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.
TCRP Synthesis 53: Operational Experiences with Flexible Transit Services (Koffman, 2004) sug- gested that there were few places that operated flexible public transportation services. As previ- ously described, results of the survey undertaken as part of TCRP Project B-35, reported herein, suggest that flexible public transportation services are much more prevalent in the United States than initially thought. Almost 39 percent of the respondents to the initial survey for this study stated that they operated some form of flexible public transportation. The overwhelming majority of flexible public transportation services were found in rural areas that could be described as the following: â¢ Very large rural areas (up to 6,000 square miles) with very low-density populations (5 to 100 per- sons per square mile) â¢ Large jurisdictions (e.g., counties) with low-density populations (100 to 500 persons per square mile) â¢ Small rural communities (e.g., towns) with low-density populations (100 to 500 persons per square mile). There are some flexible public transportation services operated in small urban areas where population densities can range from low/medium (500 to 1,000 persons per square mile) to medium/high (1,000 to 2,000 persons per square mile). These services typically occur in com- munities where the public transportation agency does not provide many work trips and flexible public transportation services obviate the need for complementary ADA paratransit. In larger urban areas, limited flexible public transportation services are operated under spe- cific circumstances, e.g., to fill a need for nighttime service, to serve low-density areas, to act as a feeder or connector to fixed-route, rail, or major traffic generators such as employment cen- ters and shopping malls. Flexible public transportation service can also serve to introduce choice riders to fixed-route services in some limited circumstances. 2.1 Rural Flexible Public Transportation Service The use of flexible public transportation in rural areas is well documented. In TCRP Report 6: Usersâ Manual for Assessing Service-Delivery Systems for Rural Passenger Transportation (Burkhardt et al., 1995), route deviation and point deviation are discussed as âvariable route, fixed schedule servicesâ (33). The report states that (33) Route deviation services work well where: â¢ the deviations are a relatively small part of the overall demand and the overall running time of the route, â¢ the majority of the riders are not highly time-sensitive, 19 C H A P T E R 2 Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service
â¢ door-to-door service is important to some but not all passengers, â¢ there are other positive reasons for providing services that are more like fixed route than demand-responsive options. TCRP Report 6 also states the following (Burkhardt et al., 1995, 33): Route deviation services do not typically work well where: â¢ most of the trips are time sensitive, and â¢ some sort of basic route structure is not desirable for this community. On the subject of point deviation, TCRP Report 6 states: While point deviation services share many of the same advantages and disadvantages of route devia- tion services, point deviation services are more like demand-responsive operations. Route deviation ser- vice would be preferred where passengers would be waiting along the route to be picked up without advance notice to the system, and point deviation would be preferred when a service needed to be more highly responsive to changing or variable demands. Point deviation services may be preferable to route deviation services in rural areas because the routes between checkpoints can be flexible, allowing the driver more routing options for maintaining the schedule, and requests for service can be negotiated or deferred so that the schedule is maintained. (Burkhardt et al., 1995, 33â34) Table 7 in this report contains statistics on rural transportation service benchmarks for high performance systems that were included as Table 3.1 in the TCRP Report 6. The use of flexible public transportation services is also discussed in TCRP Report 101: Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services (Burkhardt et al., 2004). In that report, flexible public transportation is a part of the section entitled âService Development, Delivery, and Pricing Optionsâ: Specific service delivery options could include traditional fixed route; door-to-door (also known as para- transit or demand responsive); flexible routing; paid or volunteer drivers; shared riding; and voucher or user-side subsidies, among others. In most rural communities, the delivery of service in areas where cus- tomers are far apart is a significant challenge particularly because the length of travel to reach destinations is long. Consequently, travel ties up vehicle capacity for a long period of time, and the cost per passenger can be very high. A flexible coordinated travel service could mitigate those high costs. (60) Flexible public transportation service is also discussed in a report entitled Best Practices in Transit Service Planning (Mistretta et al., 2009). The report classified public transit system ser- vice types into four basic groups (6): â¢ function of the number of stops or service frequency â¢ function of the population served â¢ function of route design â¢ function of time of day 20 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Service Factors Ranges Population Served: 6,000â62,000 Area Served (Sq. Miles) 5â3,000 Vehicles: 1â34 Square Miles/Vehicle: 1â650 Persons Served/Vehicle: 650â7,200 Miles/Vehicle/Year: 11,500â29,000 Trips/Year: 8,200â210,000 Trips/Person/Year: 0.85â9 Trips/Vehicle/Year: 4,200â13,500 Source: Burkhardt et al., 1995, Table 3.1 Table 7. Rural transportation service benchmarks: high performance systems.
