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 VI FARE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FINDINGS Fare incentive programs have been considered by a number of transit agencies In recent years as a cost-effective approach for encouraging persons who are "conclitionaDy ADA paratransit eligible" to select fixed route service as their mode of travel. A survey of North American transit systems in 1993 found that 24 transit systems were currently offering some form of fixed route fare incentive and Hat another 34 systems were considering changing their fare structures to offer such incentives. As described in "Traps* Operations for Individuals with Disabilities," the companion document to this evaluation and case study report, "fare incentives" are definer! to be fare reductions that exceed mandatory off-peak half-fare programs. This might include offering half-fare on the fixed route system at all hours rather than only during off-peak hours. More typically, it might mean offering free fare on fixed route service as part of a special promotion or on an ongoing basis. Defined more broadly, "fare Incentives" refer not only to Be level of fare on one mode but to the relationship of fares on ah mocles. Free fare on a fixed route system would have limited effectiveness if free travel was also provided on paratransit. 1 EG&G Dynatrend and Craven & Associates Inc., Transit Operations for Individuals with Disabilities, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jar~uary, 1994. TCRP B-lA VI-! Draft Final Report
Similarly, a financial incentive to use fixed route service can be created simply by raising paratransit fares in relation to fixed route fares.2 The purpose of such programs is to make Fred route travel a financially attractive alternative to use of the paratransit service. Individuals who are eligible for paratransit service but who can sometimes make trips on the fixed route system are encouraged to select the fixed route option. The use of financial incentives can reduce the need for trip-by-trip eligibility determination since the rider self-selects the mode that is appropriate and less costly. For non-subscription trips and infrequently macle trips (where doing trip-by-trip eligibility determination can be operationally difficulty, fare incentive programs are an enhancement that can help to ensure the appropriate use of paratransit service. A comprehensive review of fare incentive programs in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Miami, Florida and Tulsa, Oklahoma, produced Me following key findings: . . 2 All five programs appear to have resulted in cost savings. Savings in Ann Arbor and Austin were perhaps Me greatest as a percent of total system budgets, totaling close to $207,000 per year in Ann Arbor and over $1,500,000 in Austin. Offering free fares can encourage riders to shift some of Weir trips to Me fixed route service. This shift In mode appears to be greatest where the fixer! route Regulations issued by Me U.S. Department of Transportation in September of 1991 which implement the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 pennit ADA paratrar~sit fares to be up to twice the fare for a comparable hip on the fixed route system. TCRP B-lA VI-2 Draft Final Repor!
system is more accessible and where other service enhancements, such as travel training, are available to assist riders In using buses. Eligible individuals are less likely to adjust Weir established travel patterns based on limited time, special promotion fare Incentive programs. Free fare programs appeared to generate additional travel on transit by persons with disabilities. In Austin, over one million new rides per year were recorded by persons with disabilities who qualified for the free fare program. Other sites recorded riclership by persons with disabilities two to five times greater than the estimated number of trips shifted from paratransit service. A loss of revenue from existing fixed route riders paying half-fares shifting to the new free fare incentive programs was documented In most cases. This loss of revenue is, In most cases, a fraction of the potential paratransit cost savings. Politically, however, such a loss of revenue may be difficult to justify or sustain. · Firming free fares to ADA paratransit eligibility can result In an increase In the number of persons requesting eligibility certification. A strict eligibility determination process should be implemented before free fares are offered. This impact can also be controlled by limited free fare marketing to current paratransit riders or by offering free fares to a broader population. CASE STUDY SITES From the list of transit systems known to be using fare incentives to promote fixed route travel, five were selected for detailed evaluation. Priority was given In the selection of case stucly sites to those systems that were offering more than an extended half-fare program. The following five systems were selected because they indicated that TCRP B-IA VI-3 Draft Final Report
they provide free fixed route fares for persons determined to be ADA paratransit eligible or to a broader group of persons win disabilities: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Capital Metro Transit Authority, Austin, Texas. Greater Bridgeport Transit District, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Metro Dade Transit Agency, Miami, Florida. Tulsa Transit, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The information and findings in this report are based on ciata and information collected during on-site visits conducted between 1994 and 1996. formation about services In Bridgeport is based on an on-site review in 1994. Data on services In Ann Arbor, Austin, Miami, and Tulsa was gathered in 1996. Table VI-! provides selected population, fixed route, and paratransit service information for each of the systems at the time of the on-site visit. Following is a brief description of each systems' fare incentive program and information about over related efforts to encourage use of fixed route services Greater Bridgeport Transit District The Greater Bridgeport Transit District (GBTD) provides faced route and paratransit services to the corn unities of Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, and TurnbuD. Located in southwest Connecticut, these communities have a combined population of 276,509. GBTD operates 16 faced bus routes throughout its service area. This service is provided by a fleet of 53 transit buses. In 1994, ~irty-nine of these buses (or 74%) were equipped with both wheelchair-lifts and kneeling capability. TCRP B-lA VI-4 Draft Final Report ,.
Table VI-~. Selected Service and Demographic Information for Case Study Sites | Service Area | Number of | Annual | Annual L Population Fixed Route Fixed Route Paratransit (1990) Buses Ridership Ridership Ann Arbor Transportation Authority | 189,000 | 57 T 3,80 ),0003 ~154,6183 ~ Capi~Me~o Transit Authority 1 550,600 1 300 1 19,13i,6~ 1 462,0002 [ Greater Bridgeport Transit District 276,500 53 5,029,751 ~112,563i Metro Dade Transit Agency ~ 1,735,000 ~629 ~81,68',1001 ~765,0002 Tulsa Transit 362,000 79 2,773,4722 208,8892 ~ FY1994 data 2 FY1995 data 3 FY1996 data TCRP B-lA VI-5 Draft Final Report
GBTD also provides several different demand responsive services. Complementary paratransit service is provided In accordance with ADA requirements. This required service is supplemented by transportation provided under contract to two local human service agencies. The Southwestern Connecticut Agency on Aging purchases medical transportation for Bridgeport residents. Similarly, the City of Bridgeport contracts for additional non-ADA trips for city residents. AH paratransit services are provided as part of a regional coordinated transportation program. GBTD has been able to provide a high quality, cost-effective paratransit service that has met most of the ADA paratransit service criteria since its inception In 1979. The service has always been In compliance with the service area, fare, and trip purpose criteria of the ADA. In July of 1992, morning hours were extended slightly to match fixed route operating hours. In July of 1994, evening hours were expanded slightly to match fixed route hours and to bring the paratransit program Into compliance with this ADA criteria. Finally, the GBTD paratransit service has not employed trip caps or waiting lists. However, during 1992 and early 1993 when paratransit demand was Increasing dramatically, the service was capacity constrained. With a dramatic reduction In ridership growth in 1994, the GBTD no longer reports trip denials or over capacity constraints. Because of uncertain n future funding, the GBTD did not claim compliance with the ADA's capacity constraint criteria until July of 1995. :~ the Spring of 1993, the GBTD took delivery of 38 new accessible fKed route transit buses. These vehicles replaced older lift-equipped buses In the fleet. To advertise Me arrival of these new accessible fixed route buses, to educate the public to the fact that more persons with disabilities would be riding the system, and to inform TCRP B-lA VI-6 Draft Final Report
riders about the ongoing travel training program, Me GBTD began a major marketing campaign In May of 1993. The campaign featured exterior bus signs and interior car cards showing persons with a variety of disabilities using the fixed route system. Space was also donated on several billboards In the city for similar displays. Two newsletters were prepared and sent to ad registered paratransit customers. A feature story on riders who used the fixed route service was published In the local newspaper and spots were prepared and run on local radio stations. As part of the fixed route bus marketing promotion, the GBTD advertised that free bus service would be provided to customers who had been determined ADA paratransit eligible and who had an ADA paratransit I.D. card. Free service was first advertised as a limited promotion for the month of May. In a further effort to promote fixed route use, the fares for paratransit service were increased from $.50 per trip to $~.00 per Hip as part of a system-wide fare revision. The increase In paratransit fares was made effective the same time as the free fare program was introduced. Fixed route fares were also raised at this time from $.75 to $.85. Table VI-2 shows the changes in the fixed route and paratransit fare structure before and after May 1,1993. As noted, the base fixed route fare, and the corresponding statewide half-fare for seniors and persons with disabilities, was also increased slightly. Based on the success of the one month promotion ancE general positive feedback received from the community, the GBTD decided to continue to offer free fixed route service to persons determined ADA paratransit eligible. Free fares were continued through 1994. In January of 1995 the free fare program was discontinued. As discussed TCRP B-1A VI-7 Draft Final Report
Table VI-2. F~xecI-Route and Paratransit Fares Before and After May I, 1993 . _ ._ . Fares Before Fares After . May 1,1993 ~May 1,1993 ~ ~, Full fixed-route fare | $.75 1 $.85 ConnDOT half fare on fKed-route $.35 $.40 . Fixed-route fare for persons determined ADA paratransit . eligible ~N/A ~$0 Paratrans~t fare | $.50 | $1.00 .. . TCRP B-IA VI-S Draft Final Report
later, the programs unpacts on fixed route revenues anct on requests for ADA paratransit eligibility were major factors in its discontinuation. Faced with growing demand for paratrans* service, the GBTD introduced several other service enhancements. These included an extensive travel training program and a trip planning service. In June of 1991, GBTD began working with Me Kennedy Center, a local non-profit agency providing rehabilitation and habilitation services for people with a varieW of disabilities, to develop a travel training program in the Greater Bridgeport area. The program was partially funded by first and second round Project ACTION grants3. Capital Metro, Austin' Texas Capital Metro serves the City of Austin and surrounding suburban communities. The total population of the area is 550,599. There has been strong support for public transit service In Austin. This is evidenced by Me extensive bus network and generous transit budget. Capital Metro also has a long history of promoting fixed route use by persons with disabilities. In the 1980s, there was a strong local chapter of ADAPT that Bushed hard for fixed route access instead of expansive paratransit service. There are currently ~ rid 300 fixed route buses In the system. AB are accessible (including the historic trolleys on downtown "Ditto" routes). Fixed route service has been fully accessible since 1993. 3 For more detailed information about travel training programs developed by the Kennedy Center and Me GBTD, see The Kennedy Center, Inc., People Accessing Community Transit (PA CTJ, Project ACTION/NIAT, Washington, D.C., undated. TCRP B-1A VI-9 Draft Final Report
In addition to having lifts on ah fixed route vehicles, Were has been condnu~g focus on other aspects of the operation to ensure a reliable and accessible service. The driver trairiing program was revamped in 1989 with the assistance of the Austin Resource Center for Independent Living, Inc. (ARCIL). Capital Metro also has a good lift maintenance program. Attention is given to the daily lift cycling requirement (which is done by drivers before they start their shifts). In a system that has 6,000 to 6,500 lift boardings per month, there are approximately 20 failures per month. To provide riders with a guarantee of service, if there is a breakdown anct the next bus win be more than 30 minutes, Road Supervisors win respond to provide transport using accessible vans. Capital Metro also monitors stop announcements closely (although they still report problems getting drivers to do daisy. To encourage announcements, they have printed decals for the Inside of the bus that let the public know why stop announcements are caned out. The decals read "Capital Metro is committed to Me Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Operators win provide assistance by announcing stops and ensuring a safe riding experience." The decals are the length of standard "car cards" ant! about SK inches high. By Feting the riding public know that this is a service that is supposed to be provicLed, it is felt that drivers win be more responsible about making announcements. Marketing efforts have also been used to promote fixed route use by persons with disabilities. Instead of separate, targeted marketing, Capital Metro has ~ntegratecl riclers with disabilities into their TV spots, brochures, etc. They fee! that this type of integrated marketing is more In keeping with the goals of the ADA. TCRP B-lA VI-IO Draff Final Repor!
