Use of Taxis in Public Transportation for People with Disabilities and Older Adults (2016)

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.

29 chapter four CASE EXAMPLES This chapter presents case examples of taxi-based programs serving people with disabilities and older adults that are spon- sored and subsidized by five public transportation agencies. Also included are the perspectives and insights of two taxi com- panies that participate in publicly subsidized taxi programs. The chapter ends with a summary listing of key issues and program elements that a transit agency could consider when planning or implementing a taxi-based program. This listing is based on the case examples and the taxi companies’ insights and supple- mented with lessons learned from the surveyed transit agencies. INTRODUCTION The case examples include three located in metropolitan or large urban areas and two in smaller urban areas: • Phoenix, Arizona • San Francisco, California • Denver, Colorado • Ann Arbor, Michigan • Washington County, Maryland. These examples showcase a range of taxi-based programs and services, the different arrangements between public trans- portation agencies and taxi companies to subsidize trips, and resulting experiences. Information on the many issues of such arrangements, such as the type of rider payment, the regula- tory environment, and use of technology, was captured in the project’s survey but without the detail and nuance possible through the case examples. The input and perspectives of the interviewed taxi com- panies present a balance to the case example experiences, identifying advantages as well as challenges realized by the taxi companies from their participation in the subsidized pro- grams. Their willingness to partner with the public transporta- tion agencies and commit to the additional requirements that come with their participation offers people with disabilities and older adults expanded mobility options. PHOENIX’S ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS The city of Phoenix has provided a number of subsidized taxi programs over the years for older adults and people with dis- abilities, starting in the mid-1980s. Currently there are five programs, each of which uses taxis on a nondedicated basis. The city does not use taxis for required, next-day ADA paratransit service. Of particular interest with the Phoenix case example is the city’s recent transition from a paper-based payment system to a technology-based system with magnetic swipe cards and associated software. City of Phoenix Transit Environment The city of Phoenix has a population of 1.5 million (U.S. Cen- sus Bureau estimate 2013) spread over an incorporated area of 517 mi2. The city’s Public Transit Department is the largest member of the regional transit system known as Valley Metro, providing fixed-route transit services and alternative transpor- tation for people with disabilities and older adults. Funds for the city’s transit services come from a local voter-approved sales tax, a portion of a regional sales tax, and federal funds, as well as rider fares. The city’s alternative transportation programs include five taxi-based programs. Table 22 provides summary information on the programs. The city contracts with a private transporta- tion contractor, MV Transportation, to manage and adminis- ter the taxi programs day to day. The contractor has four staff members assigned to the taxi programs. Taxi-Based Programs Dialysis Transportation The city initiated the dialysis transportation program in 1999 to provide trips for city residents undergoing dialysis treatment and certified as eligible for ADA paratransit. The program sub- sidizes only trips from home to the dialysis center and back, so the typical eligible rider will take six one-way trips per week. Data from 2014 showed about 100 individuals in the program at any one time. Riders use vouchers to pay for their trips. Each eligible participant receives vouchers printed with the information needed for that individual’s trips, including name, address of both home and the dialysis center, and the calculated mile- age. As shown in Table 22, trips are subsidized to a maxi- mum of $15 per trip. The rider pays 25% of the meter fare (with cash or credit card) and the full cost of any fare above $20 on the meter. A tip for the driver is not included in the

30 voucher amount. Tipping is allowed, but it is not known to what extent this occurs. One exception to the fare structure was introduced for low-income dialysis patients. Trips for such patients, with incomes below defined thresholds, are further subsidized by the Arizona Kidney Foundation, which funds the partici- pants’ 25% share of each trip cost. With more than 18 dialysis centers in Phoenix and center staff’s attempts to schedule patients for treatment at dialysis centers reasonably close to the patients’ homes, most of the trips are short. The average trip length in fiscal year (FY) 2014 was less than 5.26 mi, and the average meter cost per trip was $11.75. Employment Transportation The employment transportation program began in 1984 and provides work trips for Phoenix residents with a disabil- ity. Trips are provided by the participating taxi companies between the participants’ homes and work locations. In 2014, 28 people participated in the program. Trip payment uses the Program Eligible Riders Trips Served Trip Payment and City Subsidies No. of Taxi Companies Participating No. of Participants, FY 2014 