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.
CHAPTER IV ROUTE DEVIATION SERVICES INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FINDINGS Route deviation service is typically a "hybrid" configuration adapting features of both fixed route and fixed schedule transit systems as wed as demand responsive curb to-curb systems. In the absence of any requests to "deviate," the service operates as a traditional fixed route system with vehicles following a specific route and making scheclulec! stops. Unlike traditional fixed route service, however, customers are aHowed to request that vehicles deviate to either pick them up or drop Rem off at a specific location off of the advertised route. After accommodating off-route requests, vehicles return to and continue along He advertised route. Because the service accommodates deviation requests as part of an advertised schedule, vehicles leave and return to the same point along the route. This ensures that aD customers who may be wailing for the vehicle will still be accommodated. Several variations are possible, including client specific route deviation, and site-specific route deviation. Deviation service brings the fixed route bus to the curb for the consumer. Therefore, for those who cannot get to the bus stop because of a disability ("category 3" ADA eligibility), it brings the accessible bus to them. For the purpose of this report, route deviation systems in York, Pennsylvania, (operated by Community Transit), Eugene, Oregon (Lane Transit District) and Newport, Oregon (Lincoln County Transit) were analyzed by the research team. Key findings from tile research Include: TCRP B-1A Report IV-1 Draft Final
. Using route deviation service, Community Transit was able to accommodate 15, 138 trips per year that were previously provided by paratransit. This was es~nated to be about 50% of ad paratransit trips In the service corridor. · The route deviation option aDowed Community Transit to reintroduce fixed route service In an area where service had been cut for efficiency and economic reasons. The new deviated fixed route cost Community Transit an additional $135,000 per year and provided an additional 29,385 passenger trips per year. . . . . TCRP B-1A Repor! Compared to providing fixed-route service plus ADA paratransit service, providing route deviation on Route 13 saved the community of York about $97,000 per year. In Eugene, Oregon's Lane County, the con:trnunity saved approximately $95,627. Creation of Route 13 has resulted in new riders for Community Transit. Annual ridership on Route 13 in FY 1994 was 44,523, a 37% increase over FY 1992. 29,000 of those annual riders are general public passengers. The cooperation and support of social service agencies whose clients use route variations have contributed to the success of the Lane County route-deviation system. The Community Transit route deviation mode! is transferable to communities where individuals win disabilities need to be transported from outlying rural/suburban areas to city centers; where some flexibility In routing and ride time can be tolerated by general public riders; and where travel training is available. IV-2 Draft Final
Deviation trips, as compared to paratransit trips, are bow longer in miles and in ride time. It was also found Mat operating speeds were significantly lower for deviation Lips Can for paratransit trips. According to survey results, Be majority of bow users and non-users of the cleviation service agreed Rat We deviation is useful and provides needed mobility. However, survey respondents also reported inconveniences involved in using the service (e.g. longer ride times). Only a few of Dose surveyed who used the deviation service were reluctant to request deviation for fear of inconveniencing other passengers. CASE STUDY SITES ~ the course of the B-1 project, three route deviation case studies were conducted at transit systems In the United States: Community Transit in York, Pennsylvania; Lane Transit District in Eugene, Oregon; and, Lincoln County Transit In Newport, Oregon. FoBow~ng is a brief description of each system. Community Transit in York, Pennsylvania Community Transit provides fixed-route and paratransit service In York County. It operates 13 routes with annual ridership of ahnost one minion. Close to IS0,000 paratransit trips are provided annually. The focus of We case study was on Route 13, which operates between downtown York anct outlying rural areas (to We east and west of downtown). Figures IV-I and IV-2 show Community Transit's routes in York County and the location of Route 13. At the dine of the case study, Route 13 provided approximately 175 trips daily, of which 60 were deviations. Route 13 did not exist as a regular fixed-route prior to the initiation of deviation service. Working with local social TCRP B-IA IV-3 Draft Final Report
~ - ~ - c' · - - - ~v A: u, TCRP B-1A Report sol O i,, ~ O _. P6 ~ .~ , shy D14 - ~-L o - ¢z , C, o Drap Final
1'-:' 'I hi. a o o · - cq o I: By ho/ ~ et'/ /~l ~ (' TCRP B-1A Report _ ~ 0 3 ~ =0 :~' :~_ .\ -., - ~ A'\ -a .' a... ,~ ,,?o-At Draft Final
