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 I INTRODUCTION PROBLEM STATEMENT Passage of Me Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) funciamentaDy changed the relationship between parahans* and fixed route services Paratrans* is no longer consiclered a substitute for accessible fixed route service - now both are required. Paratrans* is a complementary service to be provided whenever fixed route service is unable to or not appropriate to meet a customer's needs. The ADA has also changed the way In which individuals are determined eligible for public paratransit service. Elig~bilibr is no longer to be based solely on a person's particular disability or on the type of mobility air! that a person uses (e.g., "those who use wheelchairs are eligible for paratransit"~. Insteaci, ADA paratransit elig~bilibr is determined based on a person's ability to use the fixed route system, given that system's current characteristics, and on related environmental factors. Person's determined ADA paratransit eligible are not necessarily granted access to Me paratransit service for aD travel needs. Instead, the fixed route system is to be utilized whenever possible and appropriate. There are a number of important Implications of this new relationship between fixed route and paratransit service. First, provision of the most efficient and effective transportation now requires that fixed route and paratransit be designed, developed, and operated as one system rather than as two separate systems. The expressed demanc! for paratransit service should be taken Into consideration in Me design and TCRP B-1A I- 1 Draft Final Report
redesign of a total public transit program. Options and enhancements mat better integrate fixed route and paratransit need to be considered. Second, the transit industry's ability to successfully implement the ADA may depend on its ability to maximize the use of fixed route services and develop integrated paratransit and fixed route systems. The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) recent review of ADA paratransit plans found that the requirement posing the greatest problem to the industry is, not surprisingly, the elimination of capacity constraints. Shortcomings in addressing this service criteria were noted in 44% of the plans reviewed. Many transit providers project significant increases In travel demand by customers with disabilities. Expanding paratransit systems to meet this need will require significant increases in funding. Better ulili~ation of available fixed route capacity could, however, greatly reduce the financial impact of this aspect of the law. Third, the most efficient and appropriate integration of fixed route and para~ar~sit must be considered lay Transit systems WhiGh are likely to cur si,~j,nificz~nt financial burdens meeting We paratransit requirements of the ADA. Before an undue financial burden can be claimed, providers must demonstrate that paratransit service is being provided only when it is needed and required. Costs associated with the provision of paratransit for trips that could have been accommodated on the fixed route system cannot be counted In any calculation of undue financial burden. It is vital In these instances that Al appropriate service options be explored for meeting the needs of ADA paratransit eligible Individuals In We most integrated, cost-effective way. EG&G Dynahend, ~c., et. al., 1mplemer'tation of the Complementary Paratransit Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), First Year Experience, prepared for We Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 1993. TCRP B-IA J`-2 Draft Final Report
As a result, Interest In service options that better integrate fixed route and para~ansit systems and programs that can enhance fixed route systems has risen since the passage of the ADA. A significant number of ADA paratransit plans include travel training programs, on~all lift-bus programs, expanded marketing efforts, and other improvements. The development of service options and enhancements has also been promoted and facilitated by programs such as Project ACTION, demonstration programs and policies established by Transport Canada, and by workshops and seminars sponsored by FTA, industry associations, and State transit agencies. Technical information and research on Me many types of service options and enhancements is limited. For certain types of enhancements, such as travel pairing, marketing, and employee training, local experiences are described in recent Project ACTION reports. For over Apes of service options, such as route deviation services, feeder services, and service routes, few detailed studies exist which describe costs, benefits, and implementation issues. Available information is limited in many cases to promotional materials and articles in industry joumals describing the efforts of specific providers. Without the benefit of research and detailed information, many providers are implementing programs without adequate knowledge of the likely costs, benefits, or impacts on existing services and riders. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY This report documents the second phase of a two-part study of transit operations for individuals with disabilities. The first phase of the study researched the various options/enhancements that are used by transit agencies In North America. A report TCRP B-IA I-3 Draft Final Report