No. of Trips, FY 2014 Operating Cost, FY 2014 Dialysis Transportation Phoenix residents undergoing dialysis and ADA paratransit certified Trips to and from home and dialysis centers Trips are paid by paper vouchers. A voucher provides 75% of the cost of each one-way trip to a maximum of $20 on the taxi meter. Riders pay 25% of the cost to the driver and any amount over $20. Trips for eligible riders with defined low incomes are further subsided by the Arizona Kidney Foundation, which pays the riders’ 25%. Most trips can be made within the miles provided by a $15 taxi trip (approximately 4 mi at current taxi rates). Average subsidy is $11 to $12 per trip. 22 Average of 100 participants per month 18,471 Subsidy: $207,863 Management: $40,997 Employment Transportation Phoenix residents with a disability and ADA paratransit certified Trips to and from home to employment site Same as the dialysis transportation program, although there are no additional subsidies for lower-income riders. Trips are longer than the dialysis trips; many riders use the full subsidy. 22 Average of 23 participants per month 3,888 Subsidy: $44,025 Management: $9,939 Senior Cab Phoenix residents, age 65 and older No trip purpose restrictions Riders pay with a magnetic swipe card; can purchase up to $80 worth of taxi fare each month. The first $40 of the $80 is subsidized at 70%; the remaining $40 is subsidized at 50%. The minimum charged by taxi companies for short trips is paid by the program. Riders pay only the meter charge. 9 Average of 859 participants per month 17,712 Subsidy: $194,734 Management: $58,390 ADA Cab Phoenix residents certified as ADA paratransit eligible No trip purpose restrictions Same as the Senior Cab program. 9 Average of 224 participants per month 4,824 Subsidy: $52,634 Management: $14,908 Senior Center Shuttle Phoenix residents who attend City- sponsored senior center functions Trips to and from home and the senior center closest to the rider’s home. Limit of two trips per day and on days the senior center is open. Riders pay $1 to the taxi driver and also use a magnetic swipe card to document the trip, including the meter fare. The City subsidizes the cost of the trip according to the meter fare minus the rider’s $1. Riders with incomes below defined thresholds ride for free. Trips tend to be short; however, the City must pay the taxi companies’ minimum charge per trip if the trip’s meter fare minus $1 is less than the company’s minimum. Minimum charge varies by taxi company. 10 Average of 610 participants per month 94,477 Subsidy $1,132,450 Management: $332,975 Source: City of Phoenix, Arizona. TABLE 22 CITY OF PHOENIX TAXI-BASED PROGRAMS

31 same voucher system as the dialysis transportation program, so participants pay 25% of the trip cost up to $20 on the meter and the full cost above that. The average subsidy cost is $11.33 per trip. Senior Cab and ADA Cab Phoenix’s Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs are almost identical, with the only distinction being program eligibility. The Senior Cab program subsidizes taxi trips for Phoenix residents age 65 and older. In FY 2014, there was an aver- age of 860 participants per month. The ADA Cab program subsidizes taxi trips for Phoenix residents with disabilities who are certified as ADA paratransit eligible. In 2014, there was an average of 224 participants per month. The participants send a check each month to the city’s con- tract administrator, who loads the funds onto their magnetic swipe cards, which are used to buy taxi trips. Participants can buy a maximum each month of $80 worth of taxi service. The city has established two subsidy levels for the $80: the first $40 is subsidized at 70%, meaning that a participant pays only $12 to get $40 worth of taxi service. Above $40, the subsidy is reduced to 50%, so that the second $40 costs the participant $20. Thus, to purchase the maximum monthly amount of $80, a participant pays $32. Eligible individuals in both programs contact the taxi com- pany of their choosing to book trips, without any restrictions on trip purpose. The two subsidy levels resulted from a change in the maximum monthly subsidy set by the city. Initially, the subsidy amount was capped at $50. Users voiced concerns that this was not adequate, so the maximum was raised to $80, but with a somewhat less generous subsidy level for the increased funds over the original amount. Taxi companies participating in the two programs were required to have in-vehicle equipment that can read magnetic swipe cards. Currently, nine taxi companies are involved. Senior Center Shuttle Program This is the largest of Phoenix’s subsidized taxi programs, serving 94,477 trips in FY 2014, representing well over half of all the subsidized taxi trips provided through the city’s five programs. City residents can use participating taxis to travel from their home to and from their closest senior center on days when the centers are open, with a limit of two trips per day. There are 15 senior centers in the city, located through- out the city’s neighborhoods, ensuring convenient access for Phoenix’s older adults. One of the objectives of using taxis for transportation, which are not shared rides unless two (or more) participants are traveling together from the same pickup location, is to enable the individuals to come and go from the centers as they would like. The subsidized taxi program replaced a dedicated van program that operated on a prescheduled, group-riding