Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation (2008)

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.

77 C H A P T E R 7 Earlier chapters in this Guidebook have focused on measuring and assessing DRT performance. This chapter addresses the next step in the performance measurement process— improving performance. The chapter includes the following: • Discussion of the factors that influence DRT performance. Understanding these factors pro- vides a useful perspective from which to consider improvement options. • Identification of various policies, procedures, strategies, and practices—collectively referred to as management actions—that influence DRT performance. • Management actions identified by the DRT systems participating in the research as actions they have taken to improve their performance. For some of these, DRT systems provided data quantifying the positive performance effects. For others, data were either limited or not avail- able to quantitatively show change. Yet these latter management actions are included in the chapter as they may provide value to other DRT systems considering improvement options. 7.1 Factors Affecting DRT Performance The discussion of factors affecting DRT performance is often approached with the notion that factors are either controllable or uncontrollable, that is, a factor is something that a DRT manager can “do something about” or not. While there are factors that fall into one of these two types, there are some that straddle the distinction and are more aptly described as partially controllable. The demand for DRT service may be a good example of a factor that is partially controllable. Demand for DRT service is a factor that impacts the level or volume of passenger trips, one of the data elements in the measure passenger trips per revenue vehicle hour, or productivity. To increase the number of passenger trips, a DRT system can try to increase demand for its service by providing quality service, by establishing a fare structure that encourages usage, and through marketing and public information strategies that inform members of the community about the service. On the other hand, a DRT system such as one providing ADA paratransit may try to manage its demand by such actions as ensuring an effective eligibility certification process and providing travel training to support riders’ use of fixed-route service when possible. Whether these actions affect demand will depend on more than what the DRT system does. It will also depend on the demographics of the community, the level of need for transit service, and availability and cost of alternatives to DRT such as human service agency transportation and vol- unteer services. Thus, a DRT system has some ability to influence its demand, but not real control. The ability to control a particular factor may also depend on the type of DRT system. For example, a DRT system that is not ADA paratransit has more latitude in terms of modifying service hours and even days in light of reduced demand, financial constraints, or other local Improving Performance

78 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation issues. An ADA DRT system, however, does not have such latitude: it must provide service dur- ing the same hours and days that fixed-route service is provided. Table 7-1 lists the major factors that affect DRT performance. This table also indicates the degree to which each factor can be “controlled” by the DRT system, and identifies the perfor- mance measures most impacted by each of the factors. Table 7-1. Factors influencing DRT performance. Key DRT Performance Measures Factor Control by DRT System? Passenger Trips/ Rev. Hour Operating Cost/ Rev. Hour Operating Cost/ Passenger Trip Safety Incidents/ 100,000 Veh. Miles On-Time Performance Operations Hiring practices and training for vehicle operators C Operator wages and benefits C/P-C Timely pull-outs with back-up operator availability C Relationship of paid operator hours to revenue vehicle hours C Wages and benefits for other operating staff C/P-C Scheduling/Dispatch Skills in creating effective manifests C Ability to impact operations in real- time (e.g., MDTs, AVL) C Matching revenue hours to demand C Service Policies Related to No-shows and late cancels C Length/structure of on-time window C Length of advance reservation window C Vehicles Vehicle type and mix C Vehicle condition and maintenance practices C Maintenance expenses C Administration Staffing and expenses C Safety Safety policies and procedures C System’s “culture of safety” C Service Area Environment Service area size, density, street network, development, constraints (e.g., traffic, bridges) U-C Strength of local economy/job market U-C Weather and other “Acts of God” U-C Other Type of ridership (ADA only, limited eligibility, general public) U-C Type of operator (private contractor, taxi co, city/county, transit authority) P-C Demand for DRT service P-C Rider no-shows and late cancels P-C Dwell time P-C Deadhead time and miles P-C Average system speed P-C Legend : C – Controllable U-C – Uncontrollable P-C – Partially Controllable

Controllable Factors The factors over which DRT management for all types of DRT systems have direct influence relate to: • Vehicle operators: – hiring practices and training; – wages and benefits (though these are influenced by the local economy and compensation for similar types of jobs); – timely pull-outs with back-up availability; – practices impacting the ratio of paid operator hours to revenue vehicle hours (such as absenteeism and benefits related to vacation and other time off). • Other operating staff—call-takers, scheduling and dispatch staff, operations supervisors: – Wages and benefits for these other operating staff. • Scheduling/dispatch: – ability to create effective manifests for operators, use of CASD; – ability to impact real-time operations, e.g., does the system have technology such as MDTs and AVL, allowing dispatchers to move passenger trips from one operator to another, use capac- ity created by late cancellations and no-shows, and respond to service on the street; and – the extent to which scheduled revenue hours match ridership demand patterns. • Operating policies related to: – no-shows and late cancels: effectiveness of the DRT system’s policies and ability to moni- tor and manage rider infractions; – length and structure of the on-time window: the window provides some flexibility for get- ting to scheduled pick-up locations in a “timely” fashion with the changing nature of DRT service and idiosyncrasies of traffic; and – length of advance reservation window. • Vehicles: – vehicle type and mix: this is controllable by many DRT systems though there are some sys- tems that obtain vehicles through state procurement procedures, giving them limited con- trol over this factor. Yet, even for systems with control over the selection and procurement of vehicles, it is not a factor that can be affected rapidly, given the lead times typical for vehi- cle procurement—as much as 18 months or longer in some cases; – vehicle condition and maintenance practices: while generally under the control of DRT sys- tems, those with old fleets will need to expend more effort (and cost) to keep their vehicles in operative condition; and – maintenance expenses: costs are related to vehicle condition and maintenance practices, and are impacted by the age and type of vehicles, which some but not all DRT systems can control. • Administrative expenses: – how efficiently can the system administer the service, particularly in the number of staff positions required for administration and costs for that administration. • Safety: – policies and procedures related to safety; and – a management emphasis and commitment to safe operations can influence the DRT sys- tem’s safety record. Uncontrollable Factors There are several factors over which DRT systems generally have no or very limited control: • The type of DRT system—whether it is general public, specialized, or ADA (some DRT sys- tems may be able to influence the service sponsor as to the ridership markets that are served, but this is not something that changes in the short-term). Improving Performance 79

• Service area environment—this is a critical factor, impacting all aspects of DRT service: – characteristics such as size, density, land use patterns, street network, and service area con- straints such as significant traffic congestion and bridges that limit access through the service area, have strong impacts on DRT performance, influencing trip lengths, travel times, oppor- tunities to group rides for improved productivity, and on-time performance; – strength of the local economy, which affects the unemployment rate and wage pressures; and – weather and other “Acts of God.” Partially Controllable Factors Beyond controllable and non-controllable factors, there are factors impacting DRT service performance that can be considered partially controllable by the DRT system. Among these include: • Type of operator—whether the DRT service is operated by a private contractor, a taxi com- pany, a city or county, or a full-scale transit authority. • Demand for DRT service—as discussed above, demand can be partially controlled by deci- sions and actions of the DRT system, but the responses by the community and target rider groups are not controllable. • Operational issues: – Rider no-shows and late cancellations: While every DRT system will experience some level of no-shows and late cancellations, they can be partially controlled by policies that address their occurrence as well as performance levels that ensure service is reliable and timely. – Dwell time: This is influenced by DRT system policy (i.e., the wait time) but also by pas- sengers, their mobility levels, the weather (snowy/icy sidewalks will slow riders’ access to the vehicle) and the degree to which riders adhere to the policy; advanced technology can also be a factor, with features such as “call-outs” which automatically notify riders of the pending arrival of their vehicle. – Deadhead time and miles: This is impacted by the location of the garage in relation to the service area and the size of the service area, but can be influenced to some extent if the DRT system can establish satellite parking locations for the vehicles or even allow operators to take vehicles home with them at night to minimize deadhead the next service day; for con- tracted service, garage location can be influenced by contractual requirements. – Average system speed, which influences productivity as well as safety: This speed will depend on the type and environmental characteristics of the service area, scheduling/ dispatch efforts as well as dwell times at individual pick-up and drop-off locations, vehicle operator experience, and general traffic and congestion in the community. Controllability Depends on Type of DRT Service Finally, as noted above, there are several factors for which “controllability” depends on whether the DRT system provides ADA paratransit. These include: • Service span of the DRT system (days and hours of operation): – DRT systems that are ADA paratransit must provide service during the equivalent days and times that fixed-route service is provided; DRT that is not ADA paratransit has more lati- tude to change or reduce hours or even days that are very low ridership and therefore less productive, which may help improve performance. • Service policies: – Policies related to advance notice, trip purpose, fare structure, and capacity constraints are regulated for those DRT systems that are ADA paratransit; other systems, however, can set such policies to meet system objectives, available funding, and other local conditions. 80 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation

Improving Performance 81 • Service area: – The DRT service area is generally not a controllable factor, but in the case of ADA paratran- sit, the service area may be set to meet the regulations, generally a 3⁄4-mile corridor either side of fixed routes. In such case, the service area can be impacted by management action. 7.2 Management Actions Influencing DRT Performance There are various actions that a DRT system can take to affect and improve its performance. For those controllable and partially controllable factors listed in Table 7-1, these actions include policies, procedures, strategies, and practices—called management actions in the Guidebook— that can affect DRT service positively in the shorter and longer term. In addition to such actions, there are broader-scale options relating to system structure (e.g., management/operations options such as directly operated vs. contracted service, use of centralized vs. decentralized operations, etc.) that can affect performance, but these have not been the focus of this research project. Management actions influencing DRT performance are identified in Table 7-2, generated dur- ing the research project’s early efforts. There are actions listed that may not be appropriate for all DRT systems (e.g., an ADA paratransit system has less latitude to use its fare structure to manage demand), and there are likely numerous actions not listed that DRT managers have successfully used at their own systems. From this list, a number of the actions were researched in depth as part of the project’s later efforts, and these are described in the following section of this chapter. The actions listed in Table 7-2 are also correlated to the five key performance measures selected for the Guidebook, with a checkmark (✓) indicating the primary measures that the action positively affects. Given the interrelationships between the performance measures, how- ever, and the many variables that impact DRT performance, a management action selected for one specific attribute may also benefit other aspects of DRT operations. For example, establish policies and procedures for bad weather operations shown under “Policies and Procedures” as pos- itively affecting the measure safety incidents/100,000 vehicle miles may also benefit both operat- ing costs if accidents are reduced and on-time performance if trips—likely to run late because of the weather—are curtailed by policy. In a related way, a management action included as having a positive affect on a particular per- formance measure may potentially have a less positive affect on another performance measure. This is true for the first management action listed—set vehicle operator pay to encourage stability of operator staff. Shown on Table 7-2 as having a positive influence on productivity (passenger trips per revenue hour) as well as several other measures, this management action may have a not-so-positive affect on the measure operating cost per revenue hour, depending on costs saved with the action (e.g., less cost for recruitment and training) versus new costs incurred for possi- ble increased operator wages. Navigating these interrelationships between actions affecting performance and their results is part of the challenge of managing a DRT system. And determining which actions to take to bene- fit performance may sometimes seem a balancing act between feasibility and funding, and policy and public input. While there is no one single action that by itself will transform a DRT system that needs improvement, the DRT systems that participated in the research project were able to iden- tify a range of actions they had taken that benefited their performance. These actions identified by the participating DRT systems are the subject of the next part of this chapter. 7.3 Management Actions Identified by Participating DRT Systems The DRT systems participating in this research project were asked about actions and strate- gies they had implemented to improve performance. The research project’s objective was to

82 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Key DRT Performance Measures Management Actions Passenger Trips/ Revenue Hour Operating Cost/ Revenue Hour Operating Cost/ Passenger Trip Safety Incidents/ 100,000 Vehicle Miles On-Time Performance Operations Set operator pay to encourage stability of staff Establish effective operator hiring, training, and re-training procedures Align operator shifts to meet service demand Consider use of part time drivers Use split shifts effectively Reduce excess use of overtime Reduce excess deadhead time and mileage Provide on-street supervision to monitor operations Provide back-up operator capability Scheduling/Dispatch Professionalize scheduling/dispatch function Maximize provision of subscription trips Regularly review, fine-tune, and tighten subscription trips Use “will calls” effectively and judiciously Seek operator input on schedules Match reservationist staff shifts with call patterns and call demand Monitor system speed Obtain correct information on riders’ pick-up and drop-off locations Give “light” schedules to new operators Consider CASD system to improve scheduling/dispatch function Review CASD-created schedules Maximize use of CASD system functions Implement MDTs/AVL Consider use of automated “call-outs” Policies and Procedures Develop/enforce no-show/late cancel policy Implement and use advanced technology to address no-shows/late cancels Ensure appropriate on-time window length Educate riders on policies and procedures, e.g., wait time, on-time window, no-show/cancels Reduce the advance reservation period Decrease dwell time at rider pick-up locations Establish policies/procedures for bad weather operations Ensure effective rider eligibility/certification Demand Management Establish scheduled service to frequented destinations Use fare structure to manage demand (on DRT and fixed-route as appropriate) Increase demand for service during low usage times of service day Encourage shorter trips by subdividing large service area into smaller areas or zones Maintenance and Vehicles Ensure effective preventive maintenance practices Add fleet capacity with non-dedicated service as supplement for peaks, difficult-to-serve trips Table 7-2. Management actions influencing DRT performance.

Improving Performance 83 Key DRT Performance Measures Management Actions Passenger Trips/ Revenue Hour Operating Cost/ Revenue Hour Operating Cost/ Passenger Trip Safety Incidents/ 100,000 Vehicle Miles On-Time Performance Safety Monitor accident trends Involve operators in a safety co mm ittee Reward safe operators Service Span and Area Reduce underutilized revenue hours through service span adjustm ent Adjust service area Management Establish a “culture of safety” Cross train staff Contracted and Other Services Use incentives/penalties effectively, e.g., productivity, on-tim e perform ance Consider reducing “risk”/costs for contractors, e.g., fuel pass-through Introduce competition into the contracting process by adding an additional contractor to provide some service Subdivide a large service area and use mo re than one contractor Use per trip paym ent contracts judiciously Consider alternative service delivery options as appropriate (e.g., partnerships with co mm unity agencies, sa me -day taxi) Table 7-2. (Continued) Objective: To identify actions and strategies that DRT systems have taken to improve performance and measure that improvement. Challenge: Quantifying performance change is not always straightforward given the many vari- ables and factors that affect DRT performance. identify management actions successfully used by DRT systems as well as to measure the effects of those actions on performance. The management actions identified by the DRT systems are presented in this section of Chap- ter 7, with quantitative data on performance impacts where managers were able to provide such data. Qualitative affects are also identified. Table 7-3 introduces the actions, organized by perform- ance issue and indicates the specific page in this chapter where the management action is discussed, providing a guide for readers. It is important to note that quantifying performance changes from specific strategies that have been taken by DRT systems is not always straightforward. It is not possible to completely isolate the specific performance impacts of a single strategy because of the many variables that affect DRT performance. However, performance improvements at the selected DRT systems seemed clear from a number of the management actions undertaken, based on before-and-after meas- ures directly related to the strategy.