service agencies (who could no longer afford to pay for paratransit service) serving the developmentally disabled population, Community Transit designed a route that could deviate to serve most of the developmentally disabled population who livect in outlying areas and needed transportation to workshops In downtown York. These social service agencies worked with families of clients who had previously used paratrans* and provided the necessary travel training. Most clev~ations on Route 13 are standing orders, but any rider can cad the previous day to request a deviation. Those who cannot be accommodated by deviation are accommodated by paratransit service if they are ADA eligible. Although deviation service is technically open to any member of the public, it is not marketed as such and is targeted to people with disabilities. Each day, Route 13 drivers receive a computer-generated driver manifest listing deviations they need to make. Generally, the riders who request deviations are regulars, and the Divers are familiar with who rides when and where on their runs. Most clev~ations occur between 6-9 a.m. ancE 3:30-6 p.m. During the May, Route 13 operates as a regular fixed-route. During We deviation times, the bus really operates as a point deviation service, stopping at major time points on We published schedule, but not staying to the route between those major time points. General public riders of Route 13 seem to be flexible enough to either change We time Hey ride or learn to navigate the system during times when lLhe bus cleviates. Drivers handle deviation trips as their top priority during a.m. and p.m. peaks. They stay to the route as much as possible but sometimes run late by as much as 10-15 minutes when deviations are occulting. Community Transit was selected as a study site basest on the volume of deviations reported, the existence of over fixed-route service In the area, the TCI:{P B-IA [V-6 Draft Final Report
involvement of social service agencies In Implementation, and the applicability of this case stucly to services in other rural ant] suburban areas. It was felt that this study would be of interest to providers in a similar situation who face financial issues with ADA implementation and the potential of cutbacks to service In rural areas. Lane Transit District in Eugene, Oregon Lane Transit District (LTD) provides fixed-route and ADA complementary paratransit service to the communities Eugene/Springfield and outlying areas in central Oregon. The annual fixed-route ridership is 5e6 million. Approximately 1~500 individuals use the paratransit services; they have aD been cleterIruned to be ADA eligible for some or ad trips. A total of about II4,000 paratrans* trips were provided in FY 1995. LTD provides site-specific route variation service on its fixed route bus lines for employment locations and for those with a "special need for accessibility", i.e., persons with disabilities. Variations are noted on timetables and vary in length from less than I/4 mile to almost 2 miles. Variation service for persons win disabilities is currently provided on six routes. Figure IV-3 provides an example of a route map and schedule showing Me location of established deviations. Route variations have cleveloped at LTD over a period of rune to ten years. The practice evolved on a case-by-case basis and has now been institutionalized. Variations to provide accessibility for riders with disabilities usually result In consistent, long-term ridership. LTD is now In the process of reviewing variations and establishing formal evaluation criteria. Current criteria, although used informally, are as follows: . There must be sufficient time to run the variation without degrading revenue service and significantly impacting recovery time and driver layover time. TCRP B-IA Iv-7 Draft Final Report
Figure nr-3. Lane Transit District Route Map and Schedule Showing Deviation l ~ ) ~ L'4KE LAMB RD. Richardson _ Park / 1~ west Lane \ Shopping Cic Elmira BROADWAY ,~` ~ genera to PERKINS RD. TCRP B-1A Report Ahadore SNYDER O~t1a~ 3 ¢~> CLEAR lAKE RD. point An_ Fem Ridge Resenroir (, it. <4Per~ns Peninsula ~ > ~ HWY 126 _ ci ~1 93 Ven eta Weekdays, Saturday AVE. Hi ~ I flSHER RD.`I G ~( )_ IV-8 Pearl Budr Production MCeS Z U] ~ m ~ i Eugene ~ I Station 3~3 ]~ >J O I I WITH 93 Veneta Limited trips (see timetable) . Draft Final 1
This criterion is key to the success of Me variation; planning staff, working win operators, regularly evaluate run times and the compatibility of · . vanahons The variation must result in addition of 5 or more riders per route per variation per day. It must be feasible to make the physical rout~ng/maneuvering to run the variation. In addition to these criteria, LTD staff also consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not this variation serves people with disabilities anc3/or whether or not there would be a safety concern if the variation were not provided. The cost of paratransit for riders with disabilities has never been a factor In the evaluation. LTD annually reviews its routes, including variations. If route variations are weD-used, planning staff win, when feasible, often restructure routes so that variations are no longer needed. LTD staff contact social service agency staff to verify that programs are still In place and that variations continue to be appropriate. In addition, driver input Is often very helpful In pinpointing a variation that needs to be modified or eliminated. LTD was selected as a case study site based on successful implementation of route variation service that could serve as a mode] to medium-s~ze transit systems throughout the country primarily where demand-responsive route dewation service would not work. The LTD model, it was felt, could be applicable In a wide range of situations where transit systems are searching for ways to integrate persons with disabilities into regular transit service and thereby reduce paratransit demand TCRP B-lA TV-9 Report Draft Final