basis. Similar to the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs, rid- ers call the taxi company of their choosing to book trips on an immediate-response basis or establish subscription service so their trips are provided on the prearranged basis with no need to make daily reservations. This program uses the same magnetic swipe card tech- nology as used for the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs. However, this program has a different fare structure and pro- cess. Initially, there was no fare. A policy change required a $1 fare per trip, which is paid to the taxi driver in cash. When concerns were raised about low-income riders, another policy change allowed those with incomes below a defined threshold to ride for free. These fare structure changes necessitated changes to the fare payment technology. The city reimburses the taxi compa- nies for the trips provided, all of which tend to be short given that transportation is provided only to an individual’s closest senior center. The rider’s fare of $1 is deducted from the trip fare calculated by the taxi meter for payment by the city. Yet reimbursement for trips may be more than the calculation of the meter fare for the trip minus $1 because the taxi com- panies have a minimum charge per trip. This charge varies by taxi company, which is another complication for the fare payment technology. For example, one of the taxi companies has a minimum charge of $9. If a rider has a trip of 2 mi, the meter fare would be about $5.50. Without the minimum charge, reimbursement would be $5.50 minus $1, for a cost of $4.50. But in this case, the city provides a reimbursement of $9 to meet the minimum charge. The same taxi companies participating in the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs provide trips for the Senior Center Shuttle program with additional companies operating only wheelchair-accessible vehicles (ramped minivans or larger lift-equipped paratransit vans). These companies, which are not taxi companies, have a fare structure that is higher than taxi rates and varies by whether the rider is a general public rider (a “cash” rider) or one who is affiliated with a specific group or agency (a “contract” rider), with rates more than the “cash” rates. The Senior Center Shuttle program is consid- ered a contract program—even though there is no contrac- tual agreement between the city, the city’s administrator, and the taxi companies—so the city is charged the contract rate. However, riders pay the $1 fare. Trip Payment and Technology Phoenix began its taxi-based programs years ago using paper vouchers and coupons. Both the dialysis transportation and employment programs were initiated using paper vouchers, and that method continues today. The Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs transitioned from paper coupons to magnetic swipe cards and associated technology in 2013–2014. The

32 Senior Center Shuttle program was initiated with magnetic swipe cards and the new technology, so there was no transi- tion required. The city’s experience—a “tale of two pay- ment types”—highlights its successful use of both the old and the new. Vouchers The dialysis transportation program and the employment transportation programs provide repetitive trips on presched- uled days, with participants traveling between their home and a dialysis center or place of employment. Unless a participant moves, must go to a different dialysis center, or changes jobs, the trips are the same. For dialysis patients, the trips are the same 3 days per week. For those in the employment trans- portation program, the trips are the same each day of the job position. This means that the vouchers can be preprinted with the information for each participant. The city’s contract administrator of the taxi programs pro- duces the vouchers, which are individualized for the partici- pants. Each voucher is printed with the participant’s name, the home address and that of the destination (the specific dialysis center or their place of employment), and the calcu- lated trip mileage (see Figure 1). Participants are mailed their individualized vouchers, and each time they take a trip to their scheduled destination, they provide one voucher to the taxi driver as well as payment to the driver for their share of each trip. Both programs require participants to pay 25% of the meter cost of the trip, and the full amount for any cost over the maximum of $15. This pay- ment structure is changing as the dialysis centers fill up and the individuals undergoing treatment have to go to centers farther from their homes. At current meter rates, $15 will take a rider about 4 mi. For the dialysis program, most trips are short and under this mileage, as noted previously. Thus, a typical participant in the dialysis transportation program will pay no more than $3.75 to the taxi driver, with the city reimbursing the taxi company up to $11.25 per trip. Trips for the employment transportation program usually are longer than 4 mi, so participants often must pay their share plus the full amount of the meter price over $20. Data for FY 2014 shows that the average trip length for participants’ work trip is 5.62 mi. After trips are completed, the driver and rider sign the voucher, and the driver returns the voucher to the taxi company management. The company, in turn, sends the used vouchers to the city’s administrator, which then reconciles the vouchers using a relational database program. Given