84 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Implement Computer-Assisted Scheduling and Dispatch While most of the DRT systems included in the research have been using CASD systems for some time, there were a few that had recent experience implementing a computer-assisted sched- uling/dispatch system, and they indicated a number of performance improvements. Performance Improvements Cited improvements from several DRT systems participating in the research related to sched- uling improvements and improved on-time performance with acquisition of scheduling/ dispatch systems, included: • Scheduling is more accurate and realistic. Prior to CASD, staff were apt to take all or most trip requests, particularly outside peak periods, sometimes without really knowing what was already scheduled and without knowing how the trip would fit with existing reservations. With the CASD system, staff can “see” immediately what is already booked and determine how a new trip request can fit into already booked trips. This can produce more realistic and accu- rate driver manifests. Table 7-3. Management actions taken by participating DRT systems to improve performance. Performance Issue Management Action See Page Implement CASD. Implement MDTs/AVL. Adopt and enforce no-shows/late cancels policy. Manage supply of revenue hours to match demand. Reduce service area. Rider education program. Improve productivity. Improve DRT operator compensation. Implement MDTs/AVL. Implement CASD system. Adopt and enforce policies for no-shows/late cancels 84 87 94 98 113 117 119 87 84 94 117 94 90 117 100 106 109 100 112 114 116 116 87 119 121 117 . Improve on-time performance. Rider education program. Adopt and enforce no-show/late cancel policy. Shorten advance reservation window. Reduce cancellations and no- shows. Rider education program. Same-day taxi program. Alternative service delivery options for potential cost- savings. General public DRT instead of traditional fixed- route service in low-density environment. Provide passenger trips more cost-efficiently. Develop partnerships and coordinate with community agencies to meet specialized transportation needs. Same-day taxi program. Provide reduced or free fares for use of fixed-route. Refine ADA eligibility certification process for more accurate determinations. Encourage use of fixed-route service: cost-savings when riders choose fixed-route over DRT. Improve accessibility to fixed-route. Effective strategies for working with contractors. Refinements to the contracting process including reducing risk and cost, purchasing capital equipment, providing direct provision of control room functions. Improve customer service: accurate information for “where’s my ride” and decrease in no-show complaints. Implement MDTs/AVL. Improve DRT operator compensation. Cross training of staff. Improve DRT staff working environment: increase retention, increase understanding across functional areas, improve relationship with riders. Rider education program.

Improving Performance 85 The ability of a CASD system to improve scheduling at a particular DRT system will depend on a variety of factors, and prior research indicates that systems have reported a range of results with their new CASD systems, with some reporting mixed results depending on the skill level of their staff in using the software and the ability to review computer-generated schedules to ensure they are rational (19). • Improved accuracy of operator manifests. With CASD, staff no longer write down trip requests onto paper; requests are entered into the computer, aided by “drop down menus” and “trip history files” for routine and repeat trips. In areas with several brand name stores, or other common destinations with multiple locations, the CASD system has reduced errors on the manifests, with operators less likely to be scheduled to the wrong store for a pick-up. This benefits productivity and on-time performance. • Improved on-time performance. One small DRT system manager said that the new CASD system enabled the system to improve its on-time performance. With the more accurate and realistic driver manifests, more trips were on-time. This DRT system showed an improvement in its on-time performance from 89% in FY05 to 91.1% in FY06. This is an improvement accomplished without MDTs or AVL. • Impact on productivity. Two DRT system managers noted that their vehicle operators reported “tighter” driver manifests with the new CASD systems. It was too early in the implementation process at one system to determine whether “tighter” schedules improved productivity, but the other system, with a full year of the new CASD, showed a decrease in productivity of 15% from FY05 to FY06. It was not possible to assess all the factors that might have affected that DRT system’s operation and resulting productivity. But possible explanatory factors could be an increase in average trip length of almost 20% from FY05 to 06 at this system, or the new CASD system’s computation of revenue hours may be producing different numbers than the prior manual, spreadsheet system. At a third DRT system, while management seemed particularly interested in the on-time improvements that resulted with its new CASD, performance data showed a slight increase in productiv- ity from 2.90 to 2.94. Qualifications While several of the DRT systems included in the research noted positive effects with imple- mentation of CASD, there were other comments as well: • DRT systems do not always use their CASD systems to the fullest extent. Similar to find- ings in earlier research (18), several of the DRT systems included in the research indicated that they do not use the full capabilities of their CASD systems. One small urban system uses its sophisticated CASD system only for a “first cut” at the schedules, with final sched- ules created by two highly experienced schedulers, each with more than 15 years of sched- uling background. A large urban system implemented a newer version of a standard CASD system and still has not adapted to it, often over-riding the computer and its parameters. The manager of this system felt that the CASD was too focused on grouping trips, at the expense of longer travel times and less convenience for riders. At another system, sched- Reported Performance Improvements with CASD Systems • Scheduling is more accurate and realistic. • More accurate manifests for vehicle operators. • Improved on-time performance. • “Tighter” manifests, as reported by vehicle operators. • Potential for productivity improvement.

86 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation • Some DRT systems believe that their contractors do not use CASD and other technology to the fullest extent. Several of the small urban and large urban DRT systems that contract for service expressed the opinion that their private contractors do not appear to be using the full capabilities of the CASD system and in some cases the additional technology (MDTs and AVL), nor are they using the technology most effectively. It was not clear how they came to this opinion, but there was an implication that performance at several systems might be bet- ter if the contractor was using the technology fully and most effectively. • Implementation and transition period can be difficult. As noted in earlier research on the use of CASD systems, the implementation period for new CASD can be difficult (19). Two large urban systems participating in the research said it took more than a full year from imple- mentation of their new technology (CASD system, MDTs, and AVL) to become a relatively well-functioning state. Another large system reported “nightmarish” problems in the early months of CASD implementation, including schedules that did not make sense, but contin- uing efforts and additional experience were expected to soon bring performance back to pre- CASD levels and then bring improvements after that. • CASD systems’ computation of revenue hours produces new or different numbers. Several DRT systems noted that their CASD systems’ method for computing revenue hours may be impacting reported productivity numbers. One of these DRT systems changed its CASD sys- tem, and two went from manual data collection and reporting to a new CASD system. In one case, it was clear that the former manual method of collecting and reporting revenue hours understated the data, which provided a higher but inaccurate productivity figure, while at the other two DRT systems, it appears that the new CASD system uses a somewhat different methodology for determining revenue hours, and that this impacted the lowered productiv- ity figure rather than actual performance on the street. • Performance may decline with a new CASD system. During implementation of new tech- nology, performance may actually decline for a time period while staff adapt to the changes. And once implemented, the new technology may provide more accurate data than was available with previous manual or sampling procedures, which then may result in what appears to be lowered performance statistics. This is related to the qualification above regarding CASD systems’ computation of revenue hours. Several DRT systems participat- ing in the research found themselves with what appeared to be lowered performance with a new CASD system and realized that prior methods had errors and biases which provided overstated performance data. It is important that DRT systems annotate trend line data to clearly show when new technology is introduced and to note when such change impacts data and performance reporting. This will help ensure that such “declines” can be seen within their proper context. Qualifications • DRT systems do not always use their CASD systems to the fullest extent. • Some DRT systems believe their contractors do not use CASD and other technology to the fullest extent. • Implementation and transition period can be difficult. • CASD systems’ computation of revenue hours may produce new or different numbers from previous methodology, impacting reported performance on measures using revenue hours. • Performance may decline with new CASD: during implementation, or because new performance data are more accurate than prior procedures, or both. uling staff have ignored and misused the software to the point that productivity and on- time performance have both declined.

Improving Performance 87 Implement Mobile Data Terminals and Automatic Vehicle Location Various performance improvements were cited by DRT system managers with implementa- tion of MDTs and AVL. Performance Improvements • Increased on-time performance. Six DRT systems specifically indicated that they were able to increase their on-time performance with MDTs and AVL. With the ability to “see” where the vehicles are on a real-time basis, dispatchers can respond to timeliness issues, making adjustments to improve on-time performance. Two systems provided data showing on-time performance improvements that the DRT manager specifically attributed to MDTs/AVL (see Table 7-4). The improvements at one of these systems are shown in Figure 7-1. Several of the systems commented that they were surprised to learn their “true” on-time performance once they implemented the MDT/AVL technology; apparently, the technol- ogy showed timeliness to be considerably lower than prior data indicated. Armed with the new and more accurate information, these systems were able to focus on timeliness and make improvements. • MDTs and AVL allow dispatchers to better manage trips in real-time. With real-time knowl- edge of the vehicles’ location and status, dispatchers can effectively insert new trips into an operator’s schedule, move trips from one operator to another, and make other on-the-spot revisions to operators’ manifests. This has been noted in earlier research (15). Among DRT systems participating in this research, eight specifically spoke to this benefit of MDT/AVL technology. This capability, which contributes to the system’s ability to improve on-time performance, provides at least two advantages: it allows the “re-use” of capacity created on the day of ser- vice from same-day cancellations, including (sometimes) late cancellations, and it facilitates the same-day scheduling of trips that may have purposefully been “overbooked” the day before. Such capability also provides the potential for the DRT system to improve productiv- ity, discussed below. • DRT staff can provide accurate information to riders who call and ask “where’s my ride.” Using the AVL technology, DRT staff can determine where a particular vehicle is and when it should arrive at a scheduled location, so that staff can accurately inform a caller inquiring “where’s my ride” when the vehicle should arrive. Prior to this technology, one DRT system said that riders complained that “the dispatcher always tells me the same thing when I call and ask about my ride—20 min!” Performance Effects Comments Before MDTs/AVL OTP percentage - “in the 80’s” After MDTs/AVL FY01 OTP = 90.2% FY02 OTP = 94.1% FY03 OTP = 94.3% The DRT system implemented MDTs and AVL in late FY99 and FY00. The manager said it took about 1-½ years to have its MDTs/AVL technology stabilized and working smoothly. Now, with more than six years experience, DRT system is almost “paperless,” though operators have a sheet to record vehicle and revenue time and mileage and to serve as back-up if “the computer goes down.” Before MDTs/AVL FY05 OTP percentage – “in the mid 90’s” After MDTs/AVL FY06, first half OTP = 72.03% FY06, second half OTP = 88.4% FY07, first quarter OTP = 86.7% With implementation of MDTs and AVL, the DRT system had accurate data to determine OTP. With the new data, it was clear that the prior method of “random” OTP checks was not complete. OTP improved by late FY06 with on-going experience with the new technology and ability to focus on timeliness with the real-time data provided by AVL. Table 7-4. Improving on-time performance with mobile data terminals (MDTS) and automatic vehicle location (AVL).

88 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation • Reservationists can take the “where’s my ride” calls rather than dispatchers. This is a more cost-efficient approach and allows the dispatchers to focus on their primary responsibilities. Two DRT systems specifically identified this as an advantage with the technology. • Decrease in no-show complaints. With AVL technology, a DRT system can review stored data and determine a vehicle’s location at a particular time. This allows the system to check reported no-shows and see if in fact the vehicle operator was actually at the scheduled loca- tion at the scheduled time. Several of the DRT systems included in the research reported a sig- nificant decrease in no-show complaints. One system manager referred to AVL as the “eyes in the sky” that “leave nothing to dispute,” effectively eliminating arguments about whether a vehicle was, or was not, at a particular scheduled pick-up location at the scheduled time. • Improved monitoring of vehicle operators. In addition to allowing systems to verify reported no-shows, DRT systems can use the AVL technology to better monitor operators and their performance. One of the DRT systems reported that it used its AVL to investigate an opera- tor who routinely appeared to take excess time delivering a standing order trip. With the MDT/AVL records, it was determined that the operator purposefully delayed the reporting of a passenger drop-off on his MDT. Instead of “performing” the trip when he dropped off the passenger (e.g., reporting the drop-off via the MDT) he “performed” it after taking an unscheduled break at a nearby fast food restaurant. • Ability to improve productivity. Among other benefits, MDTs and AVL have the potential to improve DRT productivity, with the ability for dispatchers to address real-time service issues and insert new trips into vehicle operators’ schedules or re-arrange trips to improve efficiency. A TRB research report published in 2000 reports on the productivity improve- ments gained at Houston’s demand response system with the use of AVL (20). While the researchers acknowledge that their review could not “control” for all variables that could Reported Performance Improvements with MDTs/AVL • Increased on-time performance. • Ability to manage trips in real-time, adjusting vehicle operators’ manifests to insert new trips and move trips as needed. • The ability to provide accurate information to passengers calling to ask “where’s my ride?” which improves customer service. • Significant decrease in no-show complaints. • Reservationists can handle “where’s my ride?” calls, a more cost-efficient practice than having dispatchers handle that task. • Improved monitoring of vehicle operators and their performance. • Ability to improve productivity. 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Jan Feb Mar Ap May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 2002 2003 Spokane Paratransit’s Experience: MDTs/AVL implemented during 1999 and 2000, with the technology “working smoothly” by February 2001. Figure 7-1. Improvements to on-time performance, use of MDTs/AVL.

Improving Performance 89 impact productivity, they conclude that the AVL in addition to the CASD appear to be the primary factors in the productivity increase of 10.3% from 1994 (pre-technology) to 1999 (post-technology). Among the DRT systems participating in the research, improved productivity was not among the performance benefits commonly cited by managers whose DRT systems have MDT and AVL technology. Seattle METRO’s DRT system, however, attributes the productivity increases to technology, in several ways. First, the AVL data has allowed system managers to scrutinize actual system speed by time of day, day of week, and trip distance within the service area. With this accurate data on speed, managers have refined the system speed in the CASD system, resulting in more accurate and realistic vehicle schedules which then translate to more efficient and often more productive schedules. Second, the MDTs provide real-time information on operations, with vehicle operators “performing” trips in real-time, so that dispatchers know the accurate sta- tus of the vehicles, for example, when a trip is “performed,” the dispatcher knows when that spe- cific passenger trip is completed. With this real-time information, dispatchers can better utilize available vehicle capacity. This information also shows “slack” time, and this knowledge can later be used to adjust schedules to minimize this unproductive time. The DRT system has reported that its productivity gain from 1.66 in 2004 to 1.74 in 2005 can be attributed in great part to the MDT/AVL technology (Figure 7-2). But, as Seattle’s DRT management said as caveat, productivity has been enhanced by other operational strategies as well, including: • The mapping navigation software in the MDTs, which provides turn-by-turn instructions, so that operators rarely get “lost.” • State DOT traffic information is available via the MDT, so that operators can “see” real-time traffic conditions on the area’s freeways and several main highways and determine if they should take the freeway or an alternate route for a particular trip, resulting in better schedule adherence. • The DRT system’s ability to adjust revenue hours on a daily basis. Management has conducted detailed analysis of past ridership and service data, providing realistic estimates of ridership demand levels by day of week, month and season, which then allows the system to determine, fairly accurately, the amount of service, or revenue hours, to schedule for the next day. If rid- ership demand for any given next day varies from what is predicted, management can adjust the revenue hours scheduled for the next day, informing the contractors to either reduce or add revenue hours. This provides a very realistic match of revenue hours to scheduled rider- ship, helping eliminate excess revenue time which will harm productivity. Source: King County METRO’s Access, from In Transit, January/February 2006 edition. Figure 7-2. King County METRO’s access productivity gain, 2004 to 2005.

