|
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 83
CHAPTER III
FEEDER SERVICE
INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FINDINGS
Many persons with disabilities are able to board and ride fixed route service.
This is particularly true if the fixed route system is accessible. A sigruficant percentage
of these potential fixed route riders are not, however, able to get to or from the nearest
fixed route stops. It has been estimated that, even if fully accessible fixed route service
is available, about 30% of persons determined ADA eligible would still require
paratransit service due to an inability to get to and from fixed route stops and stations.
Feeder services can enable ~ndivicluals with disabilities to use fixed route service
by providing paratransit to and/or from the nearest stop. Passengers are usually picked
up at their homes (although the trip could originate from any location), and are
transported for the first leg of their journey to a bus or train stop. This is usually the
shorter segment of their journey to a bus or train stop. Feeder service may also occur in
reverse, wad passengers being picked up at the bus or train stop and transported home.
Feeder service is also an attractive alternative to transit pronciers seeking to offer
appropriate but cost-effec~ve service to customers with disabilities. This is particularly
true for lengthy para~ansit trips that parallel fixed route service. The greater portion of
the trip that is provided on fixed route rawer Man parabansit service, the greater Me
cost-effic~encies that can be reali~ect.
Lewis, D., Hickling Corporation, Preliminary Regulatory ·mpactAr~alysis of
Transportation Accessibi~i~ Requirements for file Americans with Disabilities Act,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., April 1991.
TCRP B-l21 III- 1 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 84
The feeder service case studies presented In this chapter Include BC Transit In
Vancouver, British Columbia, and Pierce Transit in Tacoma, Washington. Key findings
from research efforts at both sites Include the following:
.
.
Based on experience at Pierce Transit, about 9% of ADA paratransit eligible
nclers are capable of using feecler service for aD of their trips. Another 10%
can use it for some of their trips.
Feeder trips were shorter than direct paratransit trips In Vancouver where
frequent light raid service is available and the comparable direct trip would
need to use inconvenient and very congested bridge crossings. At Pierce
Transit, where feeder is used more extensively and transit service consists of a
bus network, feeder trips are much longer than comparable clirect paratransit
trips, mainly because of long wait times.
Feeder trips at Pierce Transit take about 19% longer than comparable trips
made using fixed-route trans*.
Riders In Vancouver prefer feeder service to direct service with respect to
travel time, scheclule convenience, service availability, and sense of
independence, but not wad respect to personal effort or comfort level. Riders
at Pierce Transit prefer direct trips with respect to aD aspects of service.
Requiring riders to use feecler service at Pierce Trans* has reduced ADA
paratransit usage by those riders by 54%. Of those riders required to use
feeder, 46% have ceased riding ADA paratransit altogether. Of those who
have stopped riding, 45% say they do not go out as often as before.
The implementation and planrung cost for feeder service has been minima.
TCRP B-IA III-2 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 85
.
.
.
At BC Transit and Pierce Transit, feeder trips cost less than half as much per
trip as direct paratransit service for comparable origins and destinations. The
savings was $14.44 per trip at BC Transit and $16.38 per Hip at Pierce Transit.
At Pierce Transit, planning one round hip by feeder costs about $4.51. Tog
into account repeated tnps, trip planning cost an average of $~.26 per one-way
tnp.
Mandatory feeder service has enabled Pierce Transit to continue providing
paratransit In fun compliance with ADA while reducing cost by about 7.5%.
Most of the cost saving comes from reduced demand.
CASE STUDY SITES
Evidence on the effectiveness of feeder service is available from case studies
concluctec3 for this research at BC Transit in Vancouver, British Columbia, and at Pierce
Transit In Tacoma, Washington. These systems were chosen for case studies because
they had more extensive feeder service directed primarily to serving riciers with
clisabilities than any other medium-to-large transit system In North America. General
information about the two case study systems is presented in Table ITI-~.
BC Transit began purchasing lift-equipped buses in 1989. At the time of the
study, 30% of the fleet was accessible. Both the SkyTra~n light rail line and Me SeaBus
ferry are fully accessible. Pierce Transit has had a 100% accessible bus fleet since 1992.
The bus system uses the time transfer concept. Routes are laid out in a grid pattern and
meet at nine major transfer centers.
TCRP B-IA III-3 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 86
Table IlI-~. Case Stucly Sites ~ Key Statistics
- .