Lincoln County Transit in Newport, Oregon Lincoln County is entirely rural and is located along Me Central Oregon coast. Bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on We east by the Coast Range, Lincoln County extends 60 miles north and south and 15 to 25 miles In width. Total 1995 population was 41,700 persons, 20% of whom were 65 years of age or older. The County seat' Newport, has a population of 9,075, has a substantial tourist industry, and is located at about the north/south midpoint of the county on the coast. Until September 1996, Lincoln County Trans* operated intercity point deviation (caDed Central Coast Connections or CCC, see operations description below) and intracity demand response service (caned Dial-A-Ride). Annual ridership was about 115,000 trips. As of September 1996, State grant funds had been exhausted and the County was awaiting news of additional funding availability to continue CCC. Lincoln County Transit staff consists of one fur-time coordinator, one fur-time dispatcher (for CCC and DAR), and one fuB-firne clerk. Four drivers are needed for CCC. AR seven are County employees. AD CCC and DAR vehicles are owned and maintained by the County. Operating revenue sources are Oregon Special Transportation Fund, additional State starbup funds for CCC, Federal Transit funds, cities, and We County general fund. CCC connects Newport with Siletz/Toledo in the east, Waidport and Yachats to the south, and noncom City/Otis/Rose Lodge in We norm end of the County. These three "routes" are each 15 to 20 miles long and operate as point deviation service with scheduled stops. Figure IVY is a map of Lincoln County showing the three CCC "routes." TCRP B-lA [v-Io Draft Final Report
Figure IVY. The Three CCC "Routes" in LincoIn County, Oregon i,~ LINCOLN CITY all ROSE LODGE ~ S.~ ~~/1 }~ ~l . , ~`~ ~ ~ ~-A ~r~r~l((/~-~ ~r ~ ~ Al ~ elm I - _ ~ awry r 1 WALDPORT Z~ CACHETS TCRP B-1A Report IV-11 o 1 1 1 Miles 6 12 Draft Final
Passengers may wait at the scheduled stop for the bus or may can aheac} (previous clay or same clay) to request that the bus go "off-route" up to 3/4 mile to pick them up. Anyone may request such an "off-route" pick-up. When the bus picks up a passenger "off-route", the driver does not necessarily return to the point on the route at which the vehicle left but proceeds directly to the next scheduled stop; this explains why CCC is referred to as point deviation service. Most of the off-route stops are concentrated in towns, are short (a block or two), and involve only a brief delay; however, if there are many deviations, on-time performance may occasionally suffer. Passengers may also flag down Me bus along its route as long as a safe pullover location is available. Approximately 25% of CCC trips are "off-route" pick-ups. Also operated by T~ncoin County Transit, Dial-A-Ride service (DAR) operates within the general areas of the town of Newport, Siletz/Toledo, Lincoln City, and Waldport/Yachats. DAR is primarily an intracity service and is operated by volunteers with six county-owned vehicles. Lincoln Counter Transit was selected as a case study site based on its implementation of a general public transit service that incorporates persons with disabilities and its applicability to rural areas. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES To evaluate the impact of route deviation services on operating costs varatransit ~v ~ demand, and riders' a varied of data collection met hods were used including on-board surveys' a telephone survey, discussion groups, and review of operating and financial data with and without deviation service. TCRP B-lA Report IV-12 Draft Final
In York County, data collection efforts relied on interviews of human service agency staff, Weir clients who used Route 13, an on-board survey of Route 13 riders, and a telephone survey of paratransit users. Route 13 driver manifests and paratransit trip manifests were used to gather data to compare route deviation and paratransit ride times and trip lengths. Route maps, schedules, and driver passenger counts and operating and financial data were also used as references. When evaluating survey results for York County, the limited number of responses must be taken into consideration: only 51 riders responded to the on-board survey, and the telephone survey of paratransit users was unsuccessful because riders who were contacted were not capable of responding and/or no one able to communicate was available to speak to the surveyor. There are several over considerations regarding data for Me York case study. No f~xed-route service, for which records were available, operated In the Route 13 corridor prior to We implementation of route deviation service; ~us, fixed-route comparison data are based on system averages. Driver manifests for deviations may understate usage because, to save time and resources, not aD riders may be listed if several are picked up at We same location; drivers are familiar with riders and know who to deviate for each day. Given the site-specific nature of LTD's route variations, ciata collection efforts concentrated on the clients of social service agencies who are served by We variations. With We relatively small number of riders involved, a discussion group format was used to gamer input about the variation service. This input was supplemented with interviews of social service agency staff and observations while riding LTD routes. In TCRP B-lA Report IV-13 D rapt Final