The report defines flexible public transportation service as follows: Flexible service or route deviation allows for deviations from the general route path to provide direct transportation access to passengers who live in the vicinity of the basic route path. On request, and per- haps for an additional charge, the vehicle will deviate a few blocks from the route to pick up or deliver a passenger. This service is most often provided with smaller vehicles and provides service in a designated area (typically lower density). (Mistretta et al., 2009, 6) The report provides a useful definition for flexible public transportation service in rural areas: Extremely low density service also referred to as life-line or peripheral service provides some level of minimal service in areas with low population density or low transit use. This type of service typically oper- ates on secondary streets. Extremely low density services usually operate with one-hour headways or higher and may not operate a full day or every day. They are operated primarily to provide accessibility to transit-dependent populations that have no other alternative. While productivity is low, this type of service is often less expensive to run as compared to demand response services. It also can serve as a vital connection to more frequent service. (Mistretta et al., 2009, 7) In considering when flexible public transportation service works best in rural areas, there should be some discussion of population demographics and trip purposes. In low-density areas, the demand for public transportation services usually comes from the traditionally transit- dependent populations of elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and low-income persons. Given the relative inconvenience of flexible public transportation service (e.g., trips are often longer than trips using fixed-route service), if population demographics are correlated to trip purposes (e.g., work, school, or medical), then targeted trip demand for flexible public trans- portation service can be determined. Where transit-dependent populations are making trips that are not time sensitive, flexible public transportation service is viable. When populations are less transit-dependent or trip purposes are more time sensitive, the viability of flexible public trans- portation service diminishes. Table 8 ranks trip purposes by demographics for flexible public transportation service viability. A combination of demographic group and trip purpose that is ranked âhighâ best fits flexible public transportation service options. For rural areas, the trip demands that best fit flexible public transportation service primarily come from the tradition- ally transit-dependent populations of elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and low-income persons, although there are youth activities that could be considered viable for flexible public transportation service. Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service 21 Demographics/Trip Purpose Youth < 18 Adult 18â64 Elderly 65 and over Persons with Disabilities Low- Income Persons Work School Low Potential for Flexible Public Transportation Non-Emergency Medical High MediumPotential Shopping/Groceries Low Shopping/ Other Social High Low High Potential for Flexible Public Transportation Table 8. Viability of flexible public transportation service by passenger demographics and trip purpose.
The actual demand for flexible public transportation service in rural areas depends on the number of transit-dependent populations and their densities. Where there are rural popula- tion densities that approach the high end of low-density (500 persons per square mile) and the transit-dependent population demographics (i.e., elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and low-income persons) are higher than average, the demand for flexible public transporta- tion service is higher. Ridership data suggest that flexible public transportation service can be more productive than general demand-responsive service since trip types can be scheduled and operated together as the travel demand requires. If substantial demand exists, then services can be provided more frequently, e.g., every day. Should actual demand be lower, services can be provided less frequently, e.g., every Tuesday and Thursday. In considering flexible public transportation service design, trip origin and destination options by trip purpose were examined and ranked for applicability to flexible public transportation ser- vice. A trip origin is viable for flexible public transportation service when it is close to transit- dependent populations or is a convenient public gathering place and the trip purpose is not time sensitive. A trip origin becomes less viable for flexible public transportation service the further it is away from transit-dependent populations or convenient public gathering places and as trip purposes become more time sensitive. Table 9 shows the rankings of trip origins. With respect to trip destination options, where the destination provides the trip purpose that transit-dependent populations need, e.g., non-emergency medical services, and the trip purpose is not time sensitive, that trip location is viable as a destination for flexible public transportation service. When the trip destination is for trip purposes that are more time sensitive, its ranking as a destination for flexible public transportation service diminishes. Table 10 shows that destina- tions such as hospitals or clinics, for non-emergency medical trip purposes, have a high poten- tial for flexible public transportation service. The key to designing flexible public transportation service is gearing the service to transit- dependent populations and using origins, routes, and destinations that have trip purposes that are not time sensitive. Flexible public transportation service has been shown to be more productive than basic demand- responsive systems because it introduces a âtimeâ or âscheduleâ component to service delivery. In TCRP Report 124: Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand- 22 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Trip Origin/ Trip Purpose Activity Center Landmark Elderly Housing Subsidized Housing Single Family Home Work School Low Potential for Flexible Public Transportation Non-Emergency Medical Medium Potential High Shopping/Grocery Shopping/Other Social High Potential for Flexible Public Transportation Low Table 9. Viability of flexible public transportation service by trip origin and purpose.