BC Transit
Pierce Transit Vancouver
Service Area Population ~605,000 ~1.8 minion ~
TotalF=ed-Route Fleet | 172 buses | 699 buses |
244 trolley buses
light rail
passenger ferries
Percent of Service Accessible | 100% ~30% of buse
100% of light rail and
ferry service
Annual FL'ced-Route Ridership 11.5 million 117.5 millions
Paratransit Fleet l 80 | 190 |
Annual Paratransit Ridership T 530,000 T 800,000
Annual Paratransit Budget T $11,400,000 T $10,220,00C
(U.S. Currency)
a Revenue passengers April 1,1995 - March 31,1996
Ad fleet data pertain to the time of We case studies.
TCRP B-IA III-4 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 87
DESCRIPTION OF PARATRANSIT AND FEEDER SERVICE
BC Transit
BC Transit's handy DART paratransit service Is prowled by eight private operators
under contract to BC Transit. Each operator provides its own caulking, scheduling, and
dispatching within a primary service area. Transfers between operators are common
The paratransit operators provide about 800 feeder Dips per months, primarily to
SkyTra~n and SeaBus, out of about 67,000 total handyDART trips per month. Feeder service
was not estabIished as a formal program Rather it has evolved, primarily as a way to provide
long trips between Me suburbs and central Vancouver which would overwise be too expensive
or tone consuming due to traffic congestion. Travel between the suburbs ant! We arty of
Vancouver is limited because of water barriers crosser! by very few bridges, ant] because there
are no freeways Cat provide connections into the cibr. SkyTra~n prowdes a direct link between
the southeastern suburbs and downtown, while SeaBus provides a link between the northern
suburbs and downtown, ~ transfers available directly to SkyTrain.
Because of the way feeder service has evolveci, there are no formal cutena for
determining which riders or trips are offered feeder service. According to the schedulers
~nter~ewed, about ~ree-quarters of Me feeder trips provider} are mandatory. That is, the ncler
is politely offered a feeder trip or no trip at all. Paratransit eligibility criteria are similar to those
under the U.S. Americans wad Disabilities Act. As part of the certification process, the i. .
operators categorize riders in terms of functional ability, and these coded categories appear on
the computer screen when a scheduler is planning a trip.
TCRP B-lA
TIl-5
Draft Final Report
OCR for page 88
Figure IlI-~. Passengers Entering Accessible Sky Train Car
·.. :': - ? ~
_~.:',
..,~
TCR~ B-IA III-6 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 89
Sea_
ad Sinus Selves
^ f ~:
i
~6 7 ~ID-7 ~
OCR for page 90
Typically, a feeder trip is offered if the eligibility information indicates that a
ricLer can board SkyTra~n and/or SeaBus; and the trip destination is close to a SkyTra~n
stop or can be easily coordinated with another operator whose primary service area is
close to that stop; and:
Lee requested destination would require a lengthy handyDART hip; or
The requested trip occurs during handyDART peak hours; or
The ricler asks for a feeder trip.
Many riders have learned to ask for feeder trips because Hey know that direct
paratrans* service to their destinations curing specific service hours are unavailable.
When a passenger transfers from hanclyDART to SkyTrain or SeaBus, the
paratrans~t vehicle drops the passenger off without waiting for He train or ferry to
arrive. Since SkyTra~n runs every 2.5 to five minutes, wait Hines are generally short.
SeaBus runs about once every 15 minutes so wait times are reasonably short Were as
wed. For pick ups from SkyTrain or SeaBus, the hanclyDART vehicle is directed to meet
the train or ferry at its scheduled arrival fume. Operators indicated t hat, more often
then not, passengers are aIreadv waited when the van arrives. The vans will wait un to
five minutes.
Fare coordination is handed In one of two ways. BC Transit provides the
handyDART operators with ~ree-zone Fare Saver tickets to be used as transfers, which
will pay for the longest trip on BC Transit's fLxed-route transit services. Transit, to be
provided to feeder riders when Hey pay their handyDART fare. However, most
operators find it supper to forgo the paratransit fare and have riders pay the discount
ACRE B-IA III-8 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 91
fare on the fixed-route system. For return trips, riders must produce a transfer that has
been validated at one of the SkyTrain stations or the SeaBus terminal.