addition, route variation and para~ansit cost information was gathered In order to compare costs. To evaluate the Implementation of point deviation service In Lincoln County, several approaches were used: a review of operating data and performance Indicators for CCC service since its introduction In January 1993; an on-board survey of all CCC passengers on all three routes on one weekday; two focus groups, one with Senior Services case managers and outreach workers and one wad clients and staff of the Disability Services Office. COMPARISON OF FINDINGS The following discussion summarizes findings from the Tree case studies and compares Hem across sites and evaluation categories. Implementation issues are also discussed. Where appropriate, findings from the study - Service Routes, Route Deviation, and General Public Paratransit in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Transit Systems by Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom for the Federal Transit Administration, January 1996 - have been Incorporated. Change in Geographic Area Served clue to Implementation of Route Deviation As part of the case studies, there was Interest in finding out how the introduction of route deviation service might impact the percentage of the ADA eligible population served by transit or paratransit due to potential changes In geographic coverage as compared to traditional fixed-route plus complementary paratransit. This issue was raised because, while a corridor of complementary paratransit service 1-~/2 miles wide along f~xed-routes is required by FTA, Mere are no regulations that specifically address how much area route deviation service must cover. Route deviation TCRP B-lA IV-14 Draft Final Report
is simply defined as demand response service in the regulations. Thus, there exists He v potential that He geographic area covered by transit service could change with unplementation of route deviation service. In both York Counter and Lane County, the area covered remained unchanged as a result of route deviation service. Eligible riders were served by either paratransit or route deviation; In both cases, riders who had been using paratransit were shifted to route deviation or variation. No data were available to track usage by persons with disabilities before and after implementation of the CCC service In Lincoln CounW. However, the CCC was the first transit service In Lincoln to be open to the general public. Historically, the DAR service was targeted to seniors. Comparison Between Deviation Ride Times and Paratransit Ride Times As part of the case studies, available data were gathered to compare ride Ones for route deviation to ride Ones for comparable paratransit trips to evaluate any differences. Results were mixed. A comparison of deviation trips to paratransit trips in Community Transit's Route 13 corridor showed ~at, on average, deviation trips were 22 minutes longer than paratransit trips provided In the same corridor. Much of this difference was probably due to He fact Hat most deviation riders were picked up near the furthest eastern or western point of the route, and their workshops were In downtown York. By comparison, the paratransit trips were not as long in miles as the deviation trips. In addidon, paratransit average speed was 17 miles per hour while route deviation averaged I) miles per hour. No data on differences In ride trues were available from LAD. However, LTD staff estimated that paratrans* ride times would be significantly longer than route TCRP B-lA llepor! [V-15 Draft Final
variation ride tines. Since CCC is Me only intercity transit service In Lincoln County, no comparison was possible. Change in Ride Time for Non-Disabled Riders To evaluate the impact of deviation or variation service on general public riders, run dines during deviations/variations were compared to run times when no deviations or variations were occurring. Since York County's Route 13 operates with and without deviation at various time during the day, We published schedule was used to compare ride times with and without deviations. Travel time was computed between the downtown transfer center and furthest point east and west. Traveling east from York, non-de~riation travel dine was 55 minutes; travel time eastbound during deviation was between 65 and 100 minutes [the one eastbound run Mat took 100 minutes occurred once daily]. Traveling west from York, travel time without deviation was about 50 minutes with an increase during deviations to 60 to 75 minutes. Five one-way runs daily on Route 13 were longer than 75 nunutes. Overall, these long turn occur between 5:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Ride time per run during deviations usually did not exceed the non-deviation ride time by more than 20 minutes. In contrast, depending on the route and the length of the variation, LTD variations only added one to five minutes to a run, and variations were not done on aD runs. There was lithe impact on non-disabled riders, and route variation times and locations were shown on LTD timetables. Since CCC was initiated as a point deviation service, comparison of CCC ride times to "non-deviation" ride times is not applicable. The CCC bus schedule is designed to allow the bus to arrive at scheduled stops on dine when deviations are occurring; In TCRP B-IA [v-16 Draft Final Report