describing 21 different innovative types of operation was prepared.2 Following this comprehensive identification of types of operations, five were selected for detailed case study review. This report contains these case study findings and includes a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of each option studied. The goal of the overall study is to develop information and data for local transit providers that will facilitate the implementation of appropriate service options and enhancements for serving individuals with disabilities. Specific objectives consistent with this goal include the development of a methodology for transit managers and planners to design and evaluate integrated transit systems that: (~) provide accessible integrated service complying with the ADA; (2) facilitate the appropriate use of paratransit service; and (3) support service or system enhancements to encourage travel on accessible fixed routes by individuals with disabilities. To assist planners and transit managers with the selection of appropriate options/enhancements, an analysis of the applicability of each option studied to different types of transit systems and geographic settings is provided. Key implementation issues are also presented. In keeping win Me above goal and objectives, an important part of this phase Tree report was We development of methodologies for evaluating Me effectiveness of each option/enhancement studied. These methodologies are designed to provide a framework for measuring the performance of each option and enhancement. ~ order to measure these alternatives according to Me objectives noted above, the methodologies consider traditional measures of efficiency and effectiveness (cost/trip, productivity, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transit Operationsfor Individuals with Disabilities, Report No. 9, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995. TCRP B-IA I-4 Draft Final Report
total trips served by mode, etc.) as well as other criteria that relate to customer satisfaction and acceptance. Particular attention is given in the evaluation to the degree to which each alternative meets the broader goals of the ADA - such as independence, integration, and the provision of service in a non-discriminatory manner. The methodologies were then used to conduct the case studies. The case studies, therefore, are meant not only to provide actual experiences in using innovative service options, but also to serve as examples of the ways that these options can be evaluated. SELECTION OF OPI IONS FOR STUDY As noted above, 21 different innovative service options and enhancements were identified in Transit Operationsfor Individuals with Disabilities, the report on the first phase of the study. Figure I-1 provides a listing of all options detailed in that report. The options and enhancements were designated as being either alternative operational models, alternative technologies, or support service. Alternative operational models are various approaches to the basic design of fixed route and demand responsive systems. As shown, they include things such as service routes, feeder service, route deviation, and flag stop programs. Alternative technologies are different vehicle and equipment designs that specifically address the needs of customers with disabilities. Low-floor buses, accessible taxis, and various automated information and communication technologies are included in this category. Support services are activities which can be implemented to enhance the success of any type of service that is offered. Included in this category are activities such as travel training, fare incentives, and marketing. TCRP B-IA I-5 Draft Final Report
Figure I-~. Service Options and Enhancements Identifier! by Related Research Alternative Operational Models . . . . . . . . Support Services service routes/community bus on-call accessible fixer! route bus route deviation point deviation feeder service general public dial-a-ride subscription bus flag stop and request-a-stop service Alternative Technologies low-floor buses accessible taxis automated information and communication technologies travel training facilitated transportation fare incentive programs fare simplification mechanisms marketing trip planning service planning accessible bus stop programs vehicle identifier programs TCRP B-IA I-6 Drays Final Report
The first task In this part of the study was to select five options for detailed evaluation. Each of We options/enhancements identified by Me research was consiclerec] for further research. Possible benefits to the industry of more detailed review were consiciered along with Me relationship of the option to Me overall goals of the project. Many of the option/enhancements iclentified represent activities which are required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This Includes driver training, bus T.D. and clesUnation card systems, access to bus stops, ant! accessible information and communications. Because these enhancements win be implemented in response to the law, it was felt that a cletailect study of their cost-effectiveness would not greatly influence their future use. Other enhancements, however, are not required. This wouic3 include service routes, Ravel training, route and point deviation, and feeder services. These enhancements win only be implemented if hey are proven to be effective ways of appropriately meeting the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities. A seconct major factor which was consiclered In selecting options for detailed study was the degree to which they could appropriately promote integrated fixed route service for people with disabilities. Certain options such as feeder service, route and point clewation, fare incentives, travel training, and service routes relate clirectly to this key project objective. These options either utilize fixed route service, or modified fixed route service, for aD or part of the trip, or promote self-selection of faced route service using economic incentives or direct assistance. TCRP B-IA I-7 Draft Final Report
binary, consideration was given to Nose options which were being considered by the greatest number of survey respondents and to options which appear to be particularly cost-effective based on Me literature review and survey of transit providers that was part of the Transit Operations for Individuals with Disabilities report. Basec! on a sample of 309 transit systems In North America, this prior research determined if transit agencies were presently using various service option, were in the process of Implementing them, or were "considering" using the options.3 Figure I-2 summarizes the survey responses. The number at the end of each bar indicates the number of transit systems that are considering Nat particular option/enhancement. Several Interesting conclusions can be drawn. First, "Employee Training" rated last probably because the ADA regulations require that training be provided and most systems are aware of and have been focusing on this issue. Interestingly, "Bus ID Kits" and "Destination Cards", which are systems that can allow providers to meet the ADA regulation conceming identification of vehicles and passengers at stops served by more than one route, were being considered by many providers. This could be due to the fact that many systems have not yet focused on this regulatory requirement but are becoming aware that they need to do so. The interest In bus ID and destination card systems may also be due to We fact Nat they meet this requirement without equipment or operational changes such as external vehicle annunciators or operator announcements outside of Me bus. Responsibilitr for identification of routes is shared with Me passenger. 3 A total of 548 transit systems in tile United States and 76 in Canada were surveyed. Responses were received from 309 systems. TOP B-IA I-8 Draft Final Report