Pierce Transit
Pierce Transit has operated a paratransit system, known as SHUTTLE, since
1980. Until recently SHUTTLE provided direct, door-through-door, 2thour a day
service throughout Pierce Transit's legal service area. After passage of the ADA,
ridership began growing rapidly, reaching 530,000 in 1995. To control costs, which had
reached over 25% of the total agency budget, Pierce Transit scaled back its paratransit
program during the year prior to the case study by reducing service closer to minimum
ADA service criteria. Changes implemented during 1995 included a rigorous ADA
certification process, a reduced service area, hours comparable to fixed-route service
hours, a travel training program, and mandatory feeder service for riders who, based on
the ADA certification process, are capable of using the service. Fares were Increased
from $.35 to $.45, matching an increase In the local bus discount fare.
Pierce Transit employees are responsible for ah car-taking and scheduling for
SHUTTLE service. Pierce Transit also dispatches the bulk of weekday trips, which are
carried on vehicles operated by a combination of agency personnel and employees of a
private contractor. Overflow trips, plus evening and weekend trips, are scheduled on
vehicles operated and dispatched by two local cab companies.
As of May I, 1996, out of 7,479 applicants screener! for ADA eligibility, 705 or 9%
had been found eligible only because their disability prevents Hem from going to or
from a bus stop. Pierce Transit refers to this group as "3B eligible," a reference to the
Gird category of ADA eligibility under DOT regulations. This group is offered
TCRPB-IA III-9 Draf~FinalReport
OCR for page 92
Dime "I-~. sniff Rider lransfe~ing to Plxed Dome Bus
~1II~
~.
IIIIII~
it.
~SS!sSsS~
~:~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~ii~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~iii~i~i~i~i~
e 6-7 ~IH-10 ~- ma/ Of
OCR for page 93
mandatory feeder service. Indivicluals who could use feeder service only some of the
time, because their clisabilitr would prevent Hem from boarding or riding a fixed-route
bus some of the time, are permitted to decide for ~emseIves whether to make a specific
trip by bus.
As of April 1996, nine months after the start of feeder service, SHUTTLE was
providing about 600 feeder trips per month out of a total 40,000 paratransit trips per
monk. Pierce Transit's ADA certification a~ninistrator estimates that at least 900
people will have been designated 3B eligible once ADA eligibility screeriing is complete.
If these people use feeder service at the same rate as current registrants, then 1 here win
be about 750 feeder trips per month.
When a rider designated as 3B eligible requests a SHUTTLE trip, the call taker
checks to see if the distance from the ricler's trip origin to the nearest transit center is less
than to the ricler's Resonation. If it is, and the trip is a repeat trip, then it is entered as a
feeder trip In the daily trip schedule immediately. If the request is for a new trip, the
caretaker arranges to can the rider back within about half an hour. The car-taker then
plans how a feeder trip can be arranged and cans the rider back with a trip plan. If the
rider accepts the proposed trip, it is entered into the schedule. Almost aD transfers
between SHUTTLE and fixed-route service are done at one of Pierce Transit's nine
transit centers. These are mostly at shopping malls with accessible telephones and
bathrooms widen a relatively short distance of the transfer location. If the rider's trip
does not meet the distance criterion, Hen He rider is offered a direct SHUTTLE trip.
Feeder tries are schecluled using SHUTrT~E's standard criteria, which require
. .
riders to be ready to be picked up any time In the hour before the desired arrival tome at
TCRPB-IA III-ll Draft FinalReport
OCR for page 114
Table TIl-~. Calculation of Paratransit Vehicle Time Cost Savings
Element of Calculation BC Transit Pierce Transit
Average Duration of Parabansit Portion of Feeder Trips 21 minutes
Average Duration of Direct Para~ansit Trip between Same 52 minutes
Origin and Destination
Reduction In Passenger-Minutes 31 minutes
Average Vehicle Occupancy I.Oa
Reduction In Vehicle-Minutes 31 minutes
.
Cost per Vehicle Hour (U.S. $) $28.10
Cost per Trip Savings | $14.44
17 minutes
38 minutes
-
21 minutes
1.09b
19.3 minutes
$51.00
$16.38
a Estimation of paratransit trip durations made no allowance for detours to serve other passengers.
b Estimated from 1994 Section 15 data: (4,197,672 passenger miles) / (3,840,040 vehicle-miles) =
1.09 passengers per vehicle.