over words, deviations are built into Me published schedule. When asked about on time arrival at scheduled stops, 92% of CCC survey respondents said performance was good or excellent, 7% said fair, and I% answered poor. When asked to rate We amount of time resurrect to complete a trip, 93% ~nclicated performance was good or excellent, 6% fair, and I°/0 poor. These results seem to Indicate Mat passengers do not perceive problems with on-time performance or lengthy travel time that could be related to deviations. Average Recoverer Time due to Uncertainty of Deviations Since the number and distance of deviations may vary with different bus runs or from day to clay, case study efforts sought to find out how much time route deviation systems allow for "recovery" - Me time aBoKed to accommodate deviation while still maintaining on-hme performance. The only one of the case studies Mat incorporated any recovery time due to the uncertainly of deviations was CCC in Lincoin County. Lincoln County Transit's CCC service had scheduled stone. The times listed were designed to Incorporate a minimal level of deviations. If there are many deviations on a particular day, on-time performance would suffer. In contrast, ahnost ah of the deviations on Route 13 were standing orders; thus, Mere was little uncertainty about deviations and no need for building In recovery tone. LTD's route variations are not on-demand; they are scheduled In advance and included in timetables. Thus, no recovery time needs to be included. LTD staff do need to ensure that variations do not impact on-Ume performance and driver layover dine. Thus, proposed variations are thoroughly tested before being Implemented. TCRP B-1A Report IV-17 Draft Final
Dr. Rosenbloom's study of fifteen route deviation systems found the following methods for ~ncorporahng recovery time: extra time built into route route runs late if many deviations 2 minutes acIdect at each checkpoint 15 minute quadrant checkpoints allow for deviations 5-7 minutes allowed for each deviation (number of deviations limited by extra time available ~ route) Length of Deviations In aD three case studies, deviations and variations were generally maintained at very short distances off the route, usually just a block or two. For instance, Route 13 deviation distances ranged from O to .4 miles, from puDing in a driveway that's on the route to traveling a few blocks off route. LTD's variations off route ranged from a few ~_ A, tenths of a mile to two miles. The longer variations occurred very few times (sometimes only once) on a daily basis. The CCC would deviate up to 3/4 mile "off-route", the route being basically the highway, which is Me only Trough road between towns. However, most CCC deviations were a few blocks or less. Percentage of Passenger Trins Requiring a Deviation ~v The percentage of passenger trips that Involve deviations ranger! from 25% in c, Lincoln County to 34% In York County. Data were unavailable from Lane County. Dr. Rosenbloom's study of fifteen route deviation systems founcl that the percentage of deviation ridership varied from 2% to 30%. TCRP B-1A Repor! IV-~8 Draft Final
Reluctance or Hesitancy to Request Deviations Through surveys and discussion groups, the case studies sought to determine the extent to which riders win disabilities hesitated or were reluctant to request or utilize deviations clue to their concerns about ~nconven~ertc~ng other passengers. Such reluctance, if significant, could unp act the effectiveness of route deviation service. On-boarc3 surveys were conducted in York County and T~ncoIn County and results indicated that there was little or no hesitancy or reluctance to request deviations due to concern about inconveniencing other passengers. In Lane County, focus group results supported this finding. Survey results are summarized below. . . TCRP B-1A Report Of 51 respondents to a Route 13 rider survey (representing only 16% of total Route 13 ridership for the two day survey period), 15 Indicated that they used Me deviation service all or most of the time they rode. Of these 15, lust 4 agreed with the statement that they were reluctant to use or request deviations because they did not want to Inconvenience other passengers. Given the site-specific nature of LTD's route variation service and the relatively small number of riciers involved, a discussion group format was used to gather rider input about the service. Discussions were supplemented with interviews of social service agency staff and observations while riding LTD routes. Social service agency staff identify clients appropriate for riding route variation, and being able to use the bus instead of paratransit is viewed bv staff and riders as a key step to Independence. In discussion groups most ~ ~ , riders indicated that the bus allows them to travel to shopping, theater, and to visit friends and family. Another benefit for var~abon riders is often enhanced IV-19 Draft Final