• Using the CASD system, the schedulers “restrict” a pre-determined number of DRT vehicles to specific zones or sub-areas of the service area, concentrating passenger trips within that area onto the “zoned” vehicles to increase their productivity. Qualifications There were a few qualifications reported about MDTs/AVL by participating DRT systems. • Balancing technology with workforce realities. One large DRT system that directly operates service reported that it did not push the full capabilities of its MDT/AVL technology because of labor issues. Given some contention between operators and management, the DRT man- ager decided it would not be prudent to aggressively use the technology, inserting new trips and continuously revising operators’ manifests to maximize productivity and performance. When needed, this system was able to use back-up taxi service to address last minute changes. Another system noted that its dispatchers sometimes “get carried away” with their ability to continuously revise operators’ schedules in real time. • Not using full capabilities of technology. Two of the participating DRT systems noted that there remain technical issues with their MDTs/AVL and thus the technology is not used to its full potential. One of these two DRT systems reported that it uses its MDTs/AVL primarily for “fact finding,” for example, responding to no-show complaints, rather than for dispatching trips in real-time. • Balancing on-time performance and productivity. This was an issue heard from a number of DRT systems and has been reported in the literature (19). One of the DRT systems partic- ipating in the research called it a seesaw, a trade-off between efficiency and service quality. MDTs and AVL allow the DRT system to improve on-time performance, but sometimes this is at the expense of productivity. Finding the balance can be a challenge. Shorten the Advance Reservation Window: Reduce Cancellations By their nature, advance reservation DRT systems allow eligible riders to call in advance and reserve trips. Some of the trips scheduled in advance will be cancelled, as riders find that, over the advance reservation period, their plans change or they find alternative transportation. Cancellations, including all cancellations—advance and late—may account for 15 to 25% of total trips scheduled. Reported rates of cancellations among DRT systems will depend not only on the system’s actual experience but also on what cancellations are included in the calculation, for example, advance cancels only or all cancels including late cancellations. The reported rates will also depend on how the DRT system defines cancellations. For example, if a system counts only advance cancellations in its cancellation rate and if advance cancels are defined as cancellations made by 5:00 p.m. the day before service, this system will tend to have a lower cancellation rate, other things being equal, than another system which defines cancellations as all cancellations made before two hours before the trip. Effects of Cancellations on DRT Performance While cancellations are a reality of advance reservation DRT systems, they have an impact on DRT performance. Once trips are reserved and placed on schedules, they occupy capacity within the system. Subsequent requests for trips have to be placed around these trips, and this may impact the times scheduled for riders with those subsequent requests. When scheduled trips are cancelled, they become “holes” in the schedules, some of which can be filled as additional requests for service are made. The ability to fill these “holes,” that is, re-use the capacity, will depend on when the cancellation occurs, and it will also depend on the technology used by the DRT system. 90 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation

Improving Performance 91 In addition to their impact on schedules, cancellations require staff time. They require staff time for the original trip scheduling and then staff time for their deletion from the schedule. While the time to accomplish this task for each reservation and cancellation is only minutes, the minutes add up with the cancellations made over the advance reservation window. Because cancellations are made at different times, they have a tiered impact on service: the closer the cancellation is made to the time of trip pick-up, the more detrimental the impact. Cancellations made at the last minute are typically the functional equivalent of a no-show, as it is very difficult and for many systems not possible to re-use that newly created capacity. That is why most DRT systems group late cancellations with no-shows in their no-show policies. DRT systems have long recognized the impacts of cancellations, and many have taken delib- erate actions to mitigate their impact. Some systems accept same-day trips, knowing that they will have some capacity each service day created by same-day cancels. Will-calls are a similar approach to filling capacity created by same-day cancellations. A will-call is typically a return trip that is not placed on a manifest but rather the rider “will call” when ready to be picked up, and the DRT system fits that trip into the day’s schedule. Over-scheduling trips the day before so there are trips to insert in the capacity created by same- day cancels is another approach. One DRT system included in the research determined that its average same-day cancellation rate is 8%, and it over schedules trips to that amount, with those trips then used on the day of service to fill the capacity created by same-day cancellations. Performance Improvements Another approach to addressing cancellations is to shorten the advance reservation win- dow: with more limited time in advance to schedule trips, riders should be more sure of their travel plans and less likely to cancel their trips. There may even be fewer no-shows as riders may be less likely to forget that they scheduled a trip with a shorter period between booking and taking the trip. Shortening the advance reservation time period is a management action specifically identified by a number of DRT systems included in the research, and several have shortened the window at least twice since the ADA regulations were amended in 1996. These amendments, among other changes, allowed systems to shorten the originally required 14-day time period for advanced reservations. This management action has resulted in a lowered rate of cancellations. For the DRT systems included in the research, Table 7-5 shows the number of systems by different advance reservation windows, categorized by size of DRT system. All but one of these systems serve ADA paratransit trips. Table 7-5. Advance reservation windows. DRT Systems Length of Advance Reservation Window Small Urban Large Urban Largest Urban More than 14 days 1 1 14 days 8 4 2 7 days 1 3 4 5 days 1 4 days 1 3 days 1 3 Next-day only 1 Same-day 2 systems providing general public DRT Mixed 2 systems specify 14 days in advance for ADA riders and 7 days for non-ADA Note: Not included in the counts are two small urban systems that specified only that reservations must be made “at least the day before” and one very large system that is more than 90% subscription service. riders 1 system: 2 days in advance Mon-Wed and 4 days in advance Thurs-Fri.

92 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Ten DRT systems indicated they had shortened their advance reservation windows. One sys- tem did so immediately following the 1996 amendments, at the suggestion of its riders advisory committee, moving from 14-days in advance to four. The other systems made the change later, typically to address high rates of cancellations and some mentioned that they also hoped to impact no-shows as well. Of the ten systems that shortened their reservation window, four pro- vided data to measure the effect (see Table 7-6 and Figure 7-3). One very large urban system had reduced its original 14-day reservation period to 7 days, but still had high rates of cancellations. An analysis of cancellation patterns, which found that those riders that called 5 to 7 days out were more likely to cancel trips, led this system to further shorten the window to three days in 2005. With the change to a 3-day reservation window, this system experienced a reduced cancella- tion rate—from 13.0% to 11.7% of advance cancellations—but also found a dramatic increase in reservation calls on the afternoon before the service day, impacting the reservations staff. Call vol- ume is highest on Monday afternoons, as Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays are the busiest days. The DRT system has had to remind its riders that it is open on weekends for reservations. Table 7-6. Shortening advance reservation window. Change in Reservation Window Performance Effects Comments 14 to 7 days Cancellations reduced from 22% to 18% of trip reservations. Change implemented in 2005. Decrease in cancellations happened within first month. Result has been almost 1,300 fewer cancellations per month. 7 to 3 days Cancellations reduced from 13.0% to 11.7% of total scheduled trips. The window was changed at the start of FY05. Data measures advance cancellations; late cancellations are not included. The 13.0% rate is an average of FY02-04. The 11.7% rate is based on FY05. 7 to 3 days Cancellations reduced from 12% of all reservations in 2003 to 8.5% in 2004, and to 8% by 2005. The window was shortened in 2003. Data measures advanced cancellations only. While the impact of the change was predominately in advance cancellations, it was noted that there was also a small decrease in same-day and late cancellations over the same time period. No- shows remained at about the same level over the time period. 7 to 3 days Cancellations reduced from 24.0% to 19.9% of trips provided. No-shows reduced from 4.1% to 3.1% of trips provided. This change was implemented in May 2006. Effects based on two months of data in FY05 and same two months in FY06 after window was shortened. Reported Performance Improvements with Shorter Advance Reservation Window • Fewer advance cancellations: riders more certain of their travel plans and less likely to cancel trips. • Riders may be less likely to forget a scheduled trip with a shorter reservation period; may result in fewer no-shows. • Reduced staff time devoted to scheduling and canceling trips that riders do not want. Of other systems participating in the research project that shortened their advance reserva- tion windows, while not able to provide measurable data, most noted that cancellations had decreased and that this was beneficial. One small DRT system manager explained that his sys-

Improving Performance 93 tem reduced its advance reservation window because, in part, a number of riders would call at the very start of the reservation window, book a number of trips, and then call just prior to the service day to cancel some of those trips. Several systems said that another benefit was fewer no-shows as “riders are less likely to for- get that they made a reservation” with a shorter reservation period. However, there was little data to support this claim, with the exception of one system shown on Table 7-6. To effectively address no-shows, DRT systems have specifically tightened their no-show/late cancel policies, educated their riders, and enforced the policies. This management strategy is addressed next in this chapter. Qualifications There were few comments by DRT systems as to any unintended effects of shortening the win- dow, with the exception of the one very large urban system that found a large shift in reservation calls made the afternoon before the service day, as discussed above. To some extent, this is a trend that occurs as systems have reached a zero denial environment essentially required for ADA para- transit services, as riders find that they do not need to call days ahead to get a trip. This trend towards reservation calls made the afternoon on the day before service seems also to be impacted, in some cases, by riders “learning the system.” Two DRT systems noted that some riders were purposefully calling late the afternoon before the service day to request a trip, because they had learned that doing so typically meant they received the exact time they requested, with no trip time negotiation. This occurred because the CASD system could not find space for the trip and it was placed on the “unscheduled list.” Call-takers were telling these rid- ers that “no solution was found” for their trips and then giving the riders the exact trip time they requested. Such unscheduled trips are later manually scheduled or placed on an overflow provider. However, when riders began asking for a “no solution found” trip, the DRT systems realized that they needed to adjust call-taker practices so that riders are not told if there is “no solution found,” and so that all riders are treated in the same way in terms of the reservations and scheduling process. It is also noted that two of the largest urban systems indicated limited effects from shortening their reservation windows. One system, which changed its original 14-day reservation period to 4 days some years ago, has a current cancellation rate of about 20%. The second system went from 7 to 3 days in 2001. Both of these systems specifically said there was very limited, if any, change to their cancellation rate with the shortening of the reservation window. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Jan 03 Ap 03 Jul 03 Oct 03 Jan 04 Ap 04 Jul 04 Oct 04 Jan 05 Ap 05 Jul 05 Oct 05 Source: Experience of Denver RTD’s Access-a-Ride: Window shortened at end of 2003. Figure 7-3. Reduction in advance cancellation rate with reserva- tion window change from 7 to 3 days.

94 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Adopt and Enforce No-Show and Late Cancel Policy While some level of no-shows and late cancellations may be an accepted aspect of DRT oper- ations, they are also recognized for their detrimental effect on performance. In an effort to min- imize no-shows and late cancels, most DRT systems have developed and adopted policies to reduce their occurrence. Effects of No-Shows and Late Cancellations on DRT Performance No-shows have a clear negative impact on DRT performance. When a rider does not show up for a scheduled trip, or cancels the trip at the door, the DRT system has essentially wasted a pas- senger trip. Excessive no-shows may also have an impact on on-time performance. To the extent that operators have to wait at scheduled pick-up locations for the full waiting time or longer while dispatch tries to locate a rider, no-shows may cause subsequent trips on the operators’ schedules to be affected. And when riders are no-shows for their return trips back home, the DRT system may be required to send a second vehicle later to pick up the rider, requiring new trips to be inserted into vehicle schedules, which then may affect the timeliness of trips that follow. No-shows also inconvenience other riders who might be on-board when a rider no-shows, affecting the service quality of their trips. These others riders have wasted their time traveling to and waiting for the no-show rider. Had the rider cancelled his trip with adequate notice rather than no-showing, the other riders on-board may have had a more direct trip, in less time. Late cancellations are also typically detrimental to DRT performance. Depending on the DRT system’s definition, a late cancellation may have the same impact as a no-show. If the system can- not re-use the capacity created by the late cancellation, it has the same negative affect as a no-show. As noted in Chapter 5, DRT research using simulated service has found that higher rates of late cancellations adversely impact productivity, with an approximate 4–5% decrease in productivity for every 10% increase in the cancellation rate. Because they represent lost resources, no-shows and late cancellations have a price tag. One of the larger urban systems participating in the research estimated that during FY 2000, it sched- uled over $1 million of service that was not used due to no-shows and late cancellations. Another large urban DRT system estimated its potential annual cost savings with reductions in its high rate of no-shows: the system estimated that if it could reduce the no-show/late cancellation rate from its then-level of 10% to a lowered rate of 7%, the DRT system would save approximately $350,000. If it could reduce the rate to an even lower 4%, this would represent an annual cost savings of over $695,000. No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies Vary To mitigate the impacts of no-shows and late cancellations, most DRT systems have estab- lished policies that both define no-shows and late cancellations and establish penalties for riders who accumulate excessive no-shows and late cancels. These policies vary considerably across DRT systems. Some systems use a fairly straightforward policy that counts the number of no-shows and late cancellations accumulated by an individual rider over a defined period of time, which then results in some level of service suspension once the number of no-shows/late cancellations exceeds the defined threshold. Other DRT systems use fines or charge for scheduled but untaken trips as a way to address no- shows and late cancellations and this may be in conjunction with service suspension. Some larger DRT systems have established more sophisticated policies using a point scale, where points are assigned for each cancellation and no-show, and the number of points given for each cancella- tion or no-show depends upon when the rider notifies—or does not notify—the system. Once