Note: Results may not appear exact due to rounding.
TCRP B-IA III-32 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 115
paratransit budget. From BC Transit's perspective, Me feeder service allows
handyDART to accommodate another 10,400 passenger trips annually win no increase
In budget.
At Pierce Transit's estimated feeder trip rate of 750 trips per monk once ADA
certification is complete, the reduced cost per trip would result In annual savings of
about $147,000.
Operational Cost Savines Due to Reduced Demand
At BC Transit, feeder service provides travel opportunities that might not exist
otherwise, and did not previously exist. Therefore, mere is no basis for calculating any
savings from reduced demand.
As calculated earlier, Pierce Transit's mandatory feeder program wid result in a
reduction in paratransit clemand of about 31,320 trips per year once ADA certification is
complete. At SHUTTT~E's average cost per trip of $22.63 (based on the first quarter of
1996), the demand reduction implies a cost savings of about $709,000 per year.
Summary of Cost Savings
For BC Transit, the only documented cost impact is a savings resulting from
~ ~ O
shorter paratransit trips of about $139,000, roughly 1.3% of We annual parabansit
budget, which translates to an ability to provide 1.3% more passenger trips.
For Pierce Transit annual cost savings can be summarized as follows:
Cost savings clue to reduced paratransit vehicle time:
Cost savings due to reduced demand:
Added cost of trip planning:
Net cost savings:
$147,000
709,000
-11 000
$845,000
TCRP B-IA III-33 Drag Final Report
OCR for page 116
This sum represents about 7.5% of the annual budget for SHUTTLE. Note that
most of the savings results from reduced demand. If there were no demand impact, the
cost savings would amount to about 1.2% of the annual SHUTTLE budget.
Does Cost Savings Depend on Trip Length?
In planning the evaluation, it was hypothesized that cost savings per trip would
depend on trip length, since the cost of pre-trip planning would be constant while cost
savings from reduced paratransit vehicle time would occur only for long trips. In the
case of Pierce Transit, the cost of pre-trip planning is $~.24 per trip provided, while the
savings on paratransit vehicle dine is $16.41 per one-way trip. The question is: does this
savings depend on limiting feeder to trips of some minimum length?
At SHUTTLE's operating cost of $2.51 per vehicle-mile, the pre-trip planning
cost is equivalent to the cost of about 0.5 vehicle-miles of operation. Therefore, feeder
win save money as long at the para~ansit portion of Me average feeder hip is 0.5 miles
shorter than the direct paratransit mileage for the same trip. In practice, Pierce Transit
achieves an average mileage difference of 5.7 nodes (3.1 miles paratransit portion vs. S.S
miles for the same trips on direct paratransit).
At BC Transit, the cost of pre-trip planning is considered negligible. Therefore
feeder would save money as long as the paratransit portion is shorter by any amount
than the direct paratransit mileage. In practice, the handyDART operators achieve an
average mileage difference of 10.4 miles (4.9 miles paratransit portion vs. 15.3 miles for
the same trips on direct paratransit).
TCRP B-IA III-34 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 117
Standing Order vs. One-time Trips
A question In implementing feeder is whether it is cost-effective for one-time
trips which require a new trip plan every time, or only for standing order trips which
can use We same trip plan many times. Since the savings per trip is much greater than
Me pre-trip plar~iing cost in both case study sites, it appears that feeder would save
money even if each trip hack to be planned, that is even if none of the feeder trips were
standing orders. However, this calculation does not consider the inconvenience to
riclers and operators on feecler trips, especially one-Ume and short feeder trips.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES--LESSONS LEARNED
The case studies provide a number of lessons that win be useful to other systems
~plement~ng feeder service.
Voluntary or Mandatory Feeder Service
The evaluation clid not prov~cle direct evidence of whether a voluntary feeder
program would be effective in an ADA environment. Pierce Transit's program is
mandatory. BC Transit's is theoretically voluntary, but riders do not have a direct
paratransit alternative for most feeder trips. The two agencies' experiences suggest that
a voluntary program win not attract significant usage unless travel Ones and
convenience are viewed as better than direct paratransit. Achieving this may be
relatively easy with frequent rail transit, but win require sophisticated schecluling
capabilities with less frequent bus service.