Two travel training programs have been implemented. The first was introduced in 1990. It is a peer training program that is offered by the independent living center (ARCIL) under contract to Capital Metro. The program focuses on training persons with physical disabilities. Capital Metro provides $50,000 In support each year. Approximately 200 people are trained each year. The second travel training effort is a program that supports existing travel training at various agencies In the area. Currently, Capital Metro is providing $5,000 per year to five different agencies. An "Inter-local Agreement" is signed with each agency that calls for 50 additional persons to be trained each year (above and beyond any current training efforts). Uncler the agreement, Capital Metro also provides complementary tickets for trainers for the fixed route service, and trains trainers about the fixecE route system (routes, schedules, policies, etc.~. Capital Metro relies on this program to enhance training efforts for persons win cognitive disabilities and vision · - unpa~rments. Capital Metro also provides an expanded customer information service to assist riclers with disabilities with trip planning. Customer service staff not only provide route and schedule information, but have information available about amenities (benches and shelters) at stops, and information about the availability of sidewalks and curb-cuts. Sidewalk and curb-cut information has been developed with the assistance of the City Public Works office. As part of a broader "Build Greater Aus - ' program, Capital Metro provides funding to the City to build sidewalks and ~nstaD cur~cuts. Since 1985, about $750,000 per year has been ~rovicled which funds about 1.000 sidewalk and curie-cut TCRP B-1A - r VI-~1 Draft Final Report
Improvements. Capital Metro identifies locations for these improvements which support the accessible bus system and which are located in areas where riders have noted they need to travel. The Special Transit Service (STS) is Capital Metro's paratransit service. It has been operated since 1976. Until January of 1992, STS was provided to persons with disabilities and persons 70 years of age or older. With the unplementation of ADA paratransit service In January of 1992, Me age qualifier was dropped. The paratransit service is operated in-house with a mix; of vans and sedans. Prior to 1990, some paratransit service was contracted out to taxi providers. In 1990, sedans were purchased and aD service was provided In-house. The fully aDocatec! cost per trip was calculated to be $15.50. ADA paratransit eligibility is determined using an application form and a required professional verification. The process is not very strict. Of Me 200+ requests for certification received each month, Mere are 1-2 denials of eligibility. Conditions of eligibility are not identified; persons are determined either eligible for all trip requests or ineligible for any requests. There were 8,194 registered riders In April of 1996. About 1,500 of these are considered "regular riders." The ID cards issued to STS riders do not have photos (even Dough they can be shown to get a free fixed route ride). l~ough the 1980s, Capital Metro limited the capacity of the STS program. This was done to support efforts to promote use of the fixed route service. Currently, about 6% of trip requests are denied. Capital Metro does not consider this a "capacity constraint." The 1996 ADA Plan Update Indicated fuB compliance with aD items except the 14 day advance reservation requirement. TCRP B-1A VI-12 Draft Final Report
Capital Metro In Austin, Texas has provided free fixed route travel for paratransit eligible riders (as wed as other persons with disabilities) since October of 1989. The program grew out of a 14 month system-wide free fare test. Free fares for the general public were first introduced in October of 1989 as a three month test. In January of 1990, a decision was made to extend the demonstration program for another year. During 1990, however, Capital Metro experienced problems with the free fare service. Although they experienced increased fixed route ridership, there were problems with increased crime and vagrancy. A decision was made to eliminate the program effective January, 1991. While free fares for Me general public were eliminated, Key decided to continue to offer free fixed route service to seniors (65+), persons with mobility impairments ("MI riders") and persons registered for the STS program. This decision was made specifically to reduce demand on the paratransit service. Following is the fare schedule that has been In place since January of 1991: Tulsa Transit, Tulsa, Oklahoma Tulsa Transit provides fixed route and paratransit service In Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tulsa had a 1990 population of 362,000 persons. Services are provided with a total of 79 full size coaches, 35 vans and about 65 taxicabs. Fourteen (14) local fKed routes are operated directly by Tulsa Transit. Local fixer} route service (including contracted service) is 100% accessible and has been since 1991. MCT coaches used for Me express services from park & ride lots are the only fixed route vehicles not lift equipped. Several different types of demand responsive services are provided through contracts with local private and non-profit companies. ADA paratransit, called the TCRP B-IA VI-13 Draft Final Report
Table VI-3. Capital Metro Transit Fares Since January, 1991 . .. .. . . . _ Local fixed route 50 cents. Book of 20 tickets for $5.00 25 cents for students Free for seniors (65+), persons with mobility impairments, and persons with STS cards Express bus $1.00 50 cents for students Free for seniors (65~), persons with mobility impairments, and persons win STS cards "Dillos" (downtown trolleys) Free STS Paratransit Service 60 cents. Book of 10 tickets for $3.00 TCRP B-lA V-14 Draft Final Report
LIFT, is provided by a local for-profit taxi and van company. Tulsa Transit also contracts with 13 local non-profit agencies to provide about 140,000 passenger trips to senior residents for medical, nutrition, shopping, and other purposes. Funny, In cooperation with about 25 local heath clinics and agencies, and a major medical center, Tulsa Trans* contracts for medical transportation for low-~ncome individuals. About 600 trips are provided each month under these Heady Care and Medical Center transportation programs. The LIFT service was operated prior to the ADA. Eligibility before 1992 was based on a list of 16 qualifying disabilities. A physician's certification of disability was required. The current LIFT edibility process involves a self-certification and a professional verification. Most applicants are determined unconditionally eligible. In some limited cases, conditional eligibility has been provided for Dings such as night blindness. About I-2% of aD applicants are determined to be not eligible. A photo ID card has always been issuer} for LIFT service (so this was not an addecI expense when the free fare program was ~nboduced). Recertification is completed every four years. LIFT sernce is provided to ad origins and destinations In the city rather than In the minimum ADA corridors. As of January, 1996, there were 4,357 persons eligible for the LIFT service (~.2% of Me total service area population). Between 14,000 and ~ 6,000 paratransit trips are provided per month. 70% of THEFT riders are 65 years of age or older. The LIFT appears to be a mature service with high market penetration and a high number of trips per eligible person. Staff reports that hey deny very few (if any) trips and haven't since 1990. The service is reported to be in full compliance with ADA paratransit service criteria. TCRP B-1A VI-15 Draft Final Report
LIFT service is contracted to a local taxi company. Service is provided with a combination of taxis and accessible vans. Cost per trip, including capital costs but not Tuisa Transit administrative costs, is only $9.94 ($1,79S,474/~180,914 trips per year). Customers reported some problem with driver sensitivity ancE some problem with on- time performance, but overall, the service seemed to be thought of as good. During the study period, there was one minor change In LIFT service design. In January of 1992 (7 months after the free fare service was introduced), the hours of LIFT service were expanded. Before 1/92, service was provided weekdays from 7am until 7 pm and Saturdays from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm. Beginning In January of 1992, service was provided weekdays from 4:30 am until 8:30 pm and Saturdays from 5:30am until 8:30pm. The major Impact of this extension of hours was that it enabled additional dialysis trips to be accommodated. Tulsa Transit has provided free fixed route service to persons who are paratransit eligible since June of 1991. The free fare program was originally intended to encourage use of newly purchased accessible buses and was continued due to its success. There were a number of fixed route and paratransit fare changes during the study period. On April 1, 1991,two months before free fares were introduced, paratransit fares were increased from 60 cents to $1.00. An additional $1.00 was also charged after this time for "win cars." Free fares were then introduced on June 1, 1991. In July of 1992, Me fare for paratransit "will calls" was reduced from $2.00 to $1.50. On November 1, 1992, feed route fares increased from 60 cents to 75 cents. Finally, on TCRP B-lA VI-16 Draft Final Report
April 15, 1994, LIFT fares were increased from $~.00 to $~.50 and Me extra charge for "win cans" was eliminated. Table VI-4 below summarizes these changes. To encourage fixed route use, Tulsa Transit has also aDowed PCAs who accompany riciers with disabilities (either half fare or free fare riclers) to ride free of charge. Metro Dade Transit Agency The Metro Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) provides bus, rapid rail, peoplemover, and paratransit service In Dade County. A total of 629 buses are operated on 70 routes. There is also a 21 mile elevated, heavy rail service (the Me~orail) that operates from the downtown out to the southwest and northwest parts of the county. A fury-automated peoplemover system (Metromover) also operates over 4.4 miles of track In the downtown. The Metrorai] and Metromover services are functionary accessible. Only about a Bird of the bus system (22 of the 70 routes) is accessible, however. Customers and MDTA staff also noted that there are other problems with the accessibility of the bus service. There are continuing problems with stop announcements, general driver sensitivity, ant! lift maintenance. Paratransit service is provided by the Special Transportation Service (STS) program. This program serves persons who are determined ADA paratransit eligible as wed as those who are "transportation disadvantaged" under the Florida TD program. Paratransit service is also provided to Medicaid eligible persons and offer human service agency clients as part of the statewide coordinated transportation program. TCRP B-lA VI-17 Draft Final Report