Response Transportation (KFH Group, Inc., et al., 2008), in a section of Table 6a-4/Figure 6-6 called âCharacteristics of Systems Affecting Performance,â there was the following observation: In addition to ADA paratransit service, the system provides âshopperâ routes, essentially service routes with same-day service for ADA riders; these flexible routes, which serve specific areas and target senior and other housing complexes, achieve group loads and help increase productivity. (71) In Table 6A-7/Figure 6-10 of TCRP Report 124 (KFH Group, Inc., et al., 2008), there was another observation: Starting in 2004, the DRT system âzonedâ much of the service, requiring riders to use the closest facil- ity for their trips. This change affected roughly 25% of riders, and allowed the system to reduce its peak fleet by 12%. (74) South Central Adult Services Council, Inc. (South Central Adult Services) in North Dakota (see description in Chapter 4), successfully operates this type of flexible public transportation in an area that has population densities ranging from two to eight persons per square mile. The types of flexible public transportation service best suited for very rural areas are the following: â¢ Demand-responsive connector. This service works best when there are no viable trip ori- gins but there are public transportation connections to viable trip destinations within a defined area. â¢ Request stops. This service works best when passengers are given the opportunity to use the fixed-route system (even a deviated fixed route) along the corridor. â¢ Flexible route segments. This service works best when there is an area where no viable trip origins exist, but a transit-dependent trip demand is prevalent. â¢ Zone routes. This service works best when no corridor exists, but viable trip origins and/or trip destinations exist within a defined zone. Transportation agencies that serve rural areas that are smaller in geographic size, such as Mason County Transit (see description in Chapter 4), can also operate the other types of flexi- ble public transportation services: â¢ Route deviation. This service works best where there are defined origins and destinations along a corridor that have high viability for flexible public transportation service. Given the low-density nature of the area, service can deviate off the route as the occasion arises. Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service 23 Trip Destination/ Trip Purpose Major Shopping Center Small City Center Hospital/Clinic Employment Center School Work Low Potential for Flexible Public Transportation School Not Applicable Low Non-Emergency Medical Not Applicable High Potential Not Applicable Shopping/Grocery Low Shopping/Other Social High Potential High Not Applicable Table 10. Viability of flexible public transportation service by trip destination and trip purpose.
â¢ Point deviation. This service works best when there are no viable trip origins, but there are viable trip destinations within a defined area or when there are no viable trip destinations, but there are viable trip origins. Agencies offering public transportation in rural areas should follow the decision guide pre- sented as Figure 17 in considering whether its service area is a good candidate for flexible public transportation services. 2.2 Small Urban Flexible Public Transportation Service In the United States, almost all of the small urban areas (50,000 to 200,000 population) oper- ate some form of public transportation service. These small urban areas are usually recipients of FTA Section 5307 funding on a formula basis and use the funding to obtain vehicles, other equip- ment, and facilities to operate public transportation service, primarily fixed-route service. A con- siderable number of small urban public transportation systems operate fixed-route service with one major focal point, normally the city center or downtown, which often has a transit center. Service is provided using âclockfaceâ headways, with buses meeting at the transit center every 30, 45, or 60 minutes to facilitate transfer. Many systems utilize buses that are 30 feet or smaller in length, and passenger loads generally range from 5 to 15 passengers per hour. Many of the small urban areas have population densities that range from low/medium (500 to 1,000 persons per square mile) to medium/high (1,000 to 2,000 persons per square mile). Small urban fixed-route public transportation systems that have ridership productivity rates that approach 5 to 16 passengers per hour are strong candidates for flexible public transporta- tion service options. Ridership data suggest that flexible public transportation service in small urban areas has its benchmark productivity levels at between 5 and 11 passengers per hour. St. Joseph Transit in Missouri (see Chapter 4) provides a flexible public transportation service that operates route deviation and request stops. For the last 3 years, St. Joseph Transit has 24 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Figure 17. Decision guide for rural areas (less than 50,000 population).
