|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 125
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
OCR for page 126
.
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
OCR for page 127
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
OCR for page 128
~ - ~
-
c'
· -
- -
~v
A:
u,
TCRP B-1A
Report
sol
O
i,,
~
O
_.
P6 ~
.~
,
shy
D14
-
~-L
o
- ¢z
, C, o
Drap Final
OCR for page 129
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
OCR for page 130
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
OCR for page 131
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
OCR for page 132
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
OCR for page 133
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
OCR for page 134
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
OCR for page 135
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
OCR for page 146
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
OCR for page 147
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
OCR for page 148
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
OCR for page 149
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
OCR for page 150
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
OCR for page 151
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
OCR for page 152
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
OCR for page 153
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
OCR for page 154
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
OCR for page 155
.
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
OCR for page 156
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
deviation service