Table VIM. Summary of Tulsa Transit Fare Changes, 1991-1996 Date l Fixed Route Fares LIFT Fares 60 cents ~ before 3/31/91 30 cents for seniors and riders 60 cents for all trips with disabilides 60 cents 4/1/91 to 5/31/91 30 cents for seniors and riders $1.00 with disabilities ($2.00 for "will calls") ~ , 60 cents 6/1/91 to 6/30/92 30 cents for seniors and riders $1.00 with disabilities ($2.00 for "will calls") Free for LIT riders 60 cents 7/1/92 to 10/31/92 30 cents for seniors and riders $1.00 with disabilities ($1.50 for "will calls") Free for LIT riders 75 cents 11/1/92 to 4/15/94 35 cents for seniors and riders $1.00 with disabilities ($1.50 for "will calls") Free for LIFT riders . . _ 75 cents 4/15/94 to present 35 cents for seniors and riflers $1.50 for all trips with disabilities Free for LIFI riders TCRP B-1A VI-~S Draft Final Report
A total of 15,325 persons were eligible for STS service In March of 1996. Eligibility is determ~necI through ~n-person interviews of applicants and physician verification of clisability. Interviews are conducted by MDTA staff and ah applicants are required to appear for an interview. From December, 1995 Trough March of 1996, about 466 eligibility interviews were scheduled each month. Only about 363 interviews were conducted each month (the remaining appointments were canceled or applicants did not show up). For Me same period In 1994/5, there were an average of 578 Interviews scheduled and 441 conducted each month. About 63,780 one-way Hips are provided each month by the STS program (765,360 a year). Annual operating costs (direct operator cost plus brokerage fee) is about $13,720,495. This figure does not include MDTA administrative costs. The average operating cost per trip is therefore about $17.93. To encourage use of the fixed route service, MDTA began the "Medicaid Metropass Program" in May of 1993. This program made monthly Metropasses available to Medicaid eligible STS riders who used Me paratransit service at least three times per month and were wiring to give up their right to use paratransit service In return for the fixed route passes. A similar program, called the "STS Options Program," was started In October of 1994. Under this second program, the offer of fixed route passes was extended to all regular and frequent STS riciers. As of June, 1996, there were 265 STS riders who had opted for Metropasses. MDTA staff estimated that there was a savings of about $31,000 per month from this program. This is based on an analysis that found that the average rider in the program made about 9.77 one-way trips per month. TCRP B-1A VI-19 Draft Final Report
MDTA provides group training for local agency clients interested In learning how to better use Me fixed route service. After providing this "orientation training," MDTA then offers to provide "train-the-tra~ner" Instruction to local agency staff so that ongoing assistance can be provided to clients. Free Metropasses are provided to local agency clients who are receiving travel training. There is also a limited effort underway to identify areas needing curb-cuts in conjunction with the county ADA office and public works department. There have been two fare Increases In the STS program since last August. STS fares were increased from $2.00 per trip to $2.50 per trip In August of 1995. In January of 1996, MDTA began considering transfers in Me calculation of ADA pare transit fares. Theoretically, fares can now range from $2.50 to trip up to $4.00 per trip. On average, though, MDTA staff estates that the average fare Is now $2.67 rather than $2.50. Table VI-5 summarizes fixed route and paratransit fares and changes since last August. A free fare program was Introduced in December, 1995 by the Metro Dade Transit Authority. The program was ~nhocluced as a demonstration through June of 1996. Free fares on fixed route service are being offered to persons who were eligible for the paratransit service prior to October 3l, 1995. Paratransit registrants after that date are not eligible for free fares. As noted below, the MDTA analysis has shown the program to be a success in helping to reduce paratransit demand and to encourage use of fixed route services by persons with disabilities. MDTA is Ming to determine how to extend the program to more recent registered riders without encouraging persons to apply for ADA paratransit eligibility solely for the free fares and without encouraging a shift from half-fares to free TCRP B-1A VI-20 Draft Final Report
Table VI-5. Metro Dade Fare Changes, August, 1995 to May, 1996 Mode Before 8/95 8/95-ly95 ly95-~96 After V96 Me~obus $1.25 full fare same same with free fare same 60 cent half fare for STS riders . Metrorail $1.25 full fare same same with free fare same 60 cent half fare for STS .. . Metromover 25 cent full fare same same with free fare same 10 cent half fare for STS Fixed route | Bus to Busy ail: 25 cents | same | same widn free fare ~se, He transfers 'Mover to bus/rail: $1.00 for STS Bus/rail to 'Mover: free STS ~ $2. )0 ~$2.50 1 $2.50 1 $2.50 $4.00 TCRP B-IA VI-21 Draft Final Report
fares. One thought is to announce free fares for persons signed up before June 30 In July, for those signed up before December 31 in January, and to continue extending the program In this way every six months. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor, Michigan The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) operates fixed route bus and paratransit service In the communities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan and In surrounding areas. The 1990 population of the AATA service area was 189,000. As noted in Chapter V, fixed route service is provided with a fleet of 57 buses including lift- equipped and low-floor buses. In FY96, total fixed route boarding were about 3.8 minion. In addition to providing fixed route service, AATA has for many years provided or contracted for a variety of demand-responsive services. Paratransit service varies by communibr. In Ann Arbor, several different demand responsive services are provided, including: · Night Ride: shared-ride taxi service available to Me general public between 10 pm and 6 am. Good as Gold: shared-ride taxi service for seniors age 65 and over. A-Ride: paratransit service for people with disabilities using a comb~nabon of shared-ride taxi service and AATA-operated small buses. The subcontracted cost for paratransit service, which ~nclucles operator's capital as well as operating costs, is $7.24. This relatively low trip costs reflects the high use of local taxi service and shorter Hip lengths In the Ann Arbor area. TCRP B-lA VI-22 Draft Final Report
Because of subsidies from We City of Ann Arbor, a high level of paratransit service is provident. Immediate response service is available within the city and there are no capacity constraints. Paratransit service In Ypsilanti, which includes about a Gird of the service area, is more limited. Paratransit service is provided by a nonprofit operator which was recently incorporated into AATA's services. As part of a study funded by Project ACTION, the AATA conducted a free fare and marketing demonstration program In August of 1995. Free fixed route service was provided for the month to A-Ride customers. Accessible Transit Guides and letters from the AATA encouraging fixed route use were also prepared and distributed to paratransit riders. From September, ~ 995 through March, 1996, AATA returned to a half-fare program for fixed route riders with disabilities. A decision was then made in 1996 to reintroduce free fare service as an ongoing program rather than as a limited demonstration. below. FINDINGS AATA fares, which remained the same throughout Me study period, are shown To measure the success and cost-effectiveness of fare incentive programs, Me following information was gathered and evaluated for each system studied: (1) The costs associated with the start-up of Me program as weD as the ongoing administration of the program. (2) The number of free rides provided each month on Me fixed route service. TCRP B-1A VI-23 Draft Final Report
Table VI-6. AATA F=ec! Route and Paratransit Fares _ . . .. ... . _ . . Service Fares . Fixed Route Service Base adult fare = $0.75 $0.35 half fare A-Ride Parabansit Service $1.50 TCRP B-lA VI-24 Draft Final Report
(3) The impact of the free fare program on other reduced fare programs, particularly any half-fare programs for persons with disabilities and, consequently, the impact on fixed route revenues. (4) The success of the program In attracting paratransit riders to fixed route service. (5) Other related benefits of the program, such as support of travel training efforts or other efforts to encourage fixed route use. Cost effectiveness was then calculated as the difference between savings and cost. The primary savings are the total of operas ing subsidies for trips shifted from paratransit to fixed route service. Costs include any losses in revenue due to shifts from half fare to free fare programs, start-up costs, and ongoing administrative costs. Following are finings In each of these areas. Start-Up and Ongoing Administrative Costs Information about the cost of ~mplemendng free fare programs was obtained from all of the sites studied except Ann Arbor, Michigan. All reported that developing and implementing a fare incentive program was a relatively low-cost undertaking. The primary costs were for the development and distribution of marketing materials. As noted in the "Background" descriptions above, several different types of marketing efforts were used. Tulsa notified existing paratransit riders of the free fare program through articles in two issues of an existing newsletter. Miami sent separate letters to ad eligible paratransit riders. Bridgeport also included information about the program in two mailings of an existing newsletter and also developed car cards, exterior bus signs, TCRP B-lA VI-25 Draft Final Report
advertised on two large city billboards, and undertook an aggressive campaign win the media which involved press releases and a radio spot. Miami spent about $10,000 to prepare and mail the two special letters ($5,000 per mailing) to its 15,000 eligible riders. The use of existing newsletters to announce the program eliminated the cost of separate mailings for Tulsa and Bridgeport. Marketing efforts by Bridgeport cost about $5,000. This includes! about 70 hours of staff time to develop and prepare car cards and bus signs, press releases, and a radio spot. Bulletin board space was provided free. Bridgeport also noted that it had available space for advertising on its fixed route buses and therefore did not lose any advertising revenue. Because the program in Austin grew out of a free fare program for the general public, no separate or special marketing was undertaken. Information about free fares were simply included in ongoing marketing materials such as system maps, brochures, and schedules. A second possible cost that might typically be incurred in the Implementation of a fare incentive program would be the issuance of photo IDs to eligible riders. A system which did not have photo IDs for paratransit riciers would probably want to begin issuing photo cards as a way to control inappropriate use. All of Me systems studied, except Austin, utElized photo ID cards prior to Me implementation of their free fare programs. No additional costs were incurred. Bridgeport, Miami, and Tulsa already issued photo IDs to paratransit eligible riders. Austin chose to continue to use a non- photo ID card. They did not fee! that individuals would attempt to misuse ADA eligibility for free rides since it was also possible to obtain a "Mobility Impaired" ID for TCRP B-lA VI-26 Draft Final Report