safety since variations often mean riders no longer must cross a busy street. No riders indicated that they had any hesitation about using the variation service. . To obtain input about the CCC service In Lincoln County, focus groups were held with Senior Services staff (primarily case managers) ant] riders with disabilities. In addition, art on-board survey was conducted on aB three CCC routes on one weekday. A total of 89 completed surveys were returned. Of the 25% of respondents (22 persons) who caned ahead] for an "off-route" pickup, 13 (15% of all respondents) indicated that they are not able to meet the bus at a schedule stop because of a physical Iimitabon or disability. Based on focus group input, riders view the CCC as offering enough flexibility to allow everyone to access the service. No riders expressed any hesitancy about requesting "off-route" pick-ups. Opinions of RicIers not Using Deviations Based on survey results it floes not appear Mat the general public perceives itself to be excessively inconvenienced by deviations; riders perceive that the deviation service is Integral to the route and Is useful for some riclers. Two-~irds of the 36 non cleviation riders who responclec3 to We Route 13 survey in York County perceived the deviation service as useful for Nose who need it; 14% agreed with the statement that the deviation service makes trip take longer, and 19% agreed that the deviations made the service Inconvenient. In Lincoin County, 83 out of 84 respondents (99%) rating on-time performance Indicated that it was fair, goocI, or excellent; no comments were made TCRP B-lA Report IV-20 Draft Final
about problems with on-time performance. No survey of general public riders was concluctec3 In Lane Counter. Complaints In aB three case studies, complaints relatecI to deviation or variation service were minima. Community Transit logged only four complaints In an entire year that might be related to alleviations. Social service agencies in Lane Counter reported that any operational problems were quickly resolved with I~TD staff. In Lincoln Counter, on boarcI survey respondents who provided comments were entirely complimentary, and seance suggestions consisted of requests for more frequent service and expanded hours. Opinions about Route Deviation Compared to Paratransit Attempts were made to gather data during the case studies to compare rider perceptions of route deviation service versus paratransit service. Did they perceive the deviations as less convenient or did they view Me ability to use fixed-route service as increased mobility? Very lithe data was available to evaluate rider opinions about deviations versus paratransit; however, the input that was gathered Indicates that route deviation service is preferred. In York Count, only eight Route 13 survey respondents indicated that Hey had used paratransit prior to using Route 13. This smog number of responses limits ~-r ~ He conclusions that can be cirawn. When comparing He two services based on the number of places they could go and the frequency of service, Hey were split evenly between Route 13 being better than paratransit and no difference. Only one respondent indicated Hat paratransit had been better win regard to places he/she was able to go. TCRP B-lA Report IV-21 Draft Final
Based on Input from social service agency staff and TED route variation riclers, the ability to use the fixeci-route bus was unanimously viewed as a key to mobility and independent living. In focus groups about CCC service and DAR in Lincoln County, riders indicated that the CCC service, win its reliable, schecluled stop service between towns, complemented the demand response service offered within towns by volunteers. increase In Operating Miles and Hours Due to Deviations Overall, miles and hours added to accommodate deviations and variations were not significant relative to overall operations, but the increases did impact operating costs. The additional miles and hours and resulting annual cost impact are summar~zeci In the table below. Since CCC in Lincoin County was implemented from the beginIiing as a point deviation service no comparison data were available. Paratransit Demand Pacts Data coDechon efforts for these case studies focused on gathering financial and operating data to answer the question - Can Implementation of route deviation service reduce demand for paratransit service? Based on information gathered In York County and Lane County, the answer Is yes. In York County, paratransit demand In the Route 13 corridor fen by 50% after implementation of route cleviation service. In Lane County, the case study found that, if no route variation service were provided, at least 31 ciaily paratransit trips would be added. The table below shows the cost of those paratransit trips that would have to be provided if route deviation service were not available. TCRP B-lA Report IV-22 Draft Final
Table IVY Additional Miles/Hours and Annual Cost Impacts Location Miles Added for Hours Added for Cost per Annual Deviations Deviations Hour Additional Cost of Deviations ark County 1 16 daily 2.5 daily 1 $37.38 1 $ 9,867 51,109 annually 531.5 annually Lane County 6.2 daily 0.55 daily $35.00 $ 4,813 1,549 annually 137.5 annually 1 1 11 TCRP B-1A Report IV-23 Draft Final
Table IV-2. Cost of Paratransit Service without Route Deviation , . . Number of Added Cost per trip of Annual Cost of Paratransit Trips Paratransit Service Additional Paratransit assuming No Route Trips Deviation York County 1 15,138 1 $ 7.70 T $116,562 Lane County 1 7 750 1 $12.96 T $100,440 TCRP B-1A Report IV-24 Draft Final