a certain level of points has been accumulated by an individual rider over a specified time period, the rider is suspended for a defined amount of time. Such policies may also have a reward com- ponent, so that riders who use the service responsibly, without no-shows or late cancellations over a defined time period, may be eligible for a free trip on the system. It is noted that DRT systems that are ADA paratransit must also have an appeals process in place if the no-show/late cancel policy provides for service suspension for excessive no-show/late cancels. A few of the smaller DRT systems included in the research indicated that they have few problems with no-shows and late cancels. Despite this, they still have a policy to address these situations. Most of the DRT systems indicated that problems with no-shows and late cancels occur pre- dominately with subscription riders. In fact, one DRT system implements its no-show/late cancel policy only for subscription riders. And often, DRT systems reported that it was a small number of riders who are habitual offenders of the no-show/late cancel policy. One DRT system requires that riders who have more than three no-shows in a 30-day period call the system one-half hour before each trip to “confirm” that they are, in fact, taking the trip. Such riders stay on the “confirmation” program until they have achieved one month without a no-show. Moreover, if a rider on the confirmation program fails to call in for a scheduled trip, any remaining trips that rider has scheduled for the day are automatically cancelled. Subsequent infractions of the no-show policy may result in progressively longer service suspensions. A key aspect of this system’s policy is the personal touch—a DRT staff person contacts the offending rider to explain why no-shows are a problem and the consequences of continual no-shows. Performance Improvements The cited performance improvements with quantifiable data related predominately to reduc- tions in no-shows and late cancels, and two systems pointed to productivity improvements as well. • Reduced no-show/late cancellations. Among the DRT systems included in the research, seven provided data that quantified the reduction in no-shows and late cancels with implementa- tion of their no-show/late cancel policies; see Table 7-7 and Figure 7-4. Interestingly, two of the systems provided data that showed how an education campaign, by itself, can reduce the no-show and late cancel rate. Another system, DART’s Paratransit program, quantified reduc- tions from its revised policy (and consistent enforcement) separately for no-shows and late cancellations, the latter defined as a cancel made after 5:00 p.m. the day prior to the trip and up to 2 hours before the pick-up time. The system’s no-show rate declined from 5% to 3% and its late cancellations from 13% to 9%. • Improved productivity with reduced no-shows/late cancellations. Among the DRT systems participating in the research, two systems, one small and the second in the largest urban cat- egory, reported that the reductions in no-shows and late cancels translated into improved pro- ductivity; see Table 7-8. Interestingly, it was a new performance standard that marshaled the efforts at the small DRT system to address no-shows and late cancels. Facing a new produc- tivity standard of 2.8, the system’s contractor focused on reducing no-shows/late cancels by telephoning each night those riders on the next-day schedule with a history of no-shows/late cancels. The no-show/late cancel rate was reduced dramatically, from over 9% to less than 3%, and the productivity standard was achieved. Qualifications Tackling the problems of no-shows and late cancellations requires staff resources. Some of the DRT systems included in the research benefit from their sophisticated CASD systems capable of automatically generating letters when no-shows/late cancels occur. But even with such technology, Improving Performance 95

No-Show/Late Cancel Policy Performance Effects Comments Strict new policy implemented in 2003, by small urban DRT system. Late cancel definition: cancellations less than one hour before trip considered no-shows. Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2003 2.8% After late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2004 2.0% FY 2005 1.6% The system’s relatively low “before” no-show/late cancel rate reduced even further with new policy. Problems are with “habitual offenders,” typically subscription riders whose trips are booked through an agency and riders traveling for dialysis. The existing policy of a small urban DRT system was enforced more strongly by the contractor when its new contract stipulated new performance standards, including a productivity standard. Policy states: no-shows and late cancellations, which are trips cancelled after 3 pm the day prior to service, may result in loss of riding privileges. Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2005 9.4% After late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2006 2.8% The DRT system’s contractor focused on reducing no- shows, which were significantly more problematic than late cancels. Contractor assigns one staff person each night to review next-day manifests and to call riders on schedule with history of no-shows/late cancels to remind them of their scheduled trips or to cancel the trip if not needed. Given small size of system, this involves roughly 30-50 phone calls per night. The no-show/late cancel policy of a large urban system was not enforced, in part because the system was waiting for planned implementation of MDTs/AVL. Without enforcement, result was a high no-show rate. The system embarked on a rider education campaign to reduce no- shows/late cancels prior to implementation of MDTs/AVL. Policy states: No-show occurs when no one answers door when driver knocks loudly or rings doorbell. Late cancellation, which is the same as a no-show, occurs if trip is cancelled less than 90 minutes prior to scheduled pick-up time. Results from an education campaign Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2004 10% After late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2005 8% The DRT system indicated that many riders did not know about the no-show/late cancel policy and some were “very embarrassed” to learn they were taking trips from others by not showing. Education campaign included outreach, letters, and other direct mailings, including a focus on riders with no-show histories. The existing no show/late cancel policy of a large urban DRT system was enforced beginning in early 2004. Efforts included outreach, education, and penalties as established. Before no-show rate (cancels not included) FY 2003 4.8% After no-show rate FY 2004 3.7% FY 2005 2.0% Enforcement includes: daily listing of all no-shows/late cancel riders from previous day with notification letter automatically generated and mailed to rider. Staff also reviews obituaries in local newspapers to look for subscription riders who may have passed away with resulting no-shows incurring until the DRT system is notified. Implementation and enforcement of no-show/late cancel policy began during FY 2002 at a large DRT system. A late cancel is a trip not cancelled by 5 pm the day before service. Implementation began with 4-month education campaign, then enforcement was initiated. Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2002, first 4 months: 10.3% After late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2002, second 4 months, after education- only campaign 6.8% FY 2002, after enforcement began 5.6% FY 2003 5.6% FY 2004 5.8% FY 2005 5.8% System mails out an auto-generated letter for every no- show/late cancel with specific details on each occurrence. Relatively few riders receive a suspension: on average, 42 suspensions each year over 2003-2005, compared to approximately 12,600 active riders. Reductions in late cancels/no-shows have come more from late cancellations. No-shows decreased from 2.9% of scheduled trips before the education and enforcement campaigns to 2.2% by FY 2003. Table 7-7. Develop and enforce no show/late cancel policy.

No-Show/Late Cancel Policy Performance Effects Comments Sophisticated no-show/late cancellation policy was developed and has evolved since its implementation in FY 2003, by a large DRT system. The policy uses “points,” which a rider accumulates depending upon when the rider notifies, or does not notify, the system as to a cancellation/no-show. Penalties are imposed depending on the number of points accumulated over specified periods of time. Riders can also receive “rewards” for earning no points. Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2001 10% After late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2002, first two months, implemented new policy 4.5% FY 2003, revised policy to include “points” 2.4% FY 2004, lengthened period for advance cancels to 10 pm day before 2.7% FY 2006, reduced length of suspension 2.4% The “points” based late cancellation/no-show policy has been very effective, allowing the DRT system to focus on education rather than suspensions. The system’s advisory group was instrumental in developing the no-show/late cancel policy. New, stricter no-show/late cancellation policy in 2002, by a large system using “points,” where a different number of points are assessed for cancel/no-shows depending on when the rider notifies, or does not notify, the system. The closer the notification time is to the scheduled pick-up, the greater the number of points assessed. The policy has gone through 3 iterations. The current version has an incentive program for riders who accumulate no points. Before late cancellation/no-show rate 2001 est. 20% After late cancellation/no-show rate 2003 11% 2006 7% Before implementing the stricter no-show/late cancel policy, the system tried to address the high rate of no- shows by reducing the advance reservation window from 14 to 3 days in advance. Reportedly, this did not have much impact on no-show/late cancels. Current policy is considered very successful, though it was reported that there are issues with chronic offenders who repeatedly are faced with the longest suspension of 6 months. Table 7-7. (Continued)

98 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation staff resources are needed. One of the larger DRT systems with a points system for no-shows/late cancellations reports that up to 1.75 full-time staff are assigned to enforce its policy. It is also noted that one system indicated that there is an upside to some level of no-shows and late cancellations. This system, operating in a large metropolitan region, reported that no- shows/late cancels can be useful at times, providing short pockets of time that operators can use to get back on schedule when running late. Manage Supply of Revenue Hours to Match Demand DRT performance can be improved by ensuring that the supply of service, as measured by rev- enue hours, matches expected demand for service, as measured by passenger trips. This manage- ment action requires that the DRT system understand its ridership patterns by day of week, by month, and by season. Once patterns are understood, the system can then schedule its service to match expected ridership patterns. In this way, the system can reduce less productive hours and increase its productivity. 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Dec-03 Ma r-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Ma r-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Ma r-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 N o- Sh ow /L at e Ca nc el R at e Experience of ACCESS LYNX, Orlando, Florida. Figure 7-4. Enforcing no-show policy. No-Show/Late Cancel Reductions Effect on Productivity To help meet a new productivity standard in the contract, the small urban system and its contractor focused on reducing no-shows/late cancels. Contractor assigns one staff person each night to review next-day manifests, then calls riders on schedules who have a history of no- shows/late cancels to remind them of trips or to cancel the trip if not needed. Before late cancellation/no-show rate FY 2005 9.4% After late cancellation/no-show rate: FY 2006 2.8% Before productivity: FY 2005 2.6 passenger trips/revenue hour After productivity: FY 2006 2.8 passenger trips/revenue hour Several strategies implemented in 2002 by a large system to address increasing costs and demand. Among them, implementing a strict “point”-based no-show/late cancel policy was considered very effective, reducing no- show/late cancels by almost half over 2 years. Before late cancellation/no-show rate: 2001 est. 20% After late cancellation/no-show rate 2003 11% Before productivity: FY 2001 1.89 passenger trips/revenue hour After productivity: FY 2003 1.97 passenger trips/revenue hour Table 7-8. Reduce no-shows/late cancels to improve productivity.

Improving Performance 99 Performance Improvements Several of the DRT systems participating in the research identified the management of their revenue hours to match expected ridership as a strategy employed to improve productivity; see Table 7-9. These are systems that use private contractors to provide their DRT service, and the contractual relationship provides for the adjustment of revenue hours. Since contractors enter into agreements based on an understanding of the service they will provide and for a cost that depends on that understanding, it is important that the mechanism for adjusting revenue hours and the extent to which adjustments will be made are explained. The contractor is then respon- sible for operationalizing the adjustments, including changing operator schedules to match the revenue hours. For this strategy to be effective, the system must understand its expected demand so it can then provide the appropriate amount of service on the street. For a larger system, such adjustments may be an action taken each day, so that the next-day’s pull-out may be reduced or certain vehi- cle schedules revised based on passenger trips that are requested for the next day. A variation on this strategy is the adjustment of revenue hours on the day of service. One of the DRT systems in the research is proactive in monitoring the vehicle schedules out on the street. If a particular vehicle schedule shows a number of same-day cancellations towards the end of the operator’s shift with only one or two trips remaining, for example, those trips may be moved to another vehicle and the vehicle pulled in to end its schedule. This practice helps to min- imize unproductive revenue time. For a smaller system, the adjustment of revenue hours to match demand may be an action taken less frequently. One of the systems shown on Table 7-9 negotiated its contracted service to be pro- vided on an “on-call” basis during weekday nights and weekend days, time periods that system Strategy Performance Effects Comments The start and end times of DRT routes operated by the contractors are “flexed” from their original schedules by the sponsoring very large urban DRT system to match trips scheduled for the next day. Initially, this strategy was aggressively pursued, but then revised so that the “flex” was limited to 30 to 60 minutes from the original schedules. Productivity of 2.34 passenger trips per revenue hour achieved in 2005, with the “flexing” given much credit for the productivity achievement. Once the “flexing” was more limited, productivity decreased the following year, to 2.26. The DRT routes subject to “flexing” start and end times are identified to the contractors, so that contractors can inform their vehicle operators which routes may be “flexed” before routes are chosen. Routes that are flexed are those serving demand trips and that tend to fluctuate day-to-day; routes anchored by subscription trips, the large majority of routes, are not flexed. When initially implemented, the amount of flexing was not popular with vehicle operators, and this led to more limited flexing. “On-call” revenue hours are provided during weekday nights and weekend days by the contractor to meet the limited demand experienced by the small urban DRT. Beginning in 2005, during the defined low demand hours, the system is charged for revenue hours only when a trip is scheduled. The contractor is a private non-profit. With “on call” revenue hours, productivity reached 3.08 during 2005. Prior year, with service directly operated by the city, productivity was 2.72. With the change from direct city operation to contracted service, the city negotiated the arrangement whereby the contractor is on-call during the low demand periods of weekday nights and weekend days. It was estimated that for the six-hour period each weekday night, which computes to 30 hours of potential service during a week, the city pays for only 2 to 4 trips (therefore hours) in a typical week. Actively managing the contractor’s revenue hours to match the demand for service is among the strategies employed by a very large DRT system to improve productivity. The DRT system implemented a number of strategies at the start of FY06, including limiting the service area to ¾ mile corridors and increasing the on-time window from 20 to 30 minutes. Productivity on the contracted service improved in FY06 to 1.97, an increase from 1.93 in the prior year, FY05. This increase was the result of the various strategies put in place, but ensuring that the provision of revenue hours by the contractor match changing patterns of demand and use is a key management action used by the DRT system to maximize productivity. Table 7-9. Manage supply of revenue hours to meet demand.