Eligibility Screening
In a mandatory feeder program, an effective eligibility screening program Is
essential. Pierce Transit unplemented a comprehensive program of deterIruning feecler
TCRP B-IA III-35 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 118
eligibility in conjunction with Me recertification of its entire registrant base for ADA
eligibility. Pierce Transit has been criticized by some members of the community for
designating some people as 3B eligible who should really be getting direct paratransit
service. The agency is beginning to use ~n-person assessments with a medical or
rehabilitation professional when necessary to refine the determination of the distance
that a person is able to walk or wheel unassisted. The long wait times that occur with
feeder suggest a need to make a careful determination of the time that a ricler can wait
outdoors, especially in cold or rainy weather.
Feeder Trip Scheduling
Pierce Transit has found Mat can takers do not always schedule the most
efficient or quickest possible feeder trip. Therefore, where car-taking and schecluling
are separate functions, there would be value in having schedulers or dispatchers
involved in trip planning, or having them review trip plans made by call takers. Both
BC Transit and Pierce Transit prepared trip plans manually. Automated scheduling
systems, taking into account fixed-route service and accessibility information, may help
prepare more efficient trip plans.
The Critical Role of Wait Times
The experience of both systems demonstrates the critical role of wait time at
transfer points in creating reasonable feeder trip times. Where fixed route service floes
not run frequently, modifications to standard paratransit scheduling practices may be
cles~rable to create acceptable wait times at transfers. Coordination with fixed-route
personnel, for example informing fixec3-route c3 rivers when a transfer is planned, may
help recluce transfer problems.
TCRP B-IA III-36 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 119
Community and Rider Relations
Bow systems benefited from an excellent, cooperative relationship wad ctisablect
riders and the communing. At Pierce Transit, a history of excellent and weD-funded
paratransit, comb~nec! with an intensive educational campaign about Me need to reign
in expenses, helped create support for feeder service despite We fact Mat most riders
perceive * as a clear recluction in service level. At BC Transit, feeder is perceived as
providing travel opportunities that would not overwise exist.
Selecting Trips for Feeder
In adclition to a system for determining which riders should use feeder, a system
for determining which trips are appropriate for feeder is needed. Pierce Transit created
an elaborate system for determining which paratransit trips should be provided using
feeder. This system Is necessary for ensuring Mat ah feeder trips are at least feasible.
The results of the economic evaluation suggest ~at, beyond determining feasibility, a
strict trip selection process is not necessary to ensure that feeder service is cost-effective.
A stricter selection process than used by Pierce Transit may be necessary if feeder is to
appear as a clesirable alternative for riders. BC Trans* anolies feeder onIv for tries
~ ~ ~ r
which are very difficult to provide using direct paratransit, with the result that riders clo
perceive it as an attractive alternative.
Standing Orders and Single Trips
It may be thought that feeder service works best for repeated, standing order
trips. Since most of Me feeder trips provided at bow case study systems are for
repeated trips, it appears that riders and staff do find feeder more usable for these trips
TCRP B-IA III-37 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 120
Man for single, non-repeated hips. However, the cost analysis shows that feeder can be
cost effective for either type of trip.
Travel Training
Pierce Transit implemented an aggressive program of travel training for ah
riders certifiect as 3B eligible. The evaluation did not determine to what extent this
training contributed to riders' ability to use feeder. BC Transit die! not have an active
program of travel training at the time of the case study.
Should Parairansit Vehicles Wait at Transfer Points?
In plar~iing feeder service, some systems may consider having paratransit
vehicles wait at transfer points to assist In the transfer to a fixed-route vehicle. Neither
of the case study agencies has such a policy, so the case studies did not determine what
Impact it wouic3 have on vehicle scheduling, passenger ride times, or the attractiveness
of leerier service. Pierce Transit's experience with wait Hines at transfers does suggest
that there would be long delays for vehicles and riders unless scheduling policies can be
tailored to provic ing very efficient transfers. These delays would have cost implications
as well.
Transfer Locations
BC Transit uses SkyTrain and SeaBus stations, while Pierce Trans* uses the
transit centers of its Anew transfer bus network. AN of these locations have accessible
pathways, shelters, benches, telephones, and accessible rest room facilities. Considering
the long wait times, and long total travel times, Mat occur for feeder trips at Pierce
Transit and are likely to be repeated at many transit systems, these characteristics are
probably essential ones for feeder transfer locations.