lions "Being Considered" by Transit Providers Bus ID Kits Low-Floor FR Buses Destination Cards Service Routes Route Deviation Feeder Service Access. Bus Stops Travel Training Audio/Visual Sysytems Point Deviation Marketing Accessible Taxis Simpl. Fare Collect. On-Call Bus Service Fare Incentives Gen. Public DAR Facilitated Transp. Corridor Paratransit Employee Training MA 72 69 69 66 ! ~ 62 55 54 54 ~ 52 1 ~ 47 , ~ 46 43 40 34 34 31 29 13 83 TCRP B-IA I-9 Draft Final Report l 1, l l
Eliminating items required or implied by the ADA (i.e., bus ID kits, destination cards, accessible bus stops, accessible information and communications, ant} employee Baaing), the four options/enhancements Mat are being considered by the greatest number of respondents are: low-floor buses (72 systems); service routes (69 systems); route deviation (66 systems); and feeder service (62 systems). While fare Incentives were not being considered by as many transit systems, the literature review and survey follow-up work indicated that fare incentive programs can be very cost effective. Several systems which have implemented fare incentive programs reported significant Increases In fixed route ridership. Based on the above considerations, the five options selected for detailed on-site evaluation were: service routes feecler service route deviation low-floor buses · fare incentives SELECTION OF CASE STUDY SITES A number of transit systems which had Implemented the five options selected for further study were iclentified through Me survey of transit systems In Nort h America. Using the results of Me survey, a selected group of systems were contacted. More detailed information about Me success of the program as well as any uriique characteristics of the sewing or Me program were discussed. Basect on these phone TCRPB-IA I-10 DrafiFinalReport
surveys, five sites were selected for He first phase of on-site case stucly work. This Initial on-site research was conducted in 1994. A second set of case study sites was then selected and reviewed in 1996. In selecting case study sites, consideration was given to the potential for transferability of the findings to other systems. Preference was given to transit agencies which were more representative. Unique settings ant! circumstances were avoided if possible. Consideration was also given to sites which indicated that the clata needed to test the evaluation methodologies developed was available. The case stucly sites, by type of service option/enhancement studied, are listed below. The year each site was studied is also Indicated. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This report contains a summary of the major findings of ah 16 case stuclies. Also presented Is an analysis of the relative cost-effectiveness of each option stuclied, a comparison of qualitative measles of acceptance and success, key implementation issues, and conclusions regarding applicability and transferability. Chapters ~ through V! contain findings for the five service options/enhancements studied. Findings from the service route case studies are provided in Chapter H. Feeder service research is summ~ed in Chapter III. Results of studies of route and point deviation programs are contained in Chapter IV. The low- floor bus case studies are presented in Chapter V. And fare incentive programs and findings are detailed In Chapter VI. Each chapter contains background information about the transit systems studied and Weir use of the service option/enhancement of interest. Both the methodology used to evaluate the service and the approach to data ACRE B-IA I- 1 1 Draft Final Report
Figure I-3. Case Study Sites . Service Optior¢Enhancement Case Study Sites . _ Service Routes Madison County, Illinois (1994) Ajax, Ontario (1996) Richmond Hill, Ontario (1996) Madison, Wisconsin (1996) Margate, Florida (1996) Feeder Services Vancouver, British Columbia (1994) | Tacoma, Washington (1996) Route/Po~nt Deviation York Counter, Pennsylvania (1994) Eugene, Oregon (1996) Newport, Oregon (1996) . Low-Floor Buses Ann Arbor, Michigan (1994) Champaign-Urbana, Michigan (1996) I Victoria, British Columbia (1996) Fare Incentive Programs Bridgeport, Connecticut (1994) Austin, Texas (1996) Tulsa, Oklahoma (1996) Miami, Florida (1996) Arm Arbor, Michigan (1996) TCRPB-IA I-12 DrafiFinalReport
collection are given. Findings are then presented. Following the presentation of findings, implementation issues, overall conclusions and transferability/applicability issues are discussed. Finally, Chapter VII presents the analysis of the relative success of each option studied In achieving integration of services and the most appropriate use of paratransit and faced route service. Quantitative as wed as qualitative measures of success are used. In addition to case study research, a second important part of this project Involved the clevelopment of cletailed me~odolones for evaluating transit operations ~ ~ ~ rig for Individuals with disabilities. These methodologies are contained In Appendix A. Included in each evaluation framework are the Apes of data needed, possible sources of information, and equations for calculating cost-effectiveness. Qualitative issues to be consiclered In each evaluation are also detailed and sources of information for this evaluation section are suggested. These methodologies guided the case study work. They are also meant to serve as guidance for planners and bans* managers interested In evaluating their own systems. TCRP B-IA I-13 Draft Final Report