100 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation managers knew were very low demand, so that the system is charged for revenue time only when a passenger trip is provided. This has been a very effective management action, saving more than 25 revenue hours on a weekly basis. When annualized, this is a savings of more than 1,000 revenue hours, which saves not only unproductive revenue hours, but operating costs as well. One technique used by a contract operator to check the efficiency of the next-day’s schedule involves a fairly straightforward calculation. On the afternoon before next-day’s service, the fol- lowing is done: determine the number of passenger trips requested, adjusting that for anticipated no-shows and late cancels, and divide that number by the target productivity figure. According to the contractor, this provides an estimate of the number of revenue hours needed for the next day, which can then be used to schedule the appropriate amount of service for the next day. If the system has an average of eight hours per day per operator, for example, the estimated num- ber of revenue hours is then divided by that average, eight in this example, providing an estimate of the number of operators needed. With this information, the manager can begin to adjust the number of operators for the next day to maximize efficiency. If these calculations are done over time, with the actual day’s data then added to compare to the estimates, the manager can mon- itor trends and understand the patterns, fine-tuning the ability to match revenue hours to demand for service. Qualifications To be effective, a DRT system must work closely with its service contractor when adjusting revenue hours, particularly when this is done on a daily and ongoing basis. While such adjust- ments have the potential to improve productivity, the strategy must be workable from the contractor’s perspective. During economic times when DRT systems and their contractors are experiencing vehicle operator shortages, such adjustments requiring the cancellation of two vehi- cle schedules out of 100 for the next day, for example, might work out well for the contractor. But changing vehicle schedules is clearly not universally popular among operators, many of who need some stability in their work schedules and pay checks. Given the pivotal role that operators play in the provision of DRT service, this strategy of adjusting vehicle schedules on a continual basis must be implemented to the benefit of both the DRT system and its service providers. Consider Same Day Taxi Program Several of the DRT systems participating in the research project have implemented same-day taxi programs. While this may not be considered a management action that leads to direct per- formance improvements in the same way as those discussed earlier, such programs have been implemented by a number of DRT systems that are ADA paratransit, facilitating use by ADA- eligible riders of taxi trips that are less costly than ADA paratransit trips, and are considered effec- tive by the DRT systems. The DRT systems that provide such same-day taxi programs as supplemental to their ADA paratransit service claim a number of benefits, including cost savings to the extent that riders choose the taxi service rather than the ADA service for their trips, and increased flexibility for the ADA riders given the taxi program’s same-day attribute. The cost-savings accrue as the sub- sidy level for the taxi trips is typically substantially less than the subsidy for the next-day ADA paratransit trips. Even if the taxi program generates new demand, which is an issue for such pro- grams, given the difference in trip subsidy levels, the same-day taxi programs may still represent cost savings for the ADA paratransit program. Characteristics of Same-Day Taxi Programs The same-day taxi programs allow ADA-eligible riders to reserve and take trips with partici- pating taxi companies on the day of travel, as opposed to the next-day, advance reservation

Improving Performance 101 nature of ADA paratransit service. The taxi programs typically have restrictions on use, for exam- ple, limits on the amount of subsidy per taxi trip and a cap on the number of taxi trips that can be taken through the program during defined periods of time, for example, per day or per month. Such restrictions serve as budgetary controls on the programs. Typically, the DRT system subsidizes a trip up to a maximum amount on the taximeter, with the rider paying a pre-determined fare at the start of the trip. If the rider’s taxi trip exceeds that maximum amount on the meter, the rider is responsible for paying the amount over the maxi- mum. For example, one of the same-day taxi programs reviewed in this research allows an ADA- eligible rider to take a trip up to $10 on the meter for a fare of $2.25. A $10 taxi trip is approximately two to three miles. If the taxi trip exceeds $10 on the meter, the rider must pay the additional amount, as well as the initial fare of $2.25. Objectives of Same-Day Taxi Programs While the specific objectives of the DRT systems’ same-day taxi programs vary, one objective is typically cost savings. If some of the ADA riders shift trips to the less expensive taxi service, the DRT system may achieve some cost savings. Table 7-10 shows summary characteristics of five same-day taxi programs that are provided as supplemental, premium service for the ADA para- transit service provided by DRT systems participating in the research. The programs shown on Table 7-10 are provided by DRT systems in the largest urban DRT category. However, same-day taxi programs have been implemented at small systems as well. One of the small systems participating in the research, Champaign-Urbana MTD, developed a half-fare taxi program as part of its approach to meet increasing demand and costs for its ADA paratransit service. Through this program, eligible ADA riders as well as others with disabilities and senior members of the community can take a pre-determined number of taxi trips each month for half the meter cost, with the other half subsidized by the DRT system. This program gives ADA eligible riders an option for same-day trips, and also provides discounted taxi trans- portation for others in the community with specialized needs. System management credits this program, along with other strategies, for helping improve the performance of the city’s ADA paratransit service. A lingering issue regarding same-day programs is the extent to which they induce new trip- making because the riders do not have to book trips one day in advance. If significant new trips are created over what would have been taken on the next-day ADA service, the cost savings to the DRT system will be reduced. Early research conducted for the FTA when the ADA regulations were being written in 1989 and 1990 looked at the issue of same-day versus next-day service. According to the model that was used in that research, changing from a 24-hour advance reservation to a same-day service could, other things being equal, increase demand by up to 90% (29). This research project has looked in detail at three same-day taxi programs including chang- ing trip patterns with implementation of the taxi program.1 The findings are discussed below. Same-Day Taxi Program Use For the three taxi programs reviewed, use of the same-day program was assessed in two ways. First, riders’ use of the taxi program was reviewed for a sampled period of time and compared 1 Data on the same-day taxi programs were requested from three of the DRT systems participating in the research. Data reviewed: for the first program, all taxi program ridership over a 20-month time period after the program was introduced in 2005 was assessed; for the second program, all taxi program ridership was assessed for a 3-month time period in 2006; for the third program, a random sample of 150 taxi program users was assessed for a 3-month time period in 2005.

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program Objectives Program initiated in FY04 at the request of a legislator to provide more spontaneous travel opportunities for ADA riders. Program initiated in FY06 to: Mitigate possible negative effects of reducing service area to ¾ -mile ADA corridors and of eliminating same-day medical back-up service provided through dedicated van service. Expected that program might help reduce late cancels/no-shows. Program initiated at start of FY05 to address service performance issues experienced at that time and to provide alternative service options while transit agency implemented major revision of service structure. Program was implemented in the 1990’s to address ADA paratransit denials being experienced at that time and to provide a more cost- effective alternative to dedicated van service. There had been a particular interest in shifting the shorter trips to taxi during peak hours to free up capacity on the dedicated service. Program has been in operation for many years and was implemented to provide opportunity for more spontaneous travel than provided through the agency’s traditional advance reservation paratransit service. Program Parameters Eligible rider pays $7.00 for a taxi trip up to $20 on meter. Beyond $20 meter fare, rider is responsible. $20 taxi trip is approx. a 10-mile trip. ADA fare is $3.50 peak, $2.50 off peak. Eligible rider pays $2.25 for taxi trip up to $10 on meter. Beyond $10 meter fare, rider is responsible. $10 taxi trip is approx. 2-3 miles. ADA fare is $2.25, the same as the taxi fare. For first year, eligible rider paid $3.00 for taxi trip of any length. After program’s first year, this was revised so that $3 fare provided trip up to $50 on meter, with cap of 4 one-way trips per day per rider. Rider responsible for fare over $50 on meter. ADA fare is $1.85. Eligible rider pays $2.00 for a taxi trip up to $9.00 on meter. Beyond $9 on the meter, the rider is responsible. ADA fare is $3.00. Eligible rider pays $1.00 for taxi trip up to $9 on meter. Beyond $9 meter fare, rider is responsible. $9 taxi trip is approx. 3 miles. ADA fare is $1.15. Program Controls Program operated as pilot for period of time. DRT system developed electronic notification procedure so that requested taxi trips, which are scheduled in the CASD system as riders contact the ADA system first, are uploaded at the participating taxi companies. When eligible rider calls taxi company of choice, the taxi company can verify the request and then provide the trip. Program initiated in FY06 as a pilot. Same-day trips capped at 50 per day. However, since weekend usage has been lower than the cap, DRT system allows weekday trips to somewhat exceed cap when needed. New controls implemented in FY06, as described above. Program still labeled pilot. DRT system uses a private firm for comprehensive management of taxi program. Eligible riders use an electronic swipe card that collects comprehensive trip information. Participating taxi companies have meters that read the swipe card. Management firm monitors use closely, providing detailed data on use and watching for any unusual activity/fraud. Same-day taxi trips capped at 600 per day and a rider can request up to 4 one-way trips per day. Program usage has not reached the current cap. Usage is about 180- 210 taxi trips per day, a ridership level that has been relatively consistent for a number of years. DRT system issues limited number of “blank” vouchers each month to participating cab companies. Blank vouchers then provided to drivers. DRT system also gives each taxi co. a list of randomly generated numbers each month. When an eligible rider requests a trip, the taxi co. dispatcher gives the next random number to the driver, to fill in on the blank voucher, helping prevent unauthorized completion of vouchers. The requested trip and voucher number are also entered electronically. Data on the completed voucher and electronic file must match for taxi company to be paid. Program Use and Cost Passenger trips, FY 05 ADA paratransit 1,104,879 same-day taxi est. 2,660 (< 1% of ADA paratransit trips) Cost per passenger trip ADA paratransit $23.94 same-day taxi $13 Passenger trips, FY 06 ADA paratransit 1,235,836 same-day taxi 11,681 ( 1% of ADA paratransit trips) Cost per passenger trip ADA paratransit $26.55 same-day taxi $7.75 Passenger trips, FY 05 ADA paratransit 620,989 same-day taxi 169,710 (27% of ADA paratransit trips) Cost per passenger trip ADA paratransit $31.16 same-day taxi $25.48 Passenger trips, FY 05 ADA paratransit 551,000 same-day taxi 49,700 (9% of ADA paratransit trips) Cost per passenger trip ADA paratransit $40.31 same-day taxi $7.00 Passenger trips, FY 06 ADA paratransit 1,365,949 same-day taxi 120,143 (9% of ADA paratransit trips) Cost per passenger trip ADA paratransit $20.91 same-day taxi $5.18 Table 7-10. Summary characteristics of same-day taxi programs provided as supplemental to ADA paratransit services.

Improving Performance 103 to the same riders’ use of the ADA service during the same sample time period. Second, to review how trip patterns changed on the ADA service with introduction of the same-day taxi program, riders’ use of the taxi program was reviewed and compared to the same riders’ use of the ADA service both before and after the taxi program began. This second assessment focused on riders who were eligible for the ADA service during both the before and after time periods. Given the different scales of the taxi programs—two of the programs provide a very small per- centage of passenger trips compared to ridership on the ADA service, while the third program provided a substantially larger share—and with different taxi program parameters, the results of the programs are quite different. With the first two programs, the majority of the taxi program users appear to be infrequent users, with less than one taxi trip per month. Correspondingly, small portions of the taxi program users are frequent users, defined as taking one or more taxi trips per week. The first program shows that less than 2% of taxi program users are frequent users, and they accounted for about one-third of the taxi trips during the sampled time period. The second program shows that 10% of the taxi program users are frequent users, with one or more taxi trips per week, and they accounted for about half the taxi trips. The “frequent” taxi program users at both the first and second DRT system averaged nine taxi trips per month, in addition to their ADA paratransit trips. With the third program, which provides a considerably larger subsidy and initially few limi- tations for taxi trips, the trends of the first two programs are reversed, with the majority of taxi program riders defined as frequent riders; and these riders take on average 17 taxi trips per month, almost twice the level of taxi trip-making as the first two systems. Table 7-11 provides this summary information. Changing Trip Patterns The changes in trip patterns with introduction of the same-day taxi program vary by the three DRT systems and whether the taxi program users are frequent or less frequent taxi users. For the first two programs, the infrequent taxi program users appear, based on ridership data during the sampled time period, to use taxi trips as supplemental trips, with either the same or somewhat greater ridership levels on the ADA service during the before taxi program time period and the after taxi program time period. The frequent users of the taxi program, however, appear to be shifting trips from the ADA service to the taxi program and, with two of the programs, increasing their overall trip-making (taxi trips plus ADA paratransit service trips) by significant amounts. With the second program, the small group of frequent taxi program users decreased their ADA trips, on average, by about four trips per month and added nine new taxi trips per month. With the third program, the fre- quent taxi program users, accounting for about two-thirds of the users based on sampled data, decreased their ADA trips, on average, by 5.4 trips per month, and added 17 new taxi trips per month. For this latter program, this represents an increase in overall trip-making (on both the ADA service and taxi program) of over 90% once the taxi program was introduced.2 Performance Effects Because the taxi program parameters were considerably different across the three DRT pro- grams reviewed, few generalizations can be made. The program parameters are clearly impor- tant in determining use of the program. Not surprisingly, the taxi programs that provide a greater 2 It may be tempting to relate this finding to the research findings noted earlier in this section on increased demand when a 24-hour paratransit system converts to same-day service. But the experience of the same-day taxi program related here was not conversion of the service from next-day to same-day, it is a supplemental same- day program that does not hold all other things equal. Furthermore, the increase in demand of 90+% comes from trips on both the next-day ADA service and the same-day taxi service.

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 ADA-Eligible Riders Who Use Same-Day Taxi Program Total Passenger trips, FY 05 ADA paratransit 1,104,879 same-day taxi est. 2,660 Total Passenger trips, FY 06 ADA paratransit 1,235,836 same-day taxi 11,681 Total Passenger trips, FY 05 ADA paratransit 620,989 same-day taxi 169,710 Increase in total trips made by taxi program users, measured from year before taxi program to year after taxi program initiated. 41% 37% 67% Composition of new trips by taxi program users: ADA paratransit Same-day taxi 84% ADA trips 16% taxi trips 37% ADA trips 63% taxi trips 41% ADA trips 59% taxi trips Users of taxi program: Infrequent – less than once per month 91% 57% 9% Some wh at frequent – once per month and more 9%, accounting for 65% of taxi trips 43%, accounting for 86.5% of taxi trips 91%, accounting for 99% of taxi trips Frequent – once per week and more 1.5%, accounting for 34% of taxi trips; average of 9.3 taxi trips per month 9.7%, accounting for 51.4% of taxi trips; average of 9.1 taxi trips per month 65%, accounting for 95% of taxi trips; average of 17.1 taxi trips per month Very frequent – once per day and more <0.2%, accounting for 14% of taxi trips <0.5%, accounting for 8.2% of taxi trips 11%, accounting for 39% of taxi trips Changing trip patterns once taxi program began: Infrequent users – less than one taxi trip per month Average of 7.0 ADA trips/month prior to taxi program. Increase to 9.1 ADA trips/mont h after taxi program. These users appear to use taxis for supplemental trips. Average of just under 9.0 ADA trips/month prior to taxi program. Average of 9.0 ADA trips/mont h after taxi program. These users appear to use taxis for supplemental trips. Small portion of taxi users, with average of 6.8 ADA trips prior to taxi program. Average of 5.5 ADA trips after taxi program. Somew hat frequent users - one or more taxi trips per month Average of 10.5 ADA trips/ month prior to taxi program. Very slight increase to 10.6 ADA trips/ month after taxi program. Additional 3.1 taxi trips per month on average. Average of 11.1 ADA trips/month prior to taxi program. Decrease to 10.1 ADA trips/mont h after taxi program. Additional 3.7 taxi trips per month on average. Average of 12.4 ADA trips/month prior to taxi program. Decrease to 8.3 ADA trips/mont h after taxi program. Additional 12.9 taxi trips per month on average. Frequent users – one or more taxi trips per week Very small group of taxi riders, decreased ADA trips from 21 ADA trips per month to 9 ADA trips per month, with additional 9 taxi trips per month on average. Relatively small group of taxi riders, decreased ADA trips from 13.2 to 9.5 ADA trips per month, with additional 9.1 taxi trips per month on average. Two-thirds of taxi riders, decreased ADA trips from 12.9 to 7.5 ADA trips per month, with additional 17.1 taxi trips per month. Table 7-11. Use of same-day taxi programs by ADA-eligible riders at three systems.