ACRE B-IA III-38 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 121
Comparability to F=ecI-Route Travel Times
The results from Pierce Transit suggest that much of the attractiveness (or even
the usability) of paratransit may depend on travel times that are substantially better
than those available on fvced-route transit. The analysis found that average travel times
on hypothetical direct paratransit trips were about 43% less than those using fixed-route
transit for the same trip. 3B riders were required to switch one-third of their trips to
feeder service, which offers travel times about 19% longer than those using fixed-route
transit and involves transfers for each trip. As a result, these riders reduced their
paratransit travel by 54%. This result suggests that overall paratransit demand would
probably be much less if paratransit travel times were more comparable to f~xed-route
travel times, or if many trips required transfers between paratransit vehicles.
Fare Coordination
Because of the difficulty in keeping all handyDART drivers supplied with Fare
Saver tickets to be used as transfers onto fixed route service, BC Transit's paratransit
operators chose on their own to forego charging a fare for paratransit trips. Pierce
Transit also elected to provide the paratransit portion of feeder trips at no charge. This
arrangement may not be appropriate or practical for all systems.
APPLICABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY
BC Transit's experience is most applicable to those systems that have high-
frequency accessible rail service. The applicability of lessons regarding feeder service at
BC Transit is limiteci for systems In Me United States by the fact that BC Transit is not
subject to the requirements of the ADA. As a result, the service provided by
handyDART is somewhat more limited than would be the case in many U.S. systems.
TCRP B-IA III-39 Drays Final Report
OCR for page 122
However, systems with good raid or high-capaci~ bus service and a very congested
road network may be able to offer feeder service win a similar travel time advantage
over direct paratransit. BC Transit's experience also shows that it is possible to provide
feecler service In a paratransit system with decentralized operation with multiple
private providers.
A number of features of service at Pierce Transit need to be considered In
determining how the case study results would apply to other transit systems:
.
.
.
.
The Pierce Transit SHUTTLE offered a very high level of paratransit service
before the period In which feeder service was Implemented. Systems offering
a lower level of paratransit service might experience less demand reduction
due to feeder service than Pierce Transit.
Pierce Transits timed transfer bus network provides a set of natural transfer
points for feeder service at which bus departure Hines are closely controlled.
Systems without such a network of transfer points wiD need to put more effort
into determining appropriate locations for feecler transfers, and might have
more difficulty scheduling transfers.
Pierce Transit included strict screening for ability to use feeder as part of its
comprehensive rescreening of registrants for ADA eligibility. Systems which
have already completed rescreening without considering ability to use feeder
will need to make special arrangements for feeder eligibility screening.
Weather conditions in Pierce Transit's service area and in Vancouver are not
as severe as those at many Midwestern and eastern transit systems which
experience extreme coic! and snow. Systems In such areas win need to make
TCRP B-IA III-40 Draft Final Rep or!
OCR for page 123
additional allowance for riders' ability to wait outside or limit transfers to
more sheltered or heated locations.
.
.
.
Pierce Transit's paratransit scheduling process is structured entirely around
ensuring an on-time arrival at destination points. This arrangement ensures
that fixed-route transfers are not m~sseci, but may contribute to long wait
times. Systems where schedules are created based on a w~nc30w around
promised pick up time may need to implement special procedures to ensure
smooth transfers. However, appropriate procedures may succeed in reducing
wait times compared to those observed at Pierce Transit.
Since Pierce Transit's paratransit fare Is equal to its discount f~xed-route fare,
riders had no fare incentive to use feeder service compared to direct
paratransit. As a result the evaluation gives no evidence on the extent to
which a fare incentive helps to make feeder service attractive to riders.
Pierce Transit provides all call-taking and scheduling, and most dispatching
for paratransit trips using its own operations staff. This arrangement gives the
agency great control over aD aspects of operations, and at least provides the
opportunity for coordination with fixed-route operating staff. Systems with
contracted paratransit service, especially those with decentralized service,
may have more clifficulty establishing effective procedures. Note, however,
that BC Transit's feeder service does work with contracted, decentralized
para~ansit operations.
TCRP B-lA III-41 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 124
Representative terms from entire chapter:
feeder service