Since l incoln County Transit implemented CCC as a new intercity point deviation service In adctition to the existing ~ntracity DAR, this demand analysis is not applicable for their case study. Economic Evaluation Since the route deviation service provided In these three case studies was designed to be able to serve persons with disabilities, one of the focuses of the case study evaluation was on Me extent to which savings might result from a reduction in the number of paratransit trips clue to provision of route deviation instead of traditional fixect-route plus complementary paratransit. As part of conducting the case studies, financial data was gathered to estate the costs associated with implementing route deviation service; these costs were In turn compared to the costs of provic3mg traditional fixed-route and complementary paratransit to cleterm3ne whether or not a savings resulted. In the case of Lincoln County, this analysis was not applicable since there has never been traditional fixed-route service In Lincoln County; In fact, because the Introduction of CCC represented an expansion of transit service, transit operating expenses increased by $190,000 annually (a 78% rise). It should be noted, however, that Lincoln County Transit staff felt that they would not have been able to afford to provide ntercity transit service had Hey only the option to introduce traditional fixed-route service with complementary paratransit. In both York County and Lane County, however, this economic evaluation Is applicable. In York County, the evaluation was somewhat limited by the fact that no operating or financial data existed on a non-deviation Route 13; however, systemwide TCRP B-lA Report IV-25 Draft Final
Table IV-3. Cost Elements of Paratransit ant! Route Deviation . . . .. 1 Cost Element York Counter Lane County Additional cost to provide route deviation or variation service $ 19,867 $ 4,813 Cost of para~ansit Hips Mat would be required if no $116,562 $100,440 deviation or variation service provided Net savings 1 $96,695 1 $95,627 TCRP B-1A Report IV-26 Draft Final
Community Transit fixed-route data were used to estimate Me cost of traditional f~xed- route service. For Lane County, only the additional cost of providing route variation service was available. Thus, the table below shows the foDow~ng for York County and Lane County, the additional cost of adding deviation or variation service, the cost of paratrans* if the deviations or variations were not provided, and the net difference (which turns out to be a significant savings in both cases). Supporting the findings above, Dr. Rosenbloom's research found Mat most systems would achieve savings, sometimes substantial, by implementing one or more route deviation services ~ ven certain assumptions. The assumptions are that tibe total costs to the system of implementing route cleviation would be only 20% more than providing the basic fixed-route service and that Me services would neither attract nor repel non-ADA nders. This finding also assumes that paratransit can be purchased on a unit basis. Of the fifteen systems offering some type of route deviation service reviewed by Dr. Rosenbloom, few hac! available the detailed cost or ridership information to allow an accurate evaluation of cost savings. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED The implementation of deviations on Route 13 In York, Pennsylvania, coincided with consolidation of fixed-route and paratransit services under one entity. The fact that Community Transit manages both fixed-route and paratransit services meant that staff could easily transfer riders who could not be served by fixed route deviation to the paratransit program. Because deviations were predictable (almost all are standing orders), on-time performance and scheduling problems were minimized. Another key factor In York was Me support of Me social service agencies. Hey were instrumental In TCRP B-lA [v-27 Draft Final Report
the success of Route 13 because they provided travel training to clients identified as appropriate for the service and worked win clients' families to reassure them with regard to safety issues. LID and the social service agencies whose clients use route variations have formed a partnership that assists each orgariization In achieving goals of independent living and reduction of paratransit demand. Open communication between social service agencies and LID reduces operational problems. The social service agencies willingly provide clients with the travel training needed to use LTD; these agencies are always working to identify potential LID riders, and this is especially helpful in reducing demand for paratransit. For their part, LID provides bus operators with training in how to serve persons with different types of disabilities, often soliciting social service agencies/clients to assist with this effort. The point deviation service introduced by Lincoin County Transit responded to an identified need for ~ntercity general public bans* service that is reliable and consistent, and enables persons wad disabilities to ride. Traditional f~xed-route service, combined with ADA complementary paratransit service, would have been cost- prohibitive; however, the CCC service has turned out to be a cost effective way to meet the ~nterc~ty travel needs of both the general public and persons with disabilities. One important implementation issue identified in discussion groups with nders, was marketing and information dissemination. These riders felt Mat riclership could be increased with the addition of outreach efforts and public education about the availability of "off-route" pick-ups and drop-offs. The issue of additional funding for We CCC service was also problematic. Voters supported Me formation of a transit TCRP B-IA [V-28 Draft Final Report