Improving Performance 105 subsidy per same-day taxi trip are more heavily used. Additionally, as noted on Table 7-10, the taxi programs can be designed so that riders are encouraged to take shorter trips. One of the DRT systems specifically wanted its ADA riders to use the same-day taxi program for shorter trips, particularly during peak times to free up capacity on the dedicated vehicles. It can also be said that, based on the three same-day taxi programs reviewed, with the availabil- ity of a same-day taxi program, there seem to be a portion of ADA eligible riders who gravitate to the taxi program and use it extensively, with a significant decrease in trips on the ADA service. Some discontinue use of the ADA service altogether. The size of this portion of ADA riders varied considerably among the three programs reviewed. At the first program, this group of frequent rid- ers was less than ten individuals. At the second program, it was about 60 individuals. At the third program, data were not available to show the size of this portion of taxi program users, but based on sampled riders, it appears that the frequent riders are about two-thirds of the users of the taxi program. This latter program provides a substantially greater subsidy for each taxi trip and, dur- ing the program’s first year, few limitations on its use. Moreover, for all three programs, it seems that those ADA eligible riders who become frequent users of the taxi program were more active riders of the ADA service before the start of the taxi program compared to other taxi program users. This review did not compare the frequent taxi program users to those riders who use only the ADA service, so it is not known to what extent the taxi users’ trip-making compares to those who do not use it. But experience in the industry and the review described here suggest that the riders who became frequent users of the taxi pro- gram are already relatively mobile compared to other paratransit riders. To the extent that eligible riders who are frequent riders of the ADA paratransit service can be encouraged to shift trip-making to a taxi program where per trip costs are significantly less than the ADA service, same-day taxi programs may be cost-effective if properly controlled. Assum- ing DRT budgets are constrained, however, it is important to ensure that a taxi program is designed such that the per trip taxi cost and the new trip-making that will be induced do not incur additional, new operating costs. Qualifications If same-day taxi service is being considered, several issues should be addressed, and generally, these will arise with the use of taxis in any non-dedicated fashion for DRT service. First, the DRT system should consider whether local taxi companies have any accessible taxi vehicles. The ADA regulations do not require taxi companies to have accessible taxi sedans3 but a growing number of communities across the country are requiring their local taxi industry to provide some level of accessible vehicles. Even in communities without such local regulations, there are some taxi companies that acquire accessible cabs to serve customers who need a lift or ramp to board. At least two of the taxi programs reviewed in this research operate in cities which have, or had when the program originated, no accessible taxis. But this means that the same-day program, while a premium service beyond what the ADA requires, is not available to ADA-eligible riders who require accessible equipment. Another issue relates to the potential for unauthorized use of the program. With the use of paper vouchers or similar media and the participation of companies that typically have lim- ited control over their independent contractor drivers, taxi-based programs have experienced fraud. The DRT system needs to ensure that taxi-based programs are designed with proce- dures in place to closely monitor ridership and ensure appropriate use. This requires an investment of time and resources. One of the same-day programs reviewed is managed by a 3 ADA regulations, 49 CFR §37.29 (b) Private entities providing taxi service.

106 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation private entity for the sponsoring DRT system, with sophisticated systems and procedures in place, including swipe cards for the riders and in-vehicle card readers, providing compre- hensive management and control over the same-day program, including detailed monitor- ing to ensure proper use. The issue of FTA drug and alcohol testing is another facet that deserves mention when con- sidering use of taxi services. When taxis are used in same-day programs, such as those described here, so that eligible users can choose among taxi companies for service, the federal drug and alcohol testing rules do not apply. However, if the taxi company is under contract to a public transit agency to provide taxi service as part of the public transit service, the federal testing rules do apply.4 Substitute General Public DRT for Fixed-Route Service in Low Density Areas General public DRT, sometimes called dial-a-ride, is one of several flexible transit solutions applied around the country in low density areas where traditional fixed-route services cannot operate efficiently.5 Such service is a strategy that can be employed by a transit system that is considering service options for lower density environments. As such, DRT itself becomes a man- agement action for the transit agency, and thus this strategy differs from others discussed in the Guidebook which focuses on management actions taken by the DRT system to improve its own performance. Description General public demand-response or dial-a-ride services (referred to as DAR to distinguish it from DRT service discussed elsewhere in the Guidebook) are used in a variety of ways, most commonly providing circulation in low density areas, or providing feeder services to fixed-route bus and rail services or both. More recently, DAR services are being integrated with ADA para- transit services in an attempt to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these services by sharing vehicles and increasing overall ridership productivity. DAR services specifically provide curb-to-curb pick-up and drop-off within a designated ser- vice area, they are available to the general public, and generally they operate throughout the day. Advance notice requirements vary from system to system, with minimum notice times as little as one hour and up to one day. Standing orders are accepted for trips. Transfers are encouraged to the regional fixed-route network, often at designated transfer locations and at designated times, and transfers are generally free. Applicability DAR is generally applied in areas of low to moderate density where the number of transit trips and size of the area would likely be barriers to the justification of fixed-route services. DAR is intended to provide greater area coverage with fewer vehicle resources than a fixed-route service 4 “Implementation Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Regulations in Mass Transit,” prepared by RLS & Associates, Inc., for the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Safety and Security, under contract to US Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, August 2002, page 2-5. 5 Other flexible services, not a part of this discussion, include flex routes, route deviation, and point deviation services, all of which combine aspects of fixed routes or fixed stops with the ability to provide, upon request, devi- ations to accommodate riders not served directly by the route.

Improving Performance 107 in comparable areas, at the same time providing a premium, personalized service that transit sys- tems and their planners hope to translate into higher ridership among choice riders. The most frequent application of general public DAR is for the provision of rural transit ser- vices. There have been, however, many applications of general public DAR going back several years in a range of urban settings. Some examples from the literature follow: • In San Diego, DAR services were initiated in several communities to overcome problems of dispersed trip-making and low-density suburban development patterns accompanied by discontinuous road networks and cul-de-sacs that limited fixed-route bus opportuni- ties. DAR provides both inter-community services as well as feeder services to the region’s light rail system. • Hamilton (OH) replaced several of its fixed-route services with vans and minibuses operating DAR services as circulators within designated zones and as feeders to arterial fixed-route buses. • Orange County (CA) created a similar program of DAR services that provide door-to-door service within each zone or connections to fixed-route services for zone-to-zone travel. • Charlottesville Transit (VA) replaced one of its poor performing routes with a demand response zone with a timed connection to the rest of the fixed-route network. • Victor Valley Transit in Victorville (CA) is planning to implement general public DAR ser- vices to replace fixed-route services in several established low density neighborhoods, as well as to expand into rapidly developing neighborhoods that cannot be served by fixed routes due to development constraints and unfriendly roadway networks. • Several transit systems have expanded their service areas, reaching into low density neighbor- hoods and suburbs with DAR. Examples of these programs can be found in Dallas (TX), Tidewater (VA), Denver (CO), Austin (TX), and Portland (OR), among others. DART On-Call East Plano, Texas 972-880-5723

108 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Performance Data Performance data on general public DAR services was gathered from three previous reports (30,31,32) and primary data collected from site studies conducted for this project. The data were developed only for systems that were solely general public DAR programs and do not include hybrids such as flex routes or route deviation, nor services that operated a combination of DAR and fixed-route or flexible services. General public demand response programs reviewed as part of this project included those in Denver, Dallas, and Lubbock, Texas. The range of performance on three key performance measures—passenger trips per revenue hour, operating cost per revenue hour, and operating cost per passenger trip—was rather simi- lar across the programs (see Table 7-12). • Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour—The range of experience on this measure was from 1.2 to 4.5 among the six systems for which this data was available. The general consensus is that 3.0 to 4.0 passengers per hour is considered to be “good” for a pure DAR program. Since the comparable fixed-route programs in the same locations operate well in excess of 20 passen- gers per hour, the expectations for a DAR service must be developed considering a range of factors to be discussed later in this section. • Operating Cost per Revenue Hour—The range of operating cost per revenue hour was from approximately $26.50 to $55.00, with clustering around $40.00 to $50.00. A key determinant of this measure is whether the transit system can use a different cost structure than used for the fixed-route program, either using differential wage rates, part-time drivers, or private con- tractors for the service. • Operating Cost per Passenger Trip—The operating cost per passenger trip ranged from approximately $9.60 to $27.80, with the most effective programs clustered in the $10.00 range. Comparable fixed-route programs in these areas typically had operating costs per passenger trip in the range of $2.00 to $3.00. Applicability and Findings It is clear from the performance data that DAR services do not perform to the standards of fixed-route services, when the entire fixed-route program is taken into account. However, DAR service substitution for fixed-route service in low density areas, or the implementation of DAR service in a previously unserved low density market, when compared to either the performance of the existing fixed-route being replaced or to anticipated fixed-route performance in new areas, can be cost-effective for a transit system. • General public DAR as a substitute for an existing fixed-route service is generally implemented to maintain mobility at a more reasonable cost to the agency. The total cost to provide DAR in a specific area may be lower than the cost of providing adequate fixed-route services for the same area. These savings may accrue because of the number of hours being used to serve the area, or because of a significant differential in the operating cost per hour. The flexibility of a Measure Range of Performance Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour 1.2–4.5 Operating Cost/Revenue Hour $26.50–$55.00 Operating Cost/Passenger Trip $9.60–$27.80 Table 7-12. Performance of general public DRT as substitute for fixed-route in low density area or previously unserved low density market.

Improving Performance 109 DAR service may allow the transit system to reduce fixed-route hours on one or more local routes while still providing the same level of coverage. • While DAR does not have the potential to carry as many riders per vehicle hour as fixed-route service, local transit systems need to study the productivity of the specific segments being replaced and not the productivity of the entire route when determining service effectiveness. Transit systems often have fixed routes which extend into low density neighborhoods where performance is poor; replacement of these segments may be effective if the productivity of these segments is compared to the productivity of the new service. • Many transit systems are asked by local officials to extend service into new neighborhoods and commercial strips, which are generally not friendly to transit, having low densities, difficult circulation patterns, and deep setbacks, among other issues. Using DAR for a start-up in these areas may be as or more effective as extending an existing fixed-route, particularly if the DAR can serve local circulation and can also feed the fixed-route network using timed transfers. • An opportunity exists to significantly improve the operating performance of a general public DAR, which is to integrate it with the ADA complementary paratransit service in the same service zone. Full integration of the services can result in reduced vehicle hours of service to serve the two markets, and thus the appropriate measure of effectiveness is to compare the performance of the general public DAR to the combined performance of both the fixed-route and ADA services currently provided in the same area. This is one of the more powerful argu- ments in favor of implementing and then maintaining general public DAR in low density areas of a community. • While not addressed in this research, the effectiveness of general public DAR systems often can be improved by developing hybrid alternatives—for example, route deviation, flex routes, and point deviation services—which have characteristics of a fixed-route service that encour- ages greater productivity; or by implementation of DAR by time of day for a selected fixed- route, for example, fixed-route service during peak commuter hours and DAR in off-peak and evening hours. In these cases, the literature suggests that productivities reaching as high as eight passengers per hour can be reached, significantly higher than those for pure demand- response service. In terms of performance, measuring the effectiveness of DAR requires careful consideration of the objectives of the transit system and local officials, particularly since the productivity and the cost per passenger trip, regardless of any operating cost per hour savings using differential labor rates or a contractor, is generally significantly higher than for fixed-route services, which is generally the first point of comparison. Yet general public DAR can be a useful and cost- effective strategy for serving lower density environments as a substitute for traditional fixed- route service and its required complementary ADA paratransit. Develop Partnerships—Coordinate—with Community Agencies to Meet Specialized Transportation Needs Coordination is a strategy that DRT systems can use to improve performance, where the DRT system partners with local agencies that provide trips to their clients with specialized needs at a more cost-efficient rate than the DRT system. This strategy can also improve overall, system wide productivity if the agencies are providing significant group trips. The research found a number of DRT systems that have developed partnerships with community-based agencies, serving individuals with specialized needs, which allow these agencies to transport their own clients. The specific objectives of these partnerships may vary by individual DRT system, but generally there are several overall purposes. First, the arrangements allow the DRT system to provide the trips to those riders in a more cost-efficient manner, since the agencies can

110 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation provide the transportation at a lower cost per passenger trip than can the DRT system. Second, the partnerships support the community agencies’ ability to provide their own transportation to their clients. And third, the arrangements expand mobility options for the community-based agencies, by providing them resources so that they have transportation options and mobility beyond that which the public DRT system can provide. The specific parameters of the partnerships differ across DRT systems: some involve the pro- vision of vehicles and additional support in the way of maintenance, fuel, and driver training. Others involve provision of operating funds to support the agencies’ specialized transportation service. The community agencies become contractors to the DRT system. For NTD reporting purposes, these agencies are listed as contract service providers and their data included with the system’s operating data. While this may not seem the typical coordination model that has been espoused for the past 25 years, it is a coordination model that recognizes that the public DRT system cannot serve all specialized transportation needs within the community and that the community agencies may be better suited in some cases to transport their clients with the proper support and resources. In this way, the DRT system and local agencies share, in a coordinated manner, the responsibil- ity for serving specialized transportation needs in the community. The agencies benefit in that they have new or additional resources to transport their clients, and at the times and in the man- ner they deem appropriate. This can be attractive for these agencies which otherwise would have to rely on the public DRT system and adapt to its established policies and practices, or find other ways to transport their clients. The DRT system also benefits in several ways: the community agencies serve their individual clients whose needs may be more specialized than appropriate for transport on public transit; these agencies are able to provide transportation at a lower cost per passenger trip; and given that the trips are often group trips during peak travel times, the DRT system has decreased its needs for capacity during peak periods, which reduces operating and in some cases capital costs as well. Performance Improvements Of the DRT systems included in the research, four provided data that quantified the effects of their partnerships with the community agencies; see Table 7-13. In each case, the DRT systems have established formal agreements with several different agencies in their communities that spell out the arrangement and cost structure. The agreement includes requirements that the agency report basic operating data on the transportation that they provide in exchange for the vehicles and other resources. The DRT systems include the data within their NTD reports, and the operating data on passenger trips, revenue miles and hours, are included with the DRT sys- tem’s overall data for purposes of federal reporting requirements. Performance Improvements with Community Partnerships • Specialized transportation trips are provided by the community agencies at a lower per trip cost than by the public DRT system. • If the community agencies provide trips during peak hours, it may decrease the need for the DRT system to increase its service during peak time, saving operating and possibly capital costs as well. • System wide productivity may improve, if the agencies provide significant group trips. • Where the DRT system provides vehicles and other resources to the community agencies in exchange for service provision, the agencies have equipment that gives them more flexibility to meet their own agency and client transportation needs, instead of relying solely on the public DRT system.