the free fare benefit and He process and eligibility standards for "MI" cards was much less stringent than ADA paratransit eligibility. Another potential ongoing cost is the expense associated with the certification of persons eligible for the program. As noted later In this report, * can be expected that the added benefit of free fares win increase the number of applications for ADA paratransit eligibility. This could, In turn, increase certification costs. Information about the number of requests for ADA paratransit eligibility that were processed before, during, and after the free fare program was obtained for each case study site. ~ Austin, the free fare program did not appear to have had an impact on demand for ADA paratransit certification. A review of application records shows Mat certification requests have been relatively stable at about 200 per month. This is probably clue to the fact that, even Dough an STS cardholder qualifies for free fixed route service, Individuals can apply for a "Mobility Impaired" card, pay $3.00 for the processing of the card and also ride free. Eligibility for an MI card is not as restricted or Involved as ADA paratransit eligibility. Also, seniors ride free, so there would be no need for them to get an STS card. In Miami, because the MDTA limitecI eligibility for free fares to persons eligible prior to November, there appears to have been no impact on requests for ADA paratransit eligibility. Similarly, there also does not appear to have been an impact on me number of requests for LIFT certification In Tulsa. The number of applications per monk remained fairly constant. A significant impact was, however, documented in Bridgeport. For Me 10 months prior to implementation of the program (August, 1992 Trough May, 1993) Mere TCRP B-lA VI-27 Draft Final Report
was an average of I14 requests per month for certification. After May of 1993, an average of 132 applications per month were received. While this 23% increase in applications could be due in part to increased awareness of the benefits of ADA paratransit eligibility, it was the sense of the GBTD staff that the fare incentive program had Increased demancI for certification. While the number of applications processed Increased, the increase clic3 not require additional staff In the case of GBTD. Bow before and after the introduction of the program, one full-time person was employed to do ADA paratransit eligibility certification. ~ systems that contract for eligibility determinations, or where the absolute number of applications may be such that additional staffing is needed, additional costs would need to be considered. Use of the Free Fare Option and Impacts on Axe d-Route Fare Revenue Bridgeport An exact count of fixed route passengers by type of fare was kept by the GBTD as part of their standard recordkeeping process. The graph presented as Figure VI-1 shows Me number of free fare and half fare trips recorded from January of 1993 Trough May of 1994. As shown, public acceptance and use of the free fare offer grew steadily after the free fare service was Introduced In May of 1993. Prior to May of 1993, Me GBTD provided a limited number of free rides. Coupons for free fixed route service were distributed as part of special promotions. Approximately 370 to 470 free trips were Wpically made on the fixed route service using these coupons. TCRP B-lA VI-28J Draft Final Report
70,000 60,~ 50,0 40,~ 30,000 20,0~ 10,~0 D legume VI-1. naH>Pare and Ilee-Eare Riderstip Vanuatu 1993 - Sian 199~ ~_~ ~ FREEWARE Rat Jag ~MAR ~Jag Jag ^uG Sap ~Nor Den Jag 93 GONER _ + ~ FOB ~R ~R ~ TT]RP B-14 VL29 gnat 17~' Reporf
With the introduction of the free fare program, the issuance of free ride coupons rip was discontinued. In May of 1993, the first month that free fares were linked to ADA paratrans* eligibility, 541 free rides were recorded. The number of free fares increased dramatically In August of 1993 and continued to rise, with the exception of the winter months, through May of 1994. At the time of the case study in the summer of 1994, close to 21,000 free trips were being made per month by customers win ADA paratransit identification cards. While the number of free ricles on the fixed route system increased, the number of customers paying half-fare decreased. In May of 1993, 41,313 Hips were recorded as half-fares. One year later, In May of 1994, a total of 2S,327 half-fare trips were made. The shift from half-fare to free fare hips suggests that many of the persons who had State-issued half fare cards were also ADA paratransit eligible. The increase in new ADA paratransit applications, noted in the previous section, also suggests that many half-fare cardholders also began applying for ADA paratransit eligibility as a result of Me fare Incentive program. Binary, it is important to note Mat the free fare program appears to have contributed to Increased travel on the fixed route system. The GBTD reported that reclucec! fare rides were fairly constant prior to May of 1993. From May of 1993 to May of 1994, the number of total reclucecI fare rides (ha~f-fare and free fare) increased by 7,141 rides. Austin As described in the "Case Study Sites" section, the free fare program for persons with disabilities (as wed as seniors) In Austin started first as a free fare demonstration TCRP B-IA VI-30 Draft Final Report
for the general public in October of 1990. When this systemwide free fare program was discontinued In January of 1991, a decision was made to continue the free service for persons with disabilities and seniors. Prior to the systemwide free fare demonstration, Capital Metro offered half fares on the fixed route service for persons determined to be mobility-impaired (MI) and for persons 65 years of age or older. When free service was Introduced, this program was obviously not applicable. Figure VI-2 below shows the number of free fares on the fixed route system in Austin from January of 1991 through December of 1995. Rides by seniors and persons deterauned "My' are shown as wed as me total of ah free rides provided. Because ah rides were provided free between October of 1990 and December of 1991, records of types of riders were not kept by Capital Metro. Half fare rides for two sample months (May and August, 1986) prior to the systemw~de free fare demonstration are shown to allow for a comparison of senior and M] ridership before and after the systemwide free fare demonstration. As shown, free rides provided to seniors grew slightly between 1989 and 1991 and have remained fairly constant since that time. In 1989, free fare rides by seniors ranged from 32,000 per month to 36,000 per month. Since January of 1991, free rides by seniors have averaged about 42,000 per month. A slight increase could be expected as a result of the systemw~de free fare demonstration as wed as the added incentive of free rather Man half fare service. Free rides by persons determined MI grew significantly during 1990 and have continued to rise. Before systemwide free fares, between 15,000 and 1S,000 half fare rides were made by persons determined MI. By the spring of 1991, this had grown to TCRP B-IA VI-31 Draft Final Report
Figure VI-2. Free Fare Fixect Route Trips in Austin, January, 1991 - December, 1995 1 60,000 1 40,000 1 20,000 1 00,000 Q S ~80,000 ._ 60,000 40,000 20,000 01 . _____ ___ ~ _ ~ . ~-1 it____ B! _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ I__~___ 1~-~- ~ ~ I _ A _ . - ~- ? A_ _ A *5 ~- ~- -- + .. .. · , , . . · , ., ·, ~ ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' Cad CO ~ Month | ~ M.l. Riders- O Seniors ~ Total l TCRP B-1A VI-32 Draft Final Report
over 60,000 rides per monk. Note the rapid growth in MI rides in January, February, and March of 1991. Because no identification was needed in 1990 to receive free service, many persons with disabilities who started riding the fixed route system did not obtain an MI card. When fares for the general public were reintroduced, there was a period of time when these riders had to obtain identification cards. Use of the fixed route system by riders determined MI (which would Include persons determined ADA paratransit eligible) has continued to show rapid grown. In December of 1995, over I1l,000 free rides were taken by mobility Impaired riders. In the summer of 1989, M! riders accounted for about I.4% of ad fixed route rides. In December of 1995, they were S.0% of Capital Metro's ridership. Capital Metro has not been concerned about fixed route revenue losses which resulted from the continuation of the free fare program for seniors and persons with disabilities. Promoting growth In fixed route ridership has been a more important factor In setting policy than farebox receipts. It is possible that Capital Metro may have continued with a free service for the general public had they not experienced problems In 1990 with crime and vagrancy. The current fare recovery for the entire system is 11.2%. Assuming that about 16,500 half fare rides were provided to MI riders prior to the introduction of free fares and that the current half fare is $.25, it could be estimated that there is a loss of about $4,125 per month in revenues due to the continuation of free fares for persons with disabilities. The current, greater number of rides by persons determined MI should not be used to estimate fare loss, since these rides may not have been made if the free service were not introduced. TCRP B-IA VI-33 Draft Final Report
Another Indicator of the increased use of fixed route service by persons with disabilities is the number of lift board~ngs recorded by Capital Metro. Figure VI-3 shows lift board~ngs from January of 1988 through March of 1996. The number of MI free rides per month are also shown (on the left axis) to illustrate the relationship between increases in free rides and lift boardings. In 1988 and 1989, lift boardings grew from about 200 per month to about 400 per month. During the 15 month systemwide free fare demonstration period, this climbed to over 900 per mond,. Except for fairly consistent declines in ridership during the fall of each year, lift boardings have continued to increase significantly. In March of 1996, over 6,500 lift braidings were recorded. During 1990, the systemwide free fare demonstration was probably a major factor In the growth In lift board~ngs. Since 1991, several efforts have encouraged this impressive use by persons with mobility aicis. As described earlier, several travel training programs have been ~ntrocluced. The number of cur~cuts has been greatly expanded, driver training and lift maintenance efforts have been strengthened, and marketing efforts have been expanded. It is also interesting to note that the fixed route system became fully accessible in 1993. Miami As described earlier, free fixed route service for persons who were registered as paratransit riflers began being offered In Miami In December of 1995. Figure Vim shows the number of free rides recorded Trough April of 1996. In the first month of the program, 13,363 riders used their STS identification card to receive free rides. That number grew to 15,620 in the month of April. MDTA staff reported that the drop in free rides in January and February was due to data collection problems at some of the fixed TCRP B-1A VI-34 Draft Final Report
