviating the fixed route bus. Deviations were found to have an impact on general public use of the service, though. Some riders found the schedule and route confusing and avoided using the bus during the early morning and late afternoon when deviations were most likely. In Eugene, Oregon, a "site specific" route deviation program was used successfully to serve selected human service agency program sites and serve trips previously made on the paratransit saving an estimated $100,000 per year. Because deviations were controlled and limited to sites were groups of riders could be served, this program minimized impacts on over riders. In Newport' Oregon, a point deviation
system was used effectively to meet bow general public transportation needs and the needs of residents with disabilities. This hybrid operation proved a cost effective alternative to separate fixed route and paratransit services. Coordination between paratransit and fixed route operations was found to be a key to the successful operation of route deviation service. If requests for fixed route deviations could not be accommodated within the established schedule, paratransit service was arranged. This operational coordination helped to control impacts on Me fKed route schedule. Limited feeder service was used successfully by BC Transit of Vancouver, Canada to assist individuals making long trips from the suburbs to the downtown. Approximately 800 riders per month are transported to and from the light rail or ferry stations. These longer trips made in part on the fixed route service not only allowed paratransit vans to be more productive, but were found to be shorter and quicker. Passengers who were transported by van to the closest rail station or ferry terminal and then completed their trips on fixed route traveled an average of 12 miles and spent 41 minutes in transit. Comparable trips made solely on the shared-ride van service averaged 15.3 miles and 52 minutes. A more extensive, systemwide feeder service was used by Pierce Transit of Tacoma, Washington. The case study of this program revealed that feeder service can be cost-effective, but tends to provide a significantly reduced level of service, compared to previously provided direct paratransit. The longer travel times, and multiple transfers needed to complete a trip by feeder, while sUll comparable to the service provided to the general public, caused many paratrans*
customers to travel less. Wait times at transfer sites and additional transfers required on the fixed route portion of the trip, in particular, had an impact on the quality of service and rider mobility. The review of low-floor buses In Ann Arbor and Champaign-Urbana, Michigan, and Victoria, British Columbia showed that riders with disabilities preferred the low-floor design by a wide margin. These case studies indicated that boarding and alighting was easier and faster and that the ramps used on the low-floor buses were more reliable than conventional wheelchair lifts. Broader public acceptance of and support for low-floor buses was also noted. Ramps on the low- floor buses required fewer repairs and were cheaper to maintain than conventional lifts. The Champaign-Urbana review found boardings to be about one minute per passenger faster on low- floor buses than on conventional lift equipped vehicles. Alighting was about half a minute faster per passenger. In Ann Arbor, repair work on low-floor bus ramps was performed 2.6 times per year on average and annual maintenance costs were $153 per bus. Conventional lifts averaged 6.7 repair work orders per year and maintenance costs were $461 per bus. Documented savings were even greater in Champaign-Urbana - about $2,400 less per bus per year. The case studies also found overall operating costs of low-floor and conventional buses to be about equal and found no evidence of increased passenger accidents on low-floor buses due to the step up in the back of the bus. The five case studies of fare incentive programs indicated that offers of free fixed route service for ADA paratransit eligible customers and/or other persons with disabilities can promote a shift in trips from paratransit. Shifts in modes of between five and 20 percent were documented. The greatest shifts were achieved in systems that had a high degree of accessible fixed route service and which offered other service enhancements such as travel training. The results suggest that fare
incentive programs are most successful if used In cor~junchon with these other efforts to make travel by fixed route attractive and possible. The fare incentive case studies also indicated Mat free fixed route fare programs will generate additional travel on this mode by persons with disabilities. In each study area, this induced demand far exceeded the number of trips shifted from paratransit service. It was also showed, however, that savings in paratransit operating costs will be somewhat offset by a loss in fixed route revenue. Many riders who previously used the half fare programs qualified for free fares. Where free fares were tied to ADA paratransit eligibility, the program provided an incentive for individuals to request to be ADA paratransit certified. The case studies point out the need for a thorough and strict ADA paratransit eligibility determination process if fare incentives are to be tied to paratransit eligibility. Even with losses in fixed route revenue, however, there were significant net cost savings. Savings in Ann Arbor were about $207,000 per year and in Austin about $1.5 million per year. In addition to documenting the benefits of specific service design enhancements, the study findings indicate that programs which employed several complementing service enhancements were more effective. Travel training and marketing programs were key to the success of service routes, route deviation, and fare incentive programs at several sites. found to be the preferred vehicle for service routes. - - _ 11 .1 · . ~ ~ Low-floor buses were also rmally, tne Input 01 consumers ~ local comity organs ~ the design Ad implementation of innovative programs was found to be important. Local agencies helped with the design of service routes in Madison County, Margate, Florida, and at other sites. Local
cooperation in route deviation service design was a significant factor in the success of programs in York, Pennsylvania and Eugene, Oregon. Local agencies were particularly helpful in marketing the new services to clients. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Austin, Texas, travel training provided by local disability organizations contributed significantly to the overall success of efforts to encourage use of fixed route services. While the findings from these case studies are encouraging, more research is needed to determine if similar results are possible In over circumstances and settings.