Improving Performance 111 In one of the examples of this coordination strategy, the DRT system developed the partner- ships with community-based agencies some years ago, prior to the ADA. Reportedly, there had been some behavioral issues of riders of some of the agencies, and it was determined that the agencies were in a better position to transport their own riders if they had the requisite resources. The current arrangement has the DRT system provide vans to a number of different non-profit agencies in the community. The DRT system provides the vehicles as well as maintenance, fuel, insurance, and driver orientation. In return, the agencies transport their clients and provide monthly operations data to the DRT system. The program, with experience gained for more than 15 years, reportedly works well. The cost per passenger for the DRT system is $19.03 (FY05 data) and the cost per passenger trip through the community partnership program is estimated at approximately $1.75, without DRT system overhead costs. Qualifications One of the DRT systems indicated a disadvantage of its partnership program with various community agencies: since these agencies provide group trips to their clients, this siphons off group trips from the public DRT system, so that the productivity of the DRT system alone is less than what it could be. The DRT system, which directly operates service, has a productivity of 2.98 passenger trips per revenue hour, while the productivity of its community-based partnership program is 8.62. When calculated on a system wide basis, however, the overall productivity is 3.55, with the group trips of the partnership program boosting the systemwide figure. Consider Strategies to Address ADA Paratransit Services While the subject of the research project behind this Guidebook was DRT, many such systems function as ADA paratransit service, complementing their transit agency’s fixed-route service. Coordination Arrangement Resources Provided By DRT System Performance Results Four community non-profit agencies, which serve individuals with disabilities, are under contract to a small urban DRT system. Vehicles and maintenance. Additional monthly operating subsidy if community agency provides specified level of ADA eligible trips each month. The four community agencies provided more than 21,000 passenger trips in FY05, 22% of the system’s total annual DRT passenger trips. The operating cost per passenger trip was $4.92, based on the four agencies combined. Systemwide DRT operating cost per passenger trip was $20.80 in FY05. Large urban DRT system contracts with a number of community-based human service agencies serving individuals with disabilities through the DRT system’s partnership program. More then 20 vehicles are provided through the program to the participating human service agencies. Vehicles, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and driver orientation. Participating community agencies served almost 107,000 passenger trips in FY05, 24% of the system’s total annual DRT passenger trips. DRT system estimated an operating cost per passenger trip of $1.75 through its partnership program. This cost does not include overhead costs of DRT system. System wide DRT operating cost per passenger trip was $19.03 in FY05. Two human service agencies serving individuals with disabilities who are ADA eligible have contracts with the county-based DRT system that is ADA paratransit only. Operating subsidy provided annually to support trips for ADA eligible riders. One of the two agencies contracts for service with a taxi company. The second agency directly operates transportation service. The two community agencies served more than 55,000 passenger trips in FY06, 4.5% of the system’s total annual DRT passenger trips. Average operating cost per passenger trip to the DRT system for passenger trips provided by the two agencies was $4.38 in FY06. System wide DRT operating cost per passenger trip was $27.81 in FY06. Limited eligibility DRT system has contracts with five community non- profit agencies serving individuals with disabilities. Four of the five agencies provide group trips. Fifth agency provides trips in outlying part of service area. Four of the five community agencies paid on a negotiated payment per trip basis. Fifth agency paid on per mile basis. Agencies served 107,628 passenger trips in FY05, 18% of the system’s total annual DRT passenger trips. Average operating cost per passenger trip to the DRT system for passenger trips provided by the five agencies was $17.20 in FY05. Costs ranged from $14.58 per trip to $24.75 per trip for the agency paid on mileage basis. System wide DRT operating cost per passenger trip was $25.62 in FY05. Table 7-13. Partnerships with community agencies.

112 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Given this, a number of the management actions identified by the DRT systems participating in the project as those taken to address performance issues are more specific to ADA paratransit. Among these are reduced or free fares for use of fixed-route service, changes to the service area, refinements to the eligibility/certification process, travel training, and improvements to stops and pathways for better accessibility for persons with disabilities. A number of these strategies focus on fixed-route, which has become increasingly more acces- sible to riders with disabilities since the ADA. Focusing on accessible fixed-route service may improve transit options for ADA-eligible riders, assist DRT systems to meet the requirements for ADA complementary paratransit, and provide performance benefits. Moreover, access to reg- ular, fixed-route transit service is the primary goal of the transportation provisions of the ADA. Provide Reduced or Free Fares to ADA Riders When Using Fixed-Route Among the common strategies that ADA paratransit systems have employed to encourage use of fixed-route service is to provide free or heavily discounted fares for use of fixed-route. The objective is to encourage ADA-eligible riders to use fixed-route to the extent that they are able with a financial incentive. Survey research on the preferences and abilities of riders with disabili- ties with respect to use of fixed-route service found that low fares is the first of the four most highly ranked features that can make fixed-route service attractive to riders with specialized needs (33). Performance Effects Several of the DRT systems participating in the project provided information related to their free or reduced fare programs for fixed-route service. OCTA Access in Southern California pro- vides a reduced fare card to all ADA-eligible riders, which gives them half off the already- discounted senior/disabled fare on fixed-route. Over the first year of this program (FY06), approximately 700 cards were issued and almost 49,000 passenger trips taken on fixed-route. The DRT system estimates that this strategy may have potentially deferred more than $1 million in ADA paratransit costs, assuming these trips would otherwise have been taken on the ADA para- transit service (34). A second DRT system, Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) Flextrans, has taken this strategy fur- ther. When an individual is determined eligible for ADA paratransit, the DRT system sends that person a description of the fixed-route service, free passes to ride fixed-route, and an instruc- tional video on how to ride the bus. Additionally, the newly eligible individual may request that a “buddy” ride along on the bus to provide hands-on assistance. The free-fare program, which is not advertised, was started as a temporary measure and remained so for a number of years, and because the DRT system considers it highly successful, it is anticipated that the program will continue. An impetus for this DRT system’s free fare program was the achievement of full accessibility on the fixed-route system, in 2002. At this milestone, the DRT system, with the backing of its advisory committee, focused strongly on encouraging riders with disabilities to use fixed-route to the extent possible. The fixed-route drivers were re-trained, to ensure their compliance with the ADA regulations and their understanding of the DRT system’s approach. This training and emphasis to the fixed-route drivers on the importance of assisting riders with disabilities with an inclusive attitude are a specific strategy of the system. Drivers are also told that fixed-route ser- vices (and driver positions) may be subject to cutbacks if growth in ADA paratransit services and its costs jeopardize the transit agency’s budget. The eligibility/certification process supports the emphasis on fixed-route service as well, with a comprehensive process that conducts functional assessments of all applicants. The eligibility categories, including conditional for those deter- mined able to use fixed-route for some trips and transitional for those determined able to learn to use fixed-route service, are fully imposed by the DRT system.

Improving Performance 113 With its focus on accessible fixed-route through the free fare program as well as fixed-route driver education and its eligibility/certification program, Flextrans has seen its ADA paratransit ridership decrease, beginning in 2002 with the start of the free fare program. From 2001 through 2005, ADA paratransit ridership decreased 10.3%. Smaller DRT systems also have taken proactive steps to focus on accessible fixed-route service. One of the small systems participating in the project, Champaign-Urbana MTD, uses a special pass that is provided to seniors and persons with disabilities, entitling the holder to specific fare discounts on and access to the community’s transit services. If the pass holder has been certified as ADA eligible, the individual can use the fixed-route system for free. The pass is also available to all seniors, which enables them to use the fixed-route system for free as well. Non-ADA eligi- ble holders of the pass may also use the ADA paratransit service, but at a fare more than three times that for an ADA eligible person and with a limit of 12 trips per month. All pass holders also have access to a half-fare cab program, which provides a limited amount of taxi service within a defined time period. To provide transit service to its community, this small system has created a layered program of services, with the pass as the entry key. The free fares on fixed-route, one of the layers, was introduced as a strategy to encourage greater use of fixed-route when the demand for ADA paratransit and the cab program was experiencing significant growth. Qualifications To be effective for riders with specialized needs, transit systems should do more than just pro- vide free-fares on fixed-route. Through their eligibility certification programs, they should work to identify applicants who may be able to use fixed-route services for some trips or at some times, granting conditional eligibility and providing information to those riders on the fixed-route system. Riders may also need support and training to gain familiarity and confidence in using fixed-route service. Travel training programs can be effective in this regard, particularly those that provide one-on-one or small group training that involves trainees taking actual bus trips. Reduce Service Area to ADA-Required 3⁄4 Mi Corridors The ADA regulations require that ADA complementary paratransit services be provided in corridors 3⁄4 mi on either side of fixed routes, as well as the areas around the ends of routes and around rail stations. When implementing ADA paratransit services in the 1990s, some transit agencies exceeded these requirements, providing service in areas without fixed-route service, often serving all of a city or county. Over time, some of these systems, in an effort to address increasing demand and costs for ADA paratransit, have revised their service area boundaries, reconfiguring the service area to that required by the ADA. Performance Effects Two DRT systems in the largest urban category that participated in the research made such a change to their service area, after reviewing the trips and riders that might be impacted as well as programs that could provide alternative transportation. The performance effects relate to reducing long trips and providing the opportunity to improve productivity. The first system, OCTA Access, used mapping software to determine that 2% of the system’s total daily passenger trips would be affected with a reduction in the service area, affecting about 315 eligible riders (1.2% of approximately 26,000 registered riders). Many of these individuals were provided individualized assistance in finding other transportation options. Additionally, the transit system implemented a new same-day taxi program for its ADA eligible riders, and one of the objectives of this new program was to mitigate possible negative impacts of the service area

reduction. While the specific performance impact of this action on the DRT service was not measured, this management action was one of a number of strategies implemented in 2005 that have resulted in productivity improvement and a slowing of the rate of growth in ADA passen- ger trips and revenue hours needed for the service. The second system, RTD’s Access-a-Ride, changed its service area boundary during FY04–05. Similarly to the first system, this system analyzed potential effects of the change, estimating that 114 riders would be affected (0.9% of the system’s 12,500 active riders). To help mitigate possi- ble impacts on riders affected by the system’s service area reduction, this system has in place a same-day taxi program, which has been operating for a number of years, and this was available to help meet the needs of riders affected. With the tightening of the service area, the system esti- mates that its scheduled productivity increased from 1.3–1.5 passenger trips per revenue hour, with about 2% trip denials, to 1.45–1.52 scheduled productivity and no trip denials. Qualifications Both of the DRT systems discussed above indicated that the reduction in the service area was the most criticized policy change of several that each system made to their ADA para- transit service. In each case, the DRT system had researched the number of riders and trips that would be affected and had an alternate program that could help meet the affected riders’ trip needs. In both cases, the change helped reduce long trip lengths that have a negative impact on productivity. Important in the consideration of changes to a DRT service area, whether ADA paratransit or otherwise, is assessment of the impacts on riders who may lose their current access to the service and consideration of alternatives that could serve such riders. Some DRT systems have imple- mented two-tier service areas, with the first tier being the required area that meets ADA regulations and the second tier serving areas beyond the 3⁄4-mile corridors, with service available during more limited hours, at a higher fare, and/or with limited capacity. While a DRT system may not be in a position to directly provide alternative services if con- sidering a reduction in its service area, other options may be available in the community, and there may be ways to improve access to such alternatives, for example, subsidies for taxi service. Refine Eligibility and Certification Process for More Accurate Determinations The ADA requires that transit agencies establish a process for determining ADA paratransit eligibility. Transit systems have used a variety of approaches in this regard, and there has been increasing interest among transit systems to ensure that the process is thorough and as precise as possible. Towards this end, many systems have refined their eligibility process and procedures with an objective of giving more accurate eligibility determinations. Seven DRT systems participating in the research specifically indicated that a revised eligibility/ certification process was an action taken to address performance issues. It should be noted, how- ever, that revising an eligibility process is not a management action that directly relates to DRT performance in the same way, for example, that more effective scheduling of passenger trips will lead to improved productivity. Revisions to an eligibility/certification process are typically done so that the DRT system can ensure that its ADA paratransit service is targeted to those defined in the regulations as eligible, and that those individuals who can use fixed-route service for all or some of their trips are referred to fixed-route as appropriate. In this way, DRT systems that are ADA paratransit can better manage their resources, which may lead to improved performance. 114 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation

Improving Performance 115 Effects A small urban DRT system indicated that its revised eligibility process led to reductions in the numbers of applications received each month, as the application materials provided a more detailed explanation of ADA paratransit. With its revised process that began in 2004, this system contracted with a vocational rehab counselor to assist with eligibility determinations and then a community action agency which had an existing mobility management program. Both of these contractors provided travel training and the second contractor conducts in-person assessments when this is needed. The system manager estimates that the more thorough process with func- tional assessments as needed results in half as many completed applications per month, from roughly up to 50 per month down to about 25. Decreasing numbers of new applicants also slowed the rate of growth in annual ridership. From an annual ridership increase of over 16% from 2002 to 2003, the annual growth rate was 7% the following year (2003 to 2004) with the new eligibility process in place and 4% the next year (2004 to 2005). One of the DRT systems in the largest urban category instituted a 100% in-person eligibility assessment process in 2005, which was a change from a process where in-person assessments had been done on an as-needed basis. The DRT system was receiving more than 500 applica- tions per month, with 70% new applications and 30% recertifications. With the new process, the number of applications received monthly decreased by about 13%. And of the applicants who start the process, approximately 20% do not complete it, which is an increase from the prior year where about 10% did not complete the process. The DRT system reported that the rate of growth in the number of eligible riders increased at a lower rate with the new process, from an annual average of 12% in prior years to 2% the year following the revised eligibility/ certification process (34). Another of the largest systems brought its eligibility process in-house beginning in 2001, insti- tuting other changes as well. Starting in FY03, functional assessments were conducted on bus and rail services rather than using a “mock-up” environment. The functions of eligibility certi- fication and travel training were combined, with staff cross trained and serving both functions. Applicants are also now required to have a telephone interview at the start of the process. As a result, with the additional information provided about ADA paratransit during the telephone interview, a portion of the individuals decide not to continue. The rate of growth in the number of certified riders, shown to the right, reflects lowered rates particularly in the earlier years of the changes. Qualifications Significant changes to the eligibility/certification process for an ADA paratransit service should be done in consultation with the local community and advisory groups. The ADA requires that persons with disabilities be involved in the development of ADA paratransit ser- vices on an ongoing basis. One of the systems in the largest urban category, the Utah Transit Authority’s Flextrans, which has developed a sophisticated eligibility process with 100% in- person determinations and with functional assessments conducted in the community, reported that involvement of the disabled community has been key. The system’s process has undergone several changes over the years, and some of these have been initiated by the advi- sory group. Year Certified Riders % Increase 2001 6,938 2002 7,287 5.03% 2003 7,598 4.27% 2004 7,670 0.95% 2005 8,657 12.87% 2006 9,353 8.04%