reported that its passenger per hour rates were 5.9, 5.8, and 7.2 passengers per hour. However, Transfort, a small urban transit system in Fort Collins, Colorado, reports average ridership of 27.6 passengers per hour. This system would not be a good candidate for flexible public trans- portation service. Fort Collins is home to Colorado State University and carries a large number of students and faculty who frequently make time-sensitive trips. In the development of a flexible public transportation service model, the logistics should evolve from a demand-responsive service approach to public transportation and not a fixed- route service approach. Conceptually, flexible public transportation service is more like demand-responsive service than fixed-route service. In planning the logistics of fixed-route service, the concept is to develop and operate defined routes, stops, and timeframes (service) to which the riding public responds. The operator focuses internally on the reliability of the public transportation network and accepts passengers as they board and alight. Adjustments are made to the âfixedâ nature of the public transportation network to improve productivity. Fixed-route systems can be very productive, and the boardings per hour can range from 10 to 500. Communications are necessary, but they focus mostly on internal matters. Advanced communications (e.g., AVL) become more important as the productivity and complexity of the fixed-route system increases. A wide variety of vehicles are used, ranging from a 25-foot, body-on-chassis bus to a 65-foot, articulated bus. Fares can be more than nominal in nature and, in some instances, assist in controlling demand. In planning the logistics of demand-responsive service, the concept is to develop and oper- ate service based on an interaction with the passenger before the routes, stops, and timeframes (service) are provided. The operator develops service based on a predetermined demand. The operator makes adjustments to the âtoursâ created by the demand for the service to improve productivity. Demand-responsive systems are far less productive than fixed-route systems, with boardings per hour ranging from 1.28 to 4.70, as shown in Table 11. TCRP Report 124: Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Trans- portation (KFH Group, Inc., et al., 2008) provides a range of passenger trips per revenue hour for the following demand-responsive systems. Small urban fixed-route public transportation systems that have ridership productivity rates that approach 5 to 16 passengers per hour are strong candidates for flexible public transporta- tion service options that would obviate the need for complementary ADA paratransit service. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), agencies that operate fixed-route service must provide complementary ADA paratransit service for persons who, because of their disability, are unable to use the fixed-route system. According to the APTA 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book (Neff and Dickens, 2009), the capital and operating expenses associ- ated with complementary ADA paratransit service are substantial. Table 12 summarizes the Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service 25 Representative Demand-Responsive Systems by Category Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour ADA Only 1.77â3.84 Limited Eligibility 1.76â4.04 Small Urban Systems General Public 2.92â4.70 ADA Only 1.83â2.68 Large Urban Systems Other 1.70â3.55 ADA Only 1.28â2.34 Largest Urban Systems Other 1.49â4.35 Table 11. Range of performance data from representative demand-responsive transportation systems.