Figure VI-3. Lift Boardings and Free (MI) Fixed Route Trips in Austin January, 19XS - March, 1996 1 20,000 1 1 00,000 ` ~80,000 ._ ._ lo 60,000 40,000 20,000 O I ~^ ^2~ 7,000 6,000 ~~ ~ . ~ . 4~ ~L__~: 5 1 0 0 0 ANY -ad ~ . ~ for ~ _ ~ _ r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ' _~ l l r~ 1 l 1 l i I I I l I l l ~ 1 l I l l I l I l I ~ ~ I I I i l ~ I I 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 111 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 1-11 11 11 1 1 1 | 1 1 11 | | 1 | | | | | 1 | O ~ ~ U) 0 - 4,000 - 3,000 - 2,000 - 1,000 - o Month ~ M.l. Rides · Litt Boardings TCRP B-1A VI-35 Draft Final Report
Figure VIM. Free Fare and Half Fare Rides in Miami, October, 1994 - April, 1996 1,200,000 1,000,000 ._ s ~ =,= ._ car LL l_ I 600,000 400,000 200,000 ~ ~- _ ~.~' " / , 16,000 14,000 12,000 .= ~_ - 6,000 - 4,000 - 10,000 ~ ._ 8 000 of , ~ - 2,000 O- 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 -to O Z ~ co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A: CO O Z ~ CD ~ ~ ~ N~J Year + Free Fares Half Fares| | TCRP B-lA VI-36 Draft Final Report
route bus garages. The figures for March (14,480) and April are more representative of the use of the program. Figure VI-4 also shows the number of half fare rides on the fixed route system from October, 1994 through April of 1996. From December, 1994 through April of 1995, an average of about 974,000 half fare rides were provided each month. For the same months in 1995/1996, half fare rides averaged about 898,000 per month. It is unclear, however, if this reduction was due In part to the introduction of free fares. The MDTA's decision to offer free service only to those persons determined ADA paratransit eligible prior to November of 1995 (a month before the free fares were introduced) certainly kept any non-ADA paratransit eligible persons from switching from the half fare to the free fare program. It is possible, though, that some existing paratransit riders also used the half fare program and switched their half-fare rides to free fares when the program was introduced. Overall, the reduction in monthly use of the half fare system appears to have occurred well before the free fare program. A drop in half fare ridership is evident between March and November of 1995. Staff reported that this was due largely to a tightening of eligibility In an attempt to reduce abuse of the program. Tulsa Figure VI-5 shows free fare rides since July of 1990. There were always a small number of free rides for special promotions, events, and similar services. These are estimated at about 400 per month before June of 1991. In June of 1991, the first month of the free fare program, over 2,300 free fare trips were provided to persons with disabilities. In August, the number of free fare trips had risen to 4,400. By 1992, approximately 6,000 free fare trips were provided on the fixed route service each month. TCRP B-1A Vl-37 Draft Final Report
Figure VI-5. TuIsa Transit Free Fare and Half Fare Rides, July, 1990 - March, 1996 1 2000 1 0000 8000 s u) ~6000 ._ 4000 2000 O o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~y_ ,[ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _~_ _ . _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f~h:~ __ '_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ T] ~ I I i~__) MonthslYears ~ Free Fare Rides EB Half Fare Ride~ TCRP B-lA VI-38 Draft FinaZ Report
Figure VI-5 also shows the number of half fare rides provided since July of 1990. Implementation of the free fare program does not appear to have had a significant impact on half fare rides or fixed route revenues. Prior to the free fare program, there were approximately 8-9,000 half fare rides per month. ~ March of 1996, there were 8,755 half fare rides. Month by month comparisons since 1990 show lithe overall change in half-fare rides. This is probably due to the fact that Tulsa Transit only marketed the free fare service to paratransit riders through targeted mailings. Impacts on Paratransit Ridership Bridgeport The impact of the overall effort by GBTD to encourage paratransit riders to use the fixed route system was significant. Figure VI-6 shows the annual ridership on the paratransit service before and after the implementation of the fare incentive program. As shown, the GBTD had experienced significant Increases In paratransit ridership Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993. Ridership In FY92 UU1Y, 1991 through June, 1992) increased by just over 30%. In FY93, the period of time just before the implementation of the fare incentive program, ridership Increased by 42.4%. Most of this increase appears related to a growth In demand rather than to changes in the system. As noted in the description of case study sites at the beginning of this chapter, few paratransit service changes were made by the GBTD as a result of the ADA during tike study period. While hours of operation were extended In the morning hours (primarily from 5:00 am to 7:00 am), trips are rarely requested during this time. Changes in scheduling procedures were also not felt to have had a significant impact on expressed demand. TCRP B-lA VI-39 Draft Final Report
Figure VI-6. GBTD Paratransit Ridership (FY91- FY94) 120,000 1 00,000 80,000 Q ._ 60,000 40,000 20,000 o 1 1 29563 1 03,554 55,80 1991 1 992 Year 1 993 1994 TCRP B-1A VI40 Draft Final Report
Continued significant grown In demand In FY94 could have been expected. Service remained capacitor constrained In FY93. The number of trips provided per eligible person wouIcl also suggest that demand would continue to grow. GBTD estimates that about 4,217 persons ~ the service area are ADA paratransit eligible. Given that 103,554 trips were provided In EY93, this would mean that about 24.6 trips per year per eligible person were provided. Recent national reports on potential ADA paratransit demand suggest a range of 12 to 48 trips per eligible person per year.4 Actual grown in paratransit clemand slowed dramatically after May of 1993. The total FY94 ric3ership of Il2,563 one-way trips represented only an S.7% increase Over FY93. The change In paratransit demand is even more dramatic when monkey riclership information is exam~necI. Figure VI-7 shows monthly ridership from July of 1992 Trough May of 1994. A steady increase In demand is evident through May of 1993. Since that time, monthly ridership has remained relatively constant. It shouIcI be noted that the dramatically lower number of trips in January and February of 1994 can be largely attributed to severe weather and heavy snows during that time. A comparison of ridership In March anct April of 1993 and 1994 shows that demand rema~nec! v~rtuaDy constant. If paratransit growth in FY94 had been similar to that in PY93 (40%), ridership of 145,000 one-way passenger trips would have been expected. As noted above, actual FY94 ridership was 112,563. Undike previous years, demand In FY94 was also unconstrained. This estimated reduction in paratramsit demand of 32,437 trips per year was the result of two major changes - the doubling of paratransit fares from 50¢ to $~.00 4 Thatcher, R. and I. Gaffney, ADA Paratransit Handbook, USDOT, TCRP B-1A VIES Draft Final Report
F. 1gure VI-7. GBTD Paratransit Ridership (July' 1992 - May, 1994) 1 2 ,0 0 0 1 0,000 8 , 0 0 0 Q I 6, 0 0 0 Cl By 4 , 0 0 0 2 , 0 0 0 o ;~ on U' z 1 992 i_' Washington, D.C.' Report #UMTA-MA-06-0206-91-1, September, 1991 . TCRP B-1A
and the introduction of free rides on fixed route buses. Research suggests that for every 10% increase In paratransit fare, a 3% decrease in ridership can be expected. The relationship between fares and Eldership can be expressed as: log (R2/R~) = -.3 log (F2/F~) Where, Ret = ridership prior to Me change in fares Fa = original fare R: = ridership after the change In fares F2 = new fare ADDIVin~ this formula to the GBTD naratransit fare channel a decrease In -a r -a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -of paratransit ridership of I8% In FY94 would have been expected. Rather Wan 145,000 rides, a total of I1S,900 trips wouicI be predicted as a result of the doubling of paratransit fares. As noted above, actual paratransit ridership in FY94 was only 112,563 trips. The remanung reduction In demand of 6,337 trips can therefore be creditec! to the free fare program and relatecI marketing and trip planning efforts. Because travel training was underway prior to May of 1993 and continued throughout FY93, the impacts of this program on paratransit demand are considered to be constant. While there was an Increase In the number of people trained In FY94, much of this Increase can be attributed to the fare incentive program. Results of a survey of the fun 3,500 registered parairansit riders in Bridgeport suggested an even larger impact of the free fare program. Of the 1,344 people who completed the survey, 94 indicated that there were trips hey made on the fixed route service Mat used to be macle by paratrans*. Together, these respondents indicated that 229 round-~ips per week hack been switched to fixed route. The most significant factor cited by these respondents was the lower cost of the bus. Fifty-seven survey TCRP B-IA VICE Draft Final Report
respondents cited We lower cost of the bus as a factor in their decision. Collectively, 144 of the 229 trips switched were made by these respondents. When projected to ah 3,500 paratrans* customers, these responses suggest that as many as 19,000 trips per year may have been shifter] from paratransit to fixed route. Given that the initial paratransit fare was quite low, it is possible that demand was not impacted by the increase In fare as much as the accepted] fare elasticity formula and research would suggest. This conclusion is also consistent with observer! impacts of paratransit fare increases at the other case study sites (see later discussion of impacts In Miami. Austin Although not as dramatic as the recluction In me growth of paratransit ridership in Bridgeport, it appears that the free fare program, together with other service enhancements and efforts, has also been successful In providing fixed route travel options anct limiting reliance on the paratransit service. Figure VI-S shows paratransit (STS) riclership from January of 1988 through December of 1995. Also shown are Me MI free-fare fixed routes rides during the same period. Table VI-7 includes actual paratransit ridership for FYSS (October, 1987 - September, 1988) through FY95 and the percentage Increases In demand each year. Prior to the introduction of free fares in October of 1989, paratransit demand had been rising at a moderate rate. Between FYSS and FYS9, Capital Metro recorded a 13.~ % increase In paratransit riclership. A very similar growth of 12.6% was experienced between FYS9 and FY90. In FY90, which corresponds to the introduction of systemwide free fares, paratransit demand rose a modest 5.4%. Grown in FY91 was negligible, and ridership actuary cleclinec} by I.5% In FY92. The last two fiscal years have shown a return to modest growth. TCRP B-lA VI-44 D rap Final Report
Figure VIM Paratransit (STS) Riclership and Free (MI) Fixed Route Trips in Austin, January, 19BX - December, 1995 120000 - . 1 1 0000 1 00000 90000 80000 Q ._ ~70000 As ._ 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 Month _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _^ ____ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g__~___ - 7~ ~ - - ~ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ I ~ ____ _ | ~ STS Rides ~ M.l. Rides | TCRP B-1A VIAL Draft Final Report