Improve Accessibility to Fixed-Route Service In addition to improving the accessibility of fixed-route service, a number of transit systems are improving accessibility to fixed-route service. Such improvements focus on ensuring the accessibility of stops, particularly those with higher use, and of pathways connecting stops to major destinations. For example, a suburban county in the Washington, D.C. region that pro- vides extensive fixed-route service contracted for an assessment of all its 5,400 stops, which included an evaluation of each stop’s ADA accessibility. Following completion of the study, the county is now installing specific improvements at the higher usage stops, ensuring that each new stop meets or exceeds ADA requirements. A small urban provider in Texas has conducted a sim- ilar study of its 1,400 bus stops, which also included an assessment of pathway accessibility from selected stops that serve major activity centers to the final destination buildings. This pathway analysis was done on a segment-by-segment basis, allowing the provider to better plan improve- ments. Each segment is a defined “piece” of the path from the stop to the final destination. For example, the first segment might be the path from the stop to the first street crossing, the second segment would be the actual street crossing, and the third and last segment begins after the street crossing and extends down the block to the front entrance of the destination building. With the analysis divided into defined pieces, the provider could better plan the specific improvements that were needed to ensure accessibility. Performance Effects Improving accessibility to fixed-route service facilitates the use of fixed-route by riders with disabilities, which provides cost saving if riders can take fixed-route trips rather than more costly DRT service. One of the large systems participating in the research, ACCESS LYNX in Orlando, FL, reports that it is working with the jurisdictions in its service area to improve pathway accessibility, including installation of curb cuts near stops. Jurisdictions in the service area have provided funding for the improvements to the transit system which then oversees the work. A small system, LinkPlus in Wenatchee, Washington, reported that it is using its own funding to install curb cuts on sidewalks near a large medical facility in its service area, which improves access to the facility for riders using wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Such improvements facilitate use of fixed-route service to that medical destination for some riders now using ADA paratransit. Refine the Contracting Process A variety of changes and improvements to the contracting process that led to performance benefits were identified by DRT systems that contract for service, identified below. Increased Participation and Control Over Contracted Service Increased participation and control over contracted services were identified by eight DRT sys- tems participating in the research, both small and large systems, providing a variety of reported performance benefits. These included cost savings, increased competition, and improved man- agement of service operations. The changes have been operationalized in various ways: • Purchasing fuel for the contractor: This can provide cost savings in a number of ways. The public agency may purchase the fuel, in bulk and with exemption from certain fuel taxes, or the contractor may be reimbursed for its fuel purchases on a pass-through basis. This relieves the contractor from dealing with the cost uncertainty of fuel and may provide cost savings to the DRT system to the extent that contractors may over-estimate fuel costs to cover increases over the term of the contract. 116 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation

• Purchasing the capital equipment needed for service, including vehicles and the scheduling/ dispatch software: While the purchase of vehicles for contracted operators is a practice that some larger DRT systems have done for a number of years, several of the smaller DRT systems participating in the research noted that they now provide the major capital assets to their con- tractors, providing the systems increased management control over the service. Several of the DRT systems also reported that they now own the software that is used by the contractor, a change that provides the public agency sponsor better access to the system and its data. • Use of more than one service contractor: Three of the larger DRT systems reported benefits with changing to multi-contractor arrangements, as the DRT system spreads service respon- sibility over several providers and is not reliant just on one. • The DRT system brings in-house the reservations, scheduling, and dispatch functions for direct provision: Four of the largest DRT systems that use contractors have changed their ser- vice structure in recent years, taking over the trip reservations, scheduling and, for three systems, dispatch functions for direct provision. According to the managers, this has given these systems increased management control over day-to-day service. In one case, UTA’s Flex- trans reported that this allowed the system to better impose the conditions of eligibility on the riders; in the prior arrangement, with the contractors responsible for all the functions and paid on an hourly basis, the contractors did not have an incentive to ensure that riders’ trip requests fit their eligibility determination. This new capability, coupled with the increased control over vehicle schedules and the revenue hours operated by the contractors, saved the DRT system a reported $1.5 million over 18 months. In another example, the DRT system noted that the change solved much of staff turnover issues, allowing the system to focus on customer service rather than staffing. With the prior arrangement where the service providers were responsible for reservations, scheduling and dispatch, turnover in the three control room functions was about 35% to 40%. While the trip reservations function is still out-sourced, bringing the scheduling and dispatch functions in-house has reduced turnover in those two functions to 10% to 15%. Change from Meter Rate to Flat Rate for Contracted Taxi Service One of the small DRT systems, C.A.T. Paratransit in Grand Forks, North Dakota, contracts with a local taxi company for its DRT service and changed its reimbursement from a meter rate to a flat rate. When bidding the service, the DRT system provided the last ten years of trip data to prospective bidders so that they had requisite information with which to base their proposed costs. This change, implemented in 2006, resulted in a cost savings of 14% on a per passenger trip basis. Educate Riders Educating DRT riders, on an ongoing basis, on how to use the DRT service can be a strategy that helps riders use the DRT system more effectively and responsibly. While DRT systems typi- cally have training and re-training programs for their staff, systems may neglect this function for their riders and the agencies that serve them. Riders who are well educated and knowledgeable about the policies and procedures of the system can contribute significantly to a well-functioning system. Such education programs can be targeted to all riders or to specific groups of riders, for example, subscription riders or riders traveling for certain trip purposes such as dialysis, as well as to the various human service and other agencies that serve riders. Rider education programs also benefit vehicle operators and other DRT operating staff as well. If riders understand and follow established DRT system policies and procedures, the jobs of the operators and other staff are facilitated given the interdependency between riders and operators, particularly, but also between riders and other operating staff. Improving Performance 117

118 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Performance Effects Several of the participating DRT systems indicated that rider education programs have been effective. • Portland’s LIFT paratransit program planned and implemented a full-fledged education cam- paign, which targeted not only riders, but included vehicle operators and other staff as well. The campaign, which stretched over much of 2005, recognized that the riders’ actions have significant impacts on their own transit experience, the broader experience of other riders, and the performance of the entire program. The philosophy of the campaign was to educate and reinforce positive behavior, as opposed to a punitive approach (e.g., service is suspended after three no-shows during a specified time period, etc.) that is often used with riders. The DRT system, working with both the vehicle operators and advisory committee, identified areas where rider behavior was an issue. Using this information, LIFT targeted several specific areas with its education program, known as “Customers Count,” including: • Paying the fare; • Canceling unneeded rides in advance; • Being ready to board at the start of the on-time pick-up window; and • Choosing fixed-route, whenever possible. For each of the focus areas, LIFT developed educational information and materials, which were distributed to riders via various media, including letter and handout flyers. Operators were

also given “pocket card” information, which complemented the information given to riders so that operators knew what was expected of them and of the riders. Each focus area was introduced with the phrase “you make a difference when. . . ,” so that the focus on being ready at the start of the window, for example, was articulated in the educational materials as “you make a difference when you are ready to leave at the time your pickup window begins.” LIFT measured the impact of the Customer Counts program and found performance improve- ments. For the campaign focus on improving rider compliance with fare payment, a before-and- after analysis found increased compliance with fare payment, and the average cash fare payment per rider increased more than 15% over a 4-month period after the campaign. Similarly, an analy- sis of rider delays found a decrease in such delays after the campaign focused on being ready at the start of the window, as riders better understood the importance of being ready for their own trip and the impacts that their individual actions had on other riders. In addition to improving specific aspects of service, LIFT’s education campaign highlighted the interdependency of riders and vehicle operators, acknowledging that cooperation and mutual understanding among the two benefit both groups and also contribute to improved ser- vice performance. • With a significant portion of service provided for dialysis purposes, JTA Connexion in Florida has focused on working with the dialysis centers to improve service and increase mutual under- standing between the centers and the DRT system. This has involved significant outreach by the DRT system to staff at the centers, including meetings on-site at the various centers and a workshop. This was a time-consuming effort, but resulted in improved service for riders trav- eling for dialysis purposes and fewer complaints from the dialysis centers about DRT service. Improve DRT Operators’ Compensation The wages and benefits for DRT vehicle operators have gained considerable attention in recent years, particularly in relation to competitively procured DRT contracts. For some DRT systems, particularly in wealthy regions of the country and during strong economic times with low unem- ployment, it has been difficult to find adequate numbers of qualified vehicle operators, and then, once operators are hired and trained, retention becomes another issue. Shortages of operators and excessive turnover impact DRT operations and performance in a number of ways. Without an adequate roster of operators, DRT systems may not have enough staff to cover vehicle schedules. With annual turnover of up to 30% to 50%, DRT systems expend con- tinuous funds on recruitment and training, and operators leave their positions before they become experienced operators. It is generally recognized that experienced DRT operators—who are familiar with the service area, understand their riders’ trip patterns, are knowledgeable about the system’s policies and procedures, and competent with in-vehicle technology—can contribute to improved performance, particularly productivity and service quality, such as on-time performance. To address such issues, DRT systems have taken steps. Some systems that directly operate ser- vices have increased pay for DRT operators so it is more comparable to that for fixed-route oper- ators. Increasingly, DRT systems that contract for DRT operations define minimum levels of pay for operators in their procurement documents. This is one way to ensure bidders’ attention to the important role of vehicle operators and helps ensure a base level of quality through the pro- curement process. The state of California passed legislation in 2003 that addresses the issue of retention of opera- tors and other operating staff for competitively procured public transit contracts in its state. The legislation, now included in the state’s labor code, states in its preamble that “. . . it serves an impor- Improving Performance 119

120 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation tant social purpose to establish incentives for contractors who bid public transit services contracts to retain qualified employees of the prior contractor to perform the same or similar work.” 6 This legislation establishes that an entity that awards a public transit service contract in the state is to provide a ten percent preference to any bidder who agrees to retain the employees of the prior con- tractor for a specified period of time. TCRP has funded research that will investigate the issues of operator recruitment and retention as they relate to the performance of ADA paratransit services. Clearly, the pay for DRT operators is an issue of interest for service performance. Performance Effects Three DRT systems participating in the research, all directly operated by the transit agency, noted the fact that their DRT operators receive pay that is equal to or commensurate with the pay for fixed-route operators and that this has a positive performance effect. One of these, a small urban system, LinkPlus in Washington State, established parity of com- pensation for its fixed-route and paratransit drivers in 1995, though for reasons not directly related to operator performance. Operators receive training for both fixed-route and DRT ser- vice and may switch between the two modes. With an average tenure of more than ten years, the operators are experienced. System management believes that this experience contributes to improved DRT performance, especially productivity. Another participating small DRT system, located in the higher wage northeast section of the country, noted that its DRT operators are paid at almost the same rate as its fixed-route opera- tors ($1/hour less). This system reports that turnover is not a problem. Its operators, similarly to the system above, also switch between DRT and fixed-route service. Should an operator move to fixed-route from DRT, he or she will lose one year of seniority on the roster, but despite this, the majority of the switches go from fixed-route to DRT. Additionally, the transit system is able to schedule some of the DRT operators to drive early morning and late afternoon shifts on the fixed-route shuttles, so that its operator staff is effectively utilized. Two of these three systems achieve high productivities relative to other systems in their cate- gories, and the third recognizes that it could be more efficient, but for various reasons—a ser- vice area that includes eight towns and the region in between, an objective of meeting all the needs of its specialized ridership, and up to 20% of its trips provided as will-call—its productiv- ity is only mid-range for its category. Two DRT systems that contract for service also raised the issue of operator pay, with both iden- tifying problems with operator turnover impacted by the pay levels and indicating that this resulted in negative impacts on service quality. One of the systems addressed this problem by set- ting minimum wage levels in the RFP during the next procurement cycle and also required a solid benefits package as well for the operators. The second system noted that its contractor was hav- ing problems retaining qualified operators and that this seemed to be an issue of operator wages. Qualifications When vehicle operator wages are increased, for whatever reason—to improve recruitment and reduce turnover, to provide parity with fixed-route drivers, or to meet a particular state’s require- ments related to retaining employees from a prior contract—there will be an impact on total operating costs. Labor costs are the largest single component of transit operating costs, with operators comprising the largest category of employees, and increases in their pay will impact the DRT system’s total operating costs. However, depending on the strength of the relationship between operator wages and DRT performance, there may be a net benefit to improving opera- 6 California Labor Code, Section 1070-1074, 2003.

Improving Performance 121 tor wages as measured by productivity, operating cost per passenger trip, and service quality measures such as on-time performance. Cross Train Staff Well-trained staff members contribute to the effective functioning of a DRT service. Given the interdependency of many of the functions of a DRT service, for example, the relationship between dispatch and those out on the street providing service (vehicle operators and field super- visors), a mutual understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities can contribute to a better working relationship among the staff and provide performance benefits through increased knowledge of service issues. Additionally, cross training gives DRT management greater flexi- bility in deploying staff as needed. Performance Effects While difficult to quantify its effects, DART Paratransit in Dallas takes a strong approach to cross training its staff. Those who are involved with the eligibility and certification process are cross trained with the staff responsible for travel training. In this way, staff members who make eligibility determinations have a grounded understanding of what is involved for a person with a disability to learn how to use fixed-route service. And this understanding provides a more com- plete perspective from which to make eligibility determinations. This DRT system also cross trains its dispatchers and field supervisors. This provides the dis- patchers with a better understanding of the issues that operators face on a daily basis when trans- porting riders, and field supervisors learn of the complexities involved in managing 40 to 50 vehicle runs. With this mutual understanding, dispatchers are more realistic in their expectations of the operators, and field supervisors better understand the importance of ensuring that dispatchers have real-time information on service on the street and the role they can play in supporting the sched- uling decisions made by the dispatchers. Further, the knowledge and skills gained in the field by a dispatcher can be used to improve service and provide a realistic picture of most issues that dis- patchers typically hear about but otherwise do not see. DRT management also believes this enhances the dispatchers’ credibility with vehicle operators. Cross training additionally provides staffing flexibility to management, so that management can pull from both field supervisors and dispatch staff in the event of a staff shortage. This can reduce the number of dispatch and supervisor positions that are needed. And finally, this DRT system includes fixed-route operators in some of the training provided to paratransit operators. The objective of this is not to cross train operators but rather to give the fixed-route operators greater understanding of the needs of persons with disabilities and improve their ability to meet the needs of riders with disabilities when riding transit.