authority to operate service but defeated a proposal for a modest parcel tax to fund transit. APPLICABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY The route deviation/variation/point deviation services provided by Community Transit, LTD, and Lincoln County Transit are consistent with the following objectives that were the focus of the B-! evaluations. provide accessible integrated service complying with the ADA; facilitate the appropriate use of paratransit service; and, support service or system enhancements to encourage travel on accessible fixec3-route by persons with disabilities. In the case of Community Transit, riders who use route deviation would be riding paratransit or not traveling at aD if deviation service were not available. The same can be said for LTD route variation riders. CCC "off-route" riders wouIc3 have no way to travel between towns if not for the point elevation service. The ~ntegrabon of fixed-route anct paratransit under these three systems enables schedulers and dispatchers to appropriately guide riders to either deviation/variation or paratransit service. The route deviation service in York does not represent "pure" route deviation; however, the service is an adaptation targeted to meet the travel demands of persons with disabilities who need transportation from outlying rural and suburban areas to city centers. Conditions that contributed to the success of route deviation service In York include: regular flee d-route service had not been provided along Me route in the recent past, and so the public expectations had not been establisher! regarding ride time and TCRP B-lA Report IV-29 Draft Final
route; Community Transit's route deviations occur primarily ~ rat areas where flexible routing is more acceptable than it would be In a more densely populated area. The site specific route variation service provided by LID evolved over time as a response to requests for fixed route service to particular locations. While Me research suggests mat pure route deviation service is usually not feasible in medium and large urban areas, short variations involving straightforward routing and predictable running time can often be accommodated. Depending on the populations being served, the result may be a reduction In demand for complementary parab ansit. Systems with the following conditions or operating environment may want to consider implementation of site specific route variations: . . . Destinations that attract multiple riders with disabilities once or twice per day on a regular basis. The ability to serve a variation with only one or two trips daily ensures good productivity. Variation sites that are close to an existing fixed route, don't involve circuitous routing, and for which the time Involved would not impact built-~n recovery time or layover time. Social service agencies Mat focus on independent living skills and can provide travel training anti a supportive environment for riders. The CCC mode] in Lincoln County is applicable in rural areas with spread-out population centers and services where: . TCRP B-1A Report the long trip distances involved make demand-response-only service operationally difficult; and IV-30 Draft Final
. the Implementation of traclitional f~xed-route combined with para~ansit would not be cost effective. Incorporating navel training, or some type of buddy system, into Me ongoing operation of point cleviation service wouic3 be helpful to give potential users a "comfort level" with the schecluled stop nature of the service and to encourage usage of the ciev~ation aspect of the service. Clear and consistent communication about scheduled stops is essential since most riders will not be familiar with this type of bans* service. Evaluation Issues Several factors must be considered when evaluating the transferability of results from the Community Transit case study: . . Since 51 surveys were returned by Route 13 riders, survey results are not statistically significant and should be viewed only in the context of this particular study. No f~xed-route service (for which records were available) operated In the Route 13 corridor prior to the implementation of route deviation service. Therefore, fixed-route comparison data is based on system averages. · Driver manifests for deviations may understate usage because, to save We and resources, not ad riders may be listed if several are picked up at the same locations. Drivers are familiar with riders and know who to deviate for each day. With regard to the case studies In Lane County and Lincoln County, it should be noted mat the number of riders Involved is relatively small (45 daily route variation hips for LTD and 21,000 annual CCC riders in Lincoln Countr). Also, case study TCRP B-1A Report IV-31 Draf! Final
evaluation methodology was based on input from informal discussion groups with the addition of an on-board survey In LincoIn County. Data to compare route deviation service to paratransit was not reaclily available in either case. However, In spite of these limiting factors, Me route variation and point deviation models developed in Lane County and T~ncoin County represent a successful integration of persons with disabilities in public transit, and may be useful models for developing new approaches to transit service In similar areas. TCRP B-1A Repor! IV-32 Draft Final