Table VI-7. Capital Metro Paratransit Ridership, F~YSS-EPY95 Annual Paratransit FY Ridership % Increase . . 1988 306,492 _ 1989 346,735 13.1 1990 390,288 12.6 1991 411 231 5.4 , 1992 413,797 - 0.6 1993 412,851 (1 5) 1994 430,674 4.3 1995 462,019 7.3 _ TCRP B-1A VIED D rap Final Report
Assuming that paratransit demand had continued to grow at about 12.8% In FY90 (rather than the actual 5.4%), it can be estimated that the free fare program was largely responsible for a decrease in paratransit ridership of about 29,000 one-way rides In FY91. Further reductions In demand In FY92 and FY93 can be attributed to the other service enhancements employed by Capital Metro. Given that free fare rides by persons with disabilities averaged about 30,000 per month in FY91, a reduction in paratransit demand of 29,000 (or 2,417 per month) during this period would suggest that about 8% of ah free fare rides were trips shifted from the paratransit service. Applying this percentage to the number of MI free fare rides in December of 1995 (111,240) would suggest that about 8,900 trips per month are being made on fixed route service that may have been made on the paratransit service. This indication of a shift from paratransit to fixed route Is also supported by an analysis of the MI free fare records. There Is evidence that a significant number of ADA paratransit eligible persons have obtained M! rider cards and are using the free fare fixed route program. A random cross-check of 100 M] riders with the ADA paratransit customer file showed that about 20% of the persons win MI photo IDs are also ADA paratransit eligible. If this group of riders use fixed route service at the same frequency as aD MI eligible persons, this would suggest that 20% of the free fare rides are being made by persons who might otherwise request STS service (20,000 trips per month). It is more likely, though, that ADA paratransit eligible persons use fixed route with less frequency. Their use of public transportation would be split between bow modes. The above estimate of a shift of as many as 8,900 trips per month to fixed route would therefore seem to be consistent with this evidence. TCRP B-1A VI-47 Draft Final Report
Miami The combination of free fixed route service and increased paratransit fares also had an impact on the growth of paratransit demand In Miami. In the three years prior to the introduction of free fixed route service, paratransit demand had been growing at a significant rate. As shown in Table VI-S, demand increased 13% In FY93 and over 17% In FY94. In FY95, demand rose only 4%. This reduction In the rate of growth was clue largely to a change In the method of operation from a direct operation to a brokerage service. It is likely that the change In the method of operation resulted In some level of service reduction during the transition. Figure VI-9 provides a comparison of paratransit ridership during the period when paratransit fares were increased and when the free fare program was introduced. It shows monthly eldership from January, 1995 through May, 1996. The projected growth in ridership without any fare changes or the free fare program is also shown beginning In September of 1995. A growth In demand of 4% was predicted, which is probably conservative given past trends (as discussed above). As noted earlier, paratransit fares were increased at the end of August, 1995 from $2.00 per trip to $2.50 per trip. The free fare demonstration program was Introduced on December I, 1995. Finally, the fare policy was changed again effective January 1, 1996 - fares were subject to applicable fixed route transfer fees. MDTA staff reported that this second fare increase raised the average paratransit fare from $2.50 to about $2.60. As shown In Figure VI-9, Me ~rutial fare increase to $2.50 produced mixed results and does not appear to have significantly impacted grown In ridership. Normally, a fare increase of this magnitude (25%) might be expected to decrease ridership by about TCRP B-lA VIES Draft Final Report
Table AID. MDTA Paratransit Riders hip, FY92-E7Y95 Annual Paratransit FY Ridership ~ increase 1992 570 420 . . do. .... _ 1993 - 644,435 13.0% .. . _ 1994 755,592 17.2% . .___ 1995 786,139 4.0% TCRP B-1A VICE Draft Final Report
~i By ~ < ~3 ~: ~J CD ·" Ed in - - ¢ ¢ ~1 Of ~ ' ' 'I 1 ' . · ' , . . ~.. ! i , I,...... ... . · i - ':: , . .' it, . r ' ~ ''~,,~,' y//~f/r~ ,,,... · 'Jo ''''''~ _ . Z , ~ Yip// Of _ ~ // ~77777~7 1 _ I. _ .. .' : - . '. "' . . . . . __ '' .... '''my I1 _ ....... . '. ' :. :'. .., - - ~ ~ - .1, ,,.,, , .. . ., Of ~ - : : :: - - -=~ - ~ -- r'^'Y~ . . . ~ .., ..; ... . . r,~Jr~r,''_~ 555555ly555~ ,: , ' . ..,,:: .',, '. .'. ' . ' . ~ ~f~-J! ~ _ . ~ ~ _ _ _ ~1 1 ~=3 ~ ~ -Girl 1 .~T: 1 -lo- 1 - _ ~21 .~1 1 ~ ~1 1 3~ &~ 1 ~;; rjc ~ 1 r~,~,,<~f~__ I 1"": '' ' ' ." .1., ,,, :...... ~ - 77777~7~ to 1 ~ TCRP B-1A VI-50 Draft Final Report
4-5%. Taking into consideration a predicted 4% grow+, ridership should have just about equaled FY95 levels. ~stead, ridership In September increased almost 5%. While October shower! only slight growth over FY95 levels (as would be expected), riclership in November rose about S% over FY95 levels. The second fare adjustment, which increased the average fare by $.10 (or about 4%) would not be expected to have had a great impact on demand. The free fare program does appear to have decreased paratransit ridership. After significant growth In November, December ridership was about 5% below predicted levels. January ridership was ahnost 8% below predicted demand. For the period from December, 1995 through May, 1996, demand was 4.7% below actual FY95 levels and S.4% lower than predicted. This analysis suggests that the free fare program has shifted between 2,750 and 5,500 trips per month from the paratransit to the fixed route service. A shift of 2,750 assumes that the August Increase In fares would have accounted for about half of the decrease In predicted demand. A shift of 5,500 trips per month assumes that the fare increases hacE little impact on demand (supported to some degree by ridership levels between September and December). Tulsa Figure VI-10 shows the number of paratransit trips provided by Tulsa Transit from April, 1991 Trough March of 1996. Free fare rides during the period are also shown. During the period shown, there were two paratransit fare increases fin April of 1991 and April of 1994~. The free fare program was also introduced In June of 1991. TCRP B-lA VI-51 Draft Final Report
Figure VI-IO. Paratransit and Free Fare Fixed Route Rides Provided by Tulsa Transit April, 1991- March, 1996 1 8000 1 6000 1 4000 lt 2000 ._ ~1 0000 8000 ~6000 0 4000 2000 04 Hi: _ _~ _ y _ , ~ _ I 1-- 1--- 1 --1-- 1 1 1 1 1 I-- I t t ~ -1---~---1 --~1 1 1 1- ~ I _~~~~~~ ~~_~ _ _ of: I,, ~i i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ Hi: Months I ~ Paratransit Trips ~ Free Fare Rides1 TCRP B-1A VI-52 Draft Final Report
Paratransit service, considered unconstrained by Tulsa Transit, continued to show Increased ridership after the free fare program was introduced. Between July of 1991 and March of 1994, LIFT demand Increased by about 33%. Some of this is due to the addition of early morriing and late evening hours of operation. Staff, however, reported that this service change had a relatively small overall impact on demand (probably not more than 5%~. Factoring out the effects of We change In days and hours suggests that demand rose about 9% per year after the free fare program was introduced. It shouIct also be considered that this was Me time of the introduction of Me ADA when many systems were experiencing large increases in paratransit demand. The fare increase in April, 1991, from 60 cents to $1.00 does not appear to have had a significant impact on demand. The increase In April, 1994, however, from $1.00 to $1.50 does appear to have had an impact. There has been a 10-12% decrease in ridership since that time. There has not, however, been a corresponding increase In free fare rides, which suggests that the fare increase was the reason for the reduction. While the free fare rides on fixed route do not appear to be Hips that were shifted away from the paratransit service, Key do appear to be trips that are berg made by LIFT riders that probably would otherwise have been made on paratransit. This conclusion is based on the fact that there does not appear to have been any switching from the half-fare to the free fare program and on customer interviews. It is also supported by the modest growth in paratransit demand from 1991 to 1995. During the period of ADA paratransit implementation, Tulsa Transit seems to have been able to meet the growing travel needs of persons with disabilities with both fixed route anct paratransit service. With approximately 6,000 free fixed route rides per month, this TCRP B-lA VI-53 D rap Final Report
represents about $600,000 in paratransit savings per year ($700,000 less $100,000 In LIFT fares). Ann Arbor As noted earlier, the AATA first introduced free fares on fixed route as a one month demonstration and marketing program In August of 1995. The program was then made a permanent part of the fare structure begiruiing in April of 1996. Figure VI- II shows monthly free-fare and half-fare rides from July of 1995 through August of 1996. As shown, about 3,200 fixed route half-fares were recorded in July of 1995, the monk before Me one month free fare demonstration. Depending on the month, half fare rides ranged from 3,200 to 4,500 rides per month and averages} about 3,600 ricles for the ten months prior to the free fare demonstration. In August of 1995,10,585 rides by persons with clisabilities were recorded on fixer} route in response to the free fare promotion. Between September, 1995 and April, 1996, rides on fixed route decreased again to an average of about 4,800 rides per month. While reduced fare ridership by persons with disabilities decreased after the one month demonstration, it is interesting to note Mat there was a gain of about 1,200 riders per month even after Me free fare was eliminated and half-fare was charged. Win the introduction of free fares on fixed route as a permanent fare program on April I, 1996, rides by persons win disabilities again rose to levels at or above Me number recorded during Me August demonstration. For the five months shown In Figure VI-~l, free fares averaged about 12,000 per month. Figure VI-~1 also graphs paratransit ridership during the period and paratransit ridership for the comparable period one year earlier. As shown, 1995\1996 paratransit TCRP B-lA VI-54 Draft Final Report
V0[ ~ Me ~ Id Me Ins Id ~ ~ Ink ~ 199S-~st 1996. 1 a , 0 0 0 14 ~0 0 1 2 ~ O O 1 0 ~ O O o ~ onto . k ~ e 4 ~ 5 ^ - R ~ e s tea At ides ---Free Fare and H sir Fare R ides HIP By- VE55 ~- ~1 turf
