|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 201
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
OCR for page 202
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!
OCR for page 203
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
OCR for page 204
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
,.
OCR for page 205
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
OCR for page 206
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
OCR for page 207
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
OCR for page 208
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
OCR for page 209
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
OCR for page 210
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!
OCR for page 211
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
OCR for page 262
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
OCR for page 263
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
OCR for page 264
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
OCR for page 265
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
OCR for page 266
(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
OCR for page 267
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
OCR for page 268
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
OCR for page 269
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
OCR for page 270
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
OCR for page 271
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
OCR for page 272
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
free fare