26 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Expense Category Paratransit Capital Expenses ($ Million) All Modes Capital Expenses ($ Million) Facilities 170.6 8,842.5 Rolling Stock 500.2 3,927.0 Other 76.9 1,758.8 Total 747.7 14,528.3 % of Total 5.2% 100% Table 12. 2007 capital expense by mode (millions of dollars). Expense Category Paratransit Operating Expenses ($ Million) Total Operating Expenses ($ Million) Vehicle Operations 1,429.0 15,560.0 Vehicle Maintenance 290.9 5,981.7 Non-Vehicle Maintenance 58.0 3,154.0 General Administration 388.1 4,779.1 Purchased Transportation 2,254.7 4,402.4 Total 4,420.7 33,877.2 % of Total 13.0% 100% Table 13. 2007 operating expense by mode (millions of dollars). Expense Category Paratransit Expenses ($ Million) Total Operating Expenses ($ Million) Operating Expenditures 4,420.8 33,877.3 Capital Expenditures 747.8 14,528.3 Total Expenditures 5,168.6 48,405.6 % of Total 10.7% 100% Table 14. 2007 total expense by mode (millions of dollars). Service Type Total Expenses ($ Thousands) % of Total Fixed Route (27.6 pph*) $6,051.7 78 Paratransit (2.6 pph) $1,743.0 22 Total $7.794.7 100 * pph = passengers per hour. Table 15. City of Fort Collins, Coloradoâ2008 public transit operating expenses. annual total public transportation capital and operating expenses for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 for paratransit (which is predominately complementary ADA paratransit) and for all modes. Paratransit capital expenses were $747.7 million and represented 5.2 percent of the total cap- ital expenses. Paratransit operating expenses, as shown in Table 13, were $4,420.8 million and represented 13.0 percent of the total expenses in that category. When totaled together, as shown in Table 14, paratransit expenses represented 10.7 percent of all capital and operating public transportation expenses. In many small urban areas, paratransit operating expenses can be an even higher percentage of total operating expenses. Table 15 summarizes the FY 2008 public transit operating expenses for the small urban city (population of 137,000) of Fort Collins, Colorado. For FY 2008, para- transit expenses represented 22 percent of the systemâs operating expenses. The type of flexible public transportation service that is being implemented most frequently in small urban areas is route deviation. As previously described, the operation of complemen- tary ADA paratransit service is expensive, and most agencies need to reduce costs in order to serve the growing public demand for public transit service. Now that most public transit systems operate fully accessible transit fleets and as communities complete the task of making sidewalks and bus stops accessible, persons with disabilities are more able to use the same services offered to the general public. Many small urban areas have substituted fixed-route service with route deviation service to eliminate the ADA requirement to provide for ADA complementary para-
transit service to fixed-route service. While this service design can be a very viable alternative, there are two mistakes small urban transit systems must avoid: â¢ The service should not be publicized as only for persons with disabilities. â¢ The service should not be designed as fixed route with deviations added as an afterthought. FTA has determined that flexible public transportation services, including route deviation, are not fixed-route services; therefore, ADA complementary paratransit service is not required where flexible public transportation is operated. However, the service must be flexible and deviate for the general public. An agency cannot require persons requesting a deviation to prequalify as elderly or a person with disabilities in order to schedule a pick-up or request a deviated destination. The other mistake that some small systems make is not properly planning for the demand- responsive service features of route deviation as a flexible public transportation service. Sometimes small systems have approached the provision of route deviation service from a fixed-route service perspective instead of a demand-responsive service perspective. This not only causes disappointment when policymakers realize that the costs per passenger of pro- viding flexible public transportation is higher than fixed-route service, it causes discontent among passengers who do not have the benefit of a more comprehensive and interactive call-taking and dispatching system, as is required of demand-responsive services. Commu- nication is more complex, given the need for both external and internal interactions. Advanced communication capability does become more important as the productivity and complexity of the demand-responsive system increases. The passenger communications systems and the driver skills needed for complementary ADA paratransit service can be modified to work on flexible public transportation service. Smaller vehicles are almost always used in providing demand-responsive services since productivity is limited. Fares are almost always nominal in nature. Transit operators in small urban areas should follow the decision guide presented as Figure 18 in considering whether its service area is a good candidate for flexible public trans- portation services. 2.3 Large Urban Flexible Public Transportation Service Large urban areas present some new opportunities for the provision of flexible public transportation service. While there is limited opportunity for comprehensive implemen- tation of flexible public transportation service because of the overall higher population densities, there are some areas where population densities are conducive to flexible public transportation service. For many years, urban populations have been moving to the suburbs, creating communities that are more automobile oriented and less dense than communities in the city center. In some instances, the movement to the suburbs has created pockets of less densely populated communities in the urban core. In some circumstances, a major event, such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana, has created an urban location that has a lower density rate more conducive to flexible public transportation services. Research has shown that low-density urban areas in which major transportation activity centersâsuch as rail stations, transit hubs, shopping centers, medical centers, employment parks, and schoolsâare located are conducive to flexible public transportation. The most informative research results on this subject are contained in a report on Denver, Coloradoâs, RTD call-n- Ride Service (Transportation Management & Design, 2008). Other opportunities for flexible public transportation service include service in low/medium (500 to 1,000 persons per square Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service 27
mile) density service areas during lower than normal demand periods, e.g., nighttimes and/ or weekends. Best Practices in Transit Service Planning (Mistretta et al., 2009) lists several service area characteristics that should be measured when planning for public transportation services. These measures include population density, employment density, age, income, and vehicle availability (10): â¢ Population Density â Persons per square mile â Dwelling units per acre â Minimum number of households â¢ Employment Density â Employees per square mile â Employees per acre â Employees per employer (threshold) â¢ Age â Population age 18 and younger â Population age 60 and older â¢ Income â Number of households with incomes less than $10,000 â Per capita income 28 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Figure 18. Decision guide for small urban areas (50,000â200,000 population).