ridership was about 9% higher than the previous year. Demand for paratransit service rose through February of 1996 and was not affected by the one month free fare demonstration In August of 1995. In fact, during that month, paratransit demand rose 15%, even higher than the average for the period. AATA staff noted that the one month free fare demonstration did not appear to cause customers to actuary shift trips from paratransit to fixed route. Instead, they believe that customers made additional trips on the fixed route In response to the free fare offer and AATA's marketing efforts. The reinstitution of free fares as a permanent feature of the fare structure does, however, appear to have had a significant impact on paratransit demand. Table VI-_ shows actual 1996 monthly paratransit ridership compared to predicted ridership. Given that demand had been rising by 9% during the prior year, predicted trips are calculated to be 9% over 1995 levels. As shown, though, actual 1996 paratransit demand from May through August, 1996 was below 1995 levels and wed below predicted levels. For June) July, and August, paratransit demand was more than 20% below predicted levels. The free fare program appears to have had a clear and direct Impact on paratransit demand. Just over 3,000 rides per month appear to have been shifted from the paratransit to the fixed route service. Effects of the Fare Incentive Programs on Mule Choice In addition to tracking fixed route and paratransit ridership, qualitative information from riders about the impact of the free fare programs on their travel choices was also gathered. Focus group meetings of fixed route and paratransit riders were held In Bridgeport, Austin, and Miami. A number of customers with disabilities TCRP B-lA VI-56 Draft Final Report
Table VI-9. Actual and Predictec! AATA Paratransit Rides, April-August, 1996 ... . . ~1996 ~ MONTH | 1995 ACTUAL PREDICTED | 1996 ACTUAL % DIFFERENCE (+9%) ._._ _ APri1 12 811 13,964 12,999 (6~9%) . . . . , May 13,663 14,893 12,558 (15 7%) J u n e 13,051 14 ~ 226 10,998 (22.8 % ) July 12,358 13,470 10,813 (19.2%) August 12,866 14,024 (22.9 % ) TCRP B-1A VI-57 Draft Final Report
were Interviewed in Tuisa. A survey of aU ADA paratransit eligible persons was also conducted in Bridgeport. In Austin, customers indicated that free service was one of Me reasons they clecided to try fixed route and continue riding that service. It was not the primary reason, however. AR customers consistently expressed the opinion that fixed route provided a better level of service. When asked what programs, policies, and service influenced their decision to use fixed route, they would respond that We inflexibility of paratransit and the 6% denial rate were reason enough to use fixed route. Free fares also were mentioned as a factor. In Tulsa, several persons with disabilities who use both fixed route and paratransit were Interviewed about their use of each service. Consumers cited the free fare program as a sigriificant factor In their decision to begin using fixed route service. A good c3 river sensitivity training program was also cited as an important factor. The survey In Bridgeport included questions about the impact of the fare incentive program on use of the fixed route service. One question asked persons who use the buses to indicate if the program encouraged Hem to try buses for the first tune or if they made more trips as a result of the free fare. A total of 574 persons who indicated Hat they use the buses answered this question. As shown In Table VI-IO, almost half of the respondents indicated that the program had an affect on their use of He buses. The majority of these said that Weir trip-making on the buses increased. Thirty-one persons said it encouraged them to use the bus for He first time. TCRP B-lA VI-58 Draft Final Report
Table VI-IO. Effects of Free-Fare Program on Bus Use Did free fare program affect use of buses? ~ of respondents/% _ _ _ NOJ had no affect 325 (56 6%) . Didn't use buses before and use Hem now 31 (5.4%) Used buses before and now use Hem more 218 (38.0%) Totals 574 (100%) ._ TCRP B-1A VI-59 Draft Final Report
Another questions asked persons who used the fixed route buses if there were trips they made on the buses In the past week that they used to make on the paratransit vans and, if so, to estimate how many of these trips they made in the past week. Of the 625 respondents who use the buses, 106 (17%) Indicated that they hacI, In fact, shifted from using the van to using the bus. Of these 106 people, 94 estimated how many trips they made on the bus that used to be made on the vans. Together, these 94 respondents ~ndicatecI that they had shiffect 229 trips from the Ran services to bus service. Persons who had begun making trips on the buses that used to be made on the vans were then asked to indicate what factors influenced their decision to switch modes. Table VI-S indicates the reasons given and the number of respondents who indicated each reason. It also shows Me number of trips associated with each factor that was noted. The numbers shown are greater than the unduplicated number of respondents or trips because respondents were asked to identify ad factors that had influenced Weir . · - aeclslon. A total of 90 respondents who said they used the buses and had shifted some trips from paratransit to fixed route buses cited Me reasons for this switch. As shown in Table VIM, '~the lower cost of Me bus" was citecI by 57 respondents (63.3% of ad respondents) as one of the reasons for shifting modes. Of the 229 trips shifted, lower cost of the bus was a factor In 144 of these. Impacts on Travel Training Two of the four systems studied (Austin and Bricigeport) had implementer! successful travel training programs Cap*al Metro began funding Gavel training TCRP B-lA VI-60 Draft Final Report
Table V-. Factors Cited in Switching Trips from Paratransit to F=ecI-Route . _ Number of Number of Switched Respondents Who Trips Affected by Each Cited Each Factor Factor _ , Changes in personal circumstances 27 62 , ._ , Advertisements and better information 29 82 about the bus service The lower cost of the bus 57 144 Travel Raining provided by the Transit 28 85 District l , Trip planning services provided by the 9 15 Transit District | Other l 6 | 10 . . _ ._ . TCRP B-1A VI-61 Draft Final Report
programs In 1990, after the Implementation of free fixed route fares. Travel trainers at ARCIL, We independent living center that trains the largest number of customers for Capital Metro, indicated that the free fare program is an important factor In recruiting paratransit riders and others for travel training. In Bridgeport, free fixed route fares were Introduced after the start of the travel training program. It was therefore possible to evaluate the impact of the Introduction of free fares on travel training efforts. In the first two years of the travel training program (July, 1991 through June of 1993), the GBTD focused on one-on-one training of persons with cognitive disabilities. The program was very successful In the first year when 42 individuals were successfully trained. The second and third years saw a decline in the number of persons with disabilities who requested and received training. According to staff of the program, this was due to the fact that the majority of persons for whom travel training was most appropriate had been identified and recruited In the first year and a half. A total of 26 persons with disabilities were travel trained in the second year and only 19 were trained in the Gird. In the Gird year of the program (Tuly, 1993 to June, 1994), classroom training in use of the fixed route system was undertaken In addition to one-on-one tracer ing. This new effort was aimed primarily at seniors who used the paratransit vans frequently to travel to and from nutrition programs. A total of 50 seniors were given Suction on use of the faced route service In FYI993. Staff of the travel training program ~ndicatecI that the ~n~oduction of Me free program in May of 1993 was an important factor In getting seniors to participate in the program. While the cost of a lunch at the nutrition sites In the area was 75¢, Me para~ansit fare to both get to the center and return home TCRP B-1A VI-62 Draft Final Report
was $2.00. Using the fixed route system to get to the nutrition program is an attractive option. Cost-Effectiveness of the Free Fare Programs Tables VI-12 and VI-13 provide a summary of the key impacts of each free fare program. Table VI-12 includes the number of annual free fixed route rides provided. It then estimates how many of these free trips were riders shifting from paratransit, riders shifting from the half fare program, or new trips generated because of the lower fare. Estimated trips shifted from paratransit to fixed route are shown both as a number and as a percentage of the system's total paratransit demand. Table VI-13 then uses these conclusions about the free fixed route ricles to determine annualized paratransit savings, faced route revenue losses and annualizer! net cost savings. "Annualized paratransit savings" are calculated bv multicIvin~ the 1~ of ~ -I- -a-~~ trips shifted to fixed route by Me net paratransit trip cost (total cost minus paratransit fares). "Annual~zecE fixec! route revenue losses" are trips shifted from half-fare to free fare multiplied by the fixed route half-fare. "Annualizect net savings" represent the difference between paratransit savings and fixed route revenue losses. All five projects appear to have resulted in cost-savings. Savings in Ann Arbor and Austin were perhaps the greatest as a percent of the total system budgets. Of the 144,300 free fixed route trips per year recorded in Ann Arbor, 36,200 were estimated to be trips shifted from paratransit. This suggests a paratransit savings of over $207,000 per year (36,200 trips/year times $5.74 - We difference between Me contract trip rate of $7.24 and the $~.50 paratransit fare). Even with some loss of fixed route revenue TCRP B-IA VI-63 Draft Final Report
Table VI-12. Summary of Free Fixed Route Rides by Type of Rifler . . . Total Free Rides Shifted % of Total RidesNew Fixed Route Fixed Route from Paratransit Paratransit Shifted fromRides by Persons Rides per to lPixed Route Demand Half-Fare towith Disabilities Year Shifted Free Fare Ann Arbor 1 144,300 36,200 1 23 ~ 1 44,100 164,000 Austin 1,305,000 106,800 23% 198,000over 1 million Bridgeport 1 253,400 6,400-19,000 1 6-17' i 1 162,000 172,400-85,000 Miami 187,000 33,000-66,000 4-8 % 0121,000-154,000 Tulsa 72,000 up to 72,000 up to 34% Oup to 72,000 TCRP B-lA VI-64 Draft Final Report
Table VI-13. Summary of Estimated Savings .. . .. .. Annualized Annualized Fixed Annualized Paratransit Route Revenue Net Savings Savings mu_ Ann Arbor$207,535 $15,448$192,087 Austin$1,591,320 $99,000$1,492,320 Bridgeport$91,072- $64,930$26,142 $270,370 $205 440 , , Miami$505,890 O$505,890 $1,011,780 $1,011 780 _ ~ Tulsaup to $607,680 0up to $607,680 TCRP B-IA VT-65 Draft Final Report
