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.
As the cost of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service continues to grow, tran- sit agencies are exploring ways of integrating fixed-route and paratransit services that remain consistent with the spirit and the letter of the law. Various models for flexible services, as these hybrids of fixed-route and paratransit have sometimes been called, have been explored in other research studies, most notably in TCRP Synthesis 53: Operational Experiences with Flexible Transit Services. The current synthesis on integrated services complements that study by focus- ing on those services that either were designed with the disability community in mind or that have benefited riders with disabilities and served to reduce demand on ADA paratransit services. The most common form of integrated service that has not received extensive attention in previous studies is feeder service. This study presents a number of variations on the traditional model of ADA paratransit feeder service, whereby people with disabilities are transported via paratransit to a bus or train station. In fact, as documented in this study, more feeder service is provided through a combination of general public demand-response and/or route deviation services, feeding into fixed-route, than through ADA paratransit feeder service. For riders able to ride fixed-route service for at least some of their trips, the ADA allows transit agencies to limit trip offerings to feeder service. Yet only a handful of transit agencies nationwide have implemented this so-called mandatory form of feeder service. Notable examples are Pierce Transit in Tacoma, Washington, UTA in Salt Lake City, Utah, and ACCESS in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and smaller systems such as those in Madison County, Illinois. This synthesis attempts to document why these systems have been able to implement this policy, while most transit systems in North America have resisted taking this step because of concerns about community reaction and other more practical considerations. The barriers that have prevented further expansion of feeder service are examined, and other models of integrated service that have been successfully implemented are identified. Following a literature review that revealed very limited information on the subject of integrated services, a web-based survey was disseminated to more than 300 transit agencies and consultants throughout North America. Twenty-one completed responses were received from transit agencies that provide integrated services. Further research through telephone interviews and a site visit to an area rich in integrated services helped identify an additional 13 agencies, though detailed information only was available for a portion of these agencies. The information gathered in this report includes documentation of policies and associated program features that have facilitated successful implementation of integrated services. These include eligibility screening processes, operational procedures, travel training, education and outreach, marketing, and technology. The experiences of systems that have explored the fea- sibility of integrated services and not proceeded with implementation, or have implemented and discontinued integrated services, also are documented. Following are some key conclusions of the synthesis: ⢠The implementation of trip-by-trip screening for individuals found conditionally eligible under the ADA can result in significant cost savings. However, a number of elements SUMMARY INTEGRATION OF PARATRANSIT AND FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES
need to be in place for successful implementation, including having the fixed-route scheduling information conveniently available to paratransit reservations agents or schedulers, an accurate eligibility screening process, and sound information on environ- mental barriers. Most importantly, political will on the part of transit staff and decision makers, combined with involvement of the disability community, are critical to successful implementation. ⢠Fixed-route systems that deviate for people with disabilities have found this approach to be a valuable means of either avoiding the cost of complementary ADA paratransit service, or serving communities that otherwise would not receive service. ⢠Integrated services that connect to fixed-route locations, whether through community bus, route deviation, or paratransit feeder service, can be effectively implemented in locales with a variety of land use densities, from densely urban environments to rural areas. ⢠Geographically elongated and physically constrained service areas are particularly well- suited to feeder service. ⢠Feeder service has not experienced widespread application because of a variety of factors, including concern for the impact on the mobility of riders; a perception that this model is difficult to implement; and lack of consensus about the cost savings associated with feeder implementation. ⢠Educating paratransit staff, particularly eligibility screeners, schedulers, and drivers, is critical to the success of feeder service. ⢠While technology is not necessarily a prerequisite for the implementation of paratransit feeder service, the three most common scheduling software packages used in North America all include modules that can facilitate this process. ⢠Transit agencies that have offered feeder service on a voluntary basis have generated very little interest from consumers. ⢠Feeder service is generally well received in areas that have exceptionally frequent fixed- route service and avoided in areas that may result in long waits at transfer points. ⢠Educating consumers about the need for feeder service is a lengthy but essential element in building community acceptance, if not full support. ⢠Feeder service can be an effective means of complementing the effectiveness of travel training, and implementation of these two programs should be considered simultaneously. ⢠Besides the feeder model, integrating fixed-route and paratransit services can be achieved through a number of other forms, most of which have been documented elsewhere. However, exemplary approaches presented in this study include the offer of free fixed- route service to ADA paratransit registrants, promoting the use of neighborhood circula- tors through the ADA call-in center, locating staff at transit centers to facilitate transfers by people with disabilities between different modes, and alternating between fixed-route and demandâresponse modes at different times of the day. ⢠Engaging community-based organizations in the provision of innovative integrated ser- vices can be an effective way of containing ADA paratransit costs. 2