â¢ Vehicle Availability â Zero car households â One-car households A report on flexible public transportation in Denver (Transportation Management & Design, 2008) identified five of these variables as having the highest overall correlation to the perfor- mance of flexible public transportation services (4): â¢ Population density â¢ Employment density â¢ Senior density â¢ Youth density â¢ Median income Large urban fixed-route public transportation systems that have routes or areas that have ridership productivity rates that approach 5 to 16 passengers per hour are strong candidates for flexible public transportation service options. Pierce Transit in Washington State (see Chapter 4) provides a flexible public transportation service that operates route deviation and request stops. The Pierce Transit productivity standard for its flexible public transportation service is 5 passengers per hour. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver, Col- orado (see Chapter 4), provides a flexible public transportation service called call-n-Ride that operates point deviation, demand-responsive connector, and route deviation. RTDâs call-n- Ride service standards analysis for FY 2007 show that the number of passengers per hour ranges effectively from 1.7 to 14.6, with an average of 4.9. Call-n-Ride productivity for FY 2008 ranges from 2.7 passengers per hour to 9.7 passengers per hour. One call-n-Ride route, Gateway, had a productivity rate of 19.1 passengers per hour in FY 2008, but this rate appears to be outside of the norms. In the RTD Call-N-Ride Performance Review (Transportation Management & Design, Inc., 2008) was the following âkey findingâ (10): â¢ Routes with scheduled stops are the most productive call-n-Ride services. The call-n-Ride services offering point deviation and scheduled checkpoints perform significantly bet- ter than those that do not. These particular services seem to work well for regular commuters who rou- tinely ride the call-n-Ride services. The consistency of service helps to increase its attractiveness to riders who require the same service on a repeated basis. Although the implementation of point deviation is par- tially brought about by high ridership demand, designing other call-n-Ride service areas to provide check- point service, if applicable, may help to increase the performance, as it helps to create a base market with consistent ridership. Utilizing scheduled stop service eliminates the need for customers to call ahead to plan trips, allowing for more spontaneous ridership. The productivity rates for Omnilink, a flexible public transportation service provided by the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) in Virginia (see Chapter 4), were 15.4, 15.8, and 16.1 passengers per hour, respectively, for the past 3 years. In large urban areas, the flexible public transportation service area must be defined to facilitate optimal service operations. The optimal physical size of an area for flexible public transportation service is dependent on several factors, including population demographics, population density, topography, and the presence of a major transportation activity center; however, consideration must also be given to optimal vehicle operating times. For zone routes, for example, the service area must be small enough for the vehicle to reach end points at defined intervals, e.g., every 30, 45, or 60 minutes. Transit operators in large urban areas should follow the decision guide presented as Figure 19 in considering whether certain parts of its service area are good candidates for flexible public transportation services. Framework/Decision Matrix for Considering Flexible Public Transportation Service 29
30 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Figure 19. Decision guide for large urban areas (over 200,000 population).