(198,000 trips per year times $0.40), a net annual savings of more than $192,000 appears to have resulted from We program. In Austin, the annual paratransit savings was over $1,500,000. This is calculated by applying a net paratransit trip rate of $14.90 (the $15.50 cost per trip minus the $0.60 fare) to me number of trips shifted to fixed route. The estimated loss of $99,000 In fixed route revenue (19S,000 rides per year times $0.50) was ordy a fraction of this savings. Estimating the exact savings In Bridgeport and Miami is more difficult given mat there were increases In paratransit fares during the study period. In Bridgeport, standard fare elasticity models wouIc3 suggest that most of Me reduction in paratransit demand was due to the fare increase and that relatively few trips shifted to fixed route due to the free fare program. Applying these models suggests only a shift of about 6,400 trips per year. However, a comprehensive survey of paratransit riders pointed to a much higher number of trips shifted (about 19,000 per year). A rather large range in paratransit savings and net savings is therefore shown to account for both methods of analysis. Similarly, In Miami, a traditional analysis of paratransit demand using fare elasticity models would suggest that only 4% of Me paratransit trips shifted to fixed route. As noted earlier In this report, however, a close examination of paratransit demand immediately following the fare increase, and before the free fare program was implemented suggests that the fare increase had little impact on demand. Discounting the effects of the fare increase would suggest that as many as 8% of all paratransit trips shifted to fixed route service. In terms of actual paratransit savings, Me data collected In Tulsa was somewhat Inconclusive. While it appears that almost all of Me free fixed route trips were made by TCRP B-lA VI-66 Draft Final Report
paratransit customers and that there was minimal shifting between the half-fare and free fare programs, there was no reduction In paratransit demand that corresponcled to the rise In free faced route trips. The data did not suggest a clear delineation between free fare rides that were shifted from paratransit and those that represented additional travel by paratransit customers. The ciata collected from these systems also suggests that the free faze programs - a- resulted In increased travel by persons with disabilities. In each case, the predicted new trips on fixed route were much greater Man We number of Hips shifted from the paratransit service. This was particularly true In Austin, where the free fare program combined with numerous other transit and community access improvements has resulted in very high use of fixed route service by persons with disabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES The service data and rider information coDectec} in these five case studies clearly suggests that offering free fares on fixed route service can have a dramatic Impact on paratransit demand and on the use of fixed route service by persons with disabilities. Shifts from paratransit to fixed route of up to 23% of total paratransit demand were observed. The magnitude of the impact appears to be related to the accessibility of the fixed route service and to the use of other service enhancements that make fixed route travel easier. For example, the greatest impacts were seen in Austin and Ann Arbor which have fly accessible fixed route fleets. Austin also supported or provided travel trading programs, a community curb-cut program, and several other fixed route TCRP B-1A VI-67 Draft Final Report
enhancements. Ann Arbor has a large fleet of low-floor buses that make boarding and alighting fixed route vehicles quicker and easier. A slightly lower, but sUll significant, impact was observed In Bridgeport. Travel training efforts in As system clearly worked hancI-~-hand with We free fare program to increase the effectiveness of bow programs. Tess of an impact was documented In Miami where the f~xecI route service Is only partially accessible and where other service options such as travel training are not supported to the extent seen In other case study areas. The results of the Ann Arbor review also suggest Mat limited time, special promotion fare incentive programs are not likely to cause a shift in trips from paratransit to fixed route service. Eligible individuals are not likely to adjust their established travel patterns based on a limited promotion. Special promotions win encourage ~nclivicluals to make additional (non-paratransit) Hips to try the fixed route service. Longer term free fare programs appear to be needed, however, to promote switches In modes. ~ addition to promoting the use of fixer} route service by paratransit riders, the free fare programs studied aD appeared to also generate additional travel on transit by persons win disabilities. These new trips trpicaDy far outnumbered the trips shifted from paratransit services. In Austin, over one minion new rides per year were recorded by persons who qualified under the free fare program as having a disability. ~ each of the other sites, new fixed route rides by persons with disabilities were two to five times greater than the estimated number of trips shifted from paratransit. TCRP B-lA VI-68 Draft Final Report
While the results of the case series are in general very positive, several implementation and policy issues were noted. First, free fare programs can have a negative unpacts on fixed route revenues. Many persons with disabilities who qualify for the benefit may already be riding at half-fare. These trips win shift to free fare, resulting In a loss of revenue. Even in Bridgeport, though, were the loss of revenue was highest relative to the size of the system and budget, this loss was not significant enough to offset paratransit savings from trips shifted to the fixed route service. Politically, though, such a loss In revenue may be hard to justify and sustain. Several of the systems studiecI took actions that helped to limit fixed route revenue losses. Policies and approaches to consider include: . . Focusing the marketing of any fare incentive program on current paratransit riders. Tulsa Transit sent targeted mailings to current paratransit riders anct appears to have been successful at minimizing shifting from the half-fare to the free fare program. Limiting eligibility for the program to current paratransit riders. Miami offered free fares only to persons already registered for paratransit service and avoided significant shifts from half-fare to free fares. This approach is appropriate for a limited time, and consideration must eventually be given to persons registered for paratransit after the iriitial date of the free fare program. A seconc} Implementation issue is the need to strictly define and determine eligibility for free fare service. If free fares are to be offered only to persons with disabilities who are determined to be "ADA paratransit eligible," it is strongly recommended that the process for determining ADA paratransit eligibility be thorough and strict. This might, for example, Include some level of ~n-person assessment rather TCRP B-lA VI-69 Draft Final Report
than simple self-certification. Based on the experience of the systems studied, the benefit provided by free fares will create a strong incentive for persons to seek ADA paratransit eligibility. One way to avoid creating demand for ADA paratransit eligibility is to offer fare incentive to a broader group of persons with disabilities that ~nclucles but is not limited to current paratransit riders. This was done In bow Austin and Ann Arbor by making free fares available to persons who qualified for either the exiting half-fare program or the paratransit service. This approach win minimize the need demand for ADA certification, since * is typically far easier to apply for half-fare eligibility. SUll, however, because the additional financial benefit provided will generate demand for elig~bilibr, the criteria and process used to determine "disability" more broadly should probably be made more thorough before the unplementation of a fare incentive program. Most half-fare applications require little documentation and are given lithe consideration and review. Standards used to define an eligible disability and the review process could probably be strengthened. The experience of Capital Metro In Austin illustrates the need for a more careful review of program eligibility. Use of prior half- fare standards and forms led to a significant growth In riders eligible for reduced fares. Austin is now In the process of tightening eligibility for the free fare program. A Gird issue concerns the raising of paratransit fares, as wed as Me reduction in fixed route fares, to create a greater financial incentive to use the fixed route service. In many situations, increasing paratransit fares may not be acceptable to current customers, and attempts to implement higher fares may not be politically desirable. In the case of Bridgeport, paratransit fares were ~n~tiaLy quite low anct were increased to be only slightly higher than the fuD fixed route fare. Public objection to the increase was TCRP B-lA VI-70 Draft Final Report
minimal. GBTD staff also indicated that by implementing an increase in paratransit fares at the same time that a free fare on fixed route was announced lessened the overall Impact of these fare incentive changes. Increasing paratransit fares raises other social and policy issues. While lowering the fixed route fare induces travel and promotes a mode switch, raising paratransit fares tends to discourage and reduce overall travel. Certain Individuals may switch as the cost of paratransit relative to fixed route is increased. Other paratransit eligible customers, however, who are unable to use the fixed route system or whose trips cannot be made by fixed route bus may not travel as much as they otherwise would. Increasing paratransit fares may be a necessary step if available funding cannot meet all of the paratransit demand. It cannot be viewed, however, as promoting overall mobility for this transit dependent population. TRANSFERABILITY Transit agencies should consider the financial Incentives and disincentives created by the current paratransit and fixed route fare structures. As noted at the outset of this chapter, "fare incentive programs" should be broadly considered to include both fixed route and paratransit fares and the relationship between them. Systems with paratransit fares that are at or below the half-fare for fixed route may want to consider changes to create financial Incentives for customers to use each mode appropriately. The design of fare incentive programs will vary by area. Agencies with travel training programs may find that an added financial incentive to request training win increase the effectiveness of the program. The use of free fares as a limited promotion, TCRP B-lA VI-71 Draft Final Report
combined with expancled marketing efforts, would also seem to have broad applicability. Increases In paratransit fares to create desirable financial incentives is most applicable In cases where current paratransit fares are extremely low. Such changes may also have to be considered if budgetary constraints make it clifficult or impossible to meet the demanci for paratransit service. The social and political ~mplicabons of increasing paratransit fares should be considered. Some paratransit riders may not be able to use the fixect route system because of their disability. Increased paratransit fares may cause these ~ndivicluals to be less mobile. Adequate identification of persons eligible for free fares should be part of any program. Agencies which currently use photo identification for ADA paratransit eligibility documentation will find it easier to implement periodic promotions or ongoing programs. Additional administrative effort and cost will be involved if an added form of identification is needeci. Finally, if fare incentive programs are tied to ADA paratransit eligibility, agencies should fee] comfortable with the thoroughness of the current determination process or should strengthen it before the program is implemented. TCRP B-1A VI-72 Draft Final Report