that all the trips are repetitive ones going from the same two locations on predetermined days for the same participant, reconciling the trips is straightforward. For these two programs, the paper voucher process is efficient and works well. The city had orig- inally included the dialysis transportation and employment transportation programs in its plans to introduce technology for its taxi programs. However, based on analysis and recom- mendations of the city’s administrator, a decision was made to continue operating the dialysis and employment programs manually. Currently the budgets for the programs limit their growth. If this changes and the numbers of trips in the two programs increase, the electronic options will be revisited. Magnetic Swipe Cards and Associated Technology Phoenix introduced a new payment system, including magnetic swipe cards and their associated technology, after it became clear the paper coupons used for the ADA Cab and Senior Cab programs were not sustainable. These two programs were gen- erating many thousands of coupons every month. Staff of the city’s administrator, who had to enter data to send coupons to participants and reconcile coupons once returned, could FIGURE 1 Voucher for Phoenix’s dialysis transportation program. Photo courtesy of city of Phoenix, Arizona.

33 no longer process the increasing volume—30,000+ pieces of paper were processed twice each month—and storage space for the used coupons could not contain all the paper. Unlike the vouchers with preprinted information identi- fying each participant and each repetitive trip, the coupons were generic, and there were no trip purpose restrictions. This meant the coupons were individualized for each trip taken by a participant. Given the growing volume of trips, the city real- ized that use of coupons could not continue. The city solicited bids for technology that would improve and modernize admin- istration of the programs. Implementation of Technology A technology company was selected—MJM Innovations, Inc.—and a contract negotiated in mid-2013, which included an aggressive schedule for implementation. This schedule, combined with the need to engineer technology for three taxi- based programs with differing fare structures and to introduce 10 taxi companies and their drivers to a new way of doing business, made for a challenging several months. Implementation required the installation of software for the taxi companies’ existing in-vehicle equipment and the software module for each company’s administration function so that the companies could upload the trip data, review it, and submit it electronically to the city’s administrator. Software was also needed for the administrator. Over a period of several months, the technology company customized the software for the three taxi-based programs, completed the required instal- lations, and provided training for the city’s administrator and a first round of training for each taxi company. Issues arose as implementation was under way. Each revision to the fare structure for the Senior Center Shuttle program—from no fare to all pay $1 to no fare only for low- income participants—required a change to the software. Installing the technology company’s software on the taxi com- panies’ existing in-vehicle hardware also had complications. All but one of the companies already had in-vehicle equipment that functioned as a meter with card reader capability. The technology company had to ensure its software functioned with each company’s existing hardware, and the hardware was not standard across the taxi companies. A particular problem arose with the largest taxi company participating in the pro- grams, and eventually the solution was a specially designed patch that enabled the software to function properly. Once installation was complete, the technology was tested by a small group of regular participants who used the new mag- netic swipe cards for a trial period and reported their experi- ences. The test, generally positive, showed that instructions to participants needed refinement and additional driver training was needed. These two issues were addressed, with the city’s administrator providing additional training for the drivers. By spring of 2014, the technology was in place and functioning well, and all participants in the three programs were using the magnetic swipe cards and new electronic payment system. Participants’ Use of Magnetic Swipe Cards Participants in the programs receive their magnetic swipe card once they are determined eligible for the particular program. The cards are produced at the home office of the technology company and sent to the city’s contract administrator each week. Participants in the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs send a check to the contract administrator each month, in an amount up to $32, which is the price to purchase the maxi- mum amount of taxi service ($80). The administrator deposits the checks and loads the funds onto each participant’s card. When first eligible, a rider receives his or her card by mail along with instructions, a list of participating cab companies (see Figure 2), and a reorder form and envelope for subse- quent orders. When reordering value for the card, the partici- pant keeps the fare card and mails a check with the reorder form. The funds are loaded onto the card remotely and the participant is notified by mail that the money is on the card. That mailing also includes a reorder form and, as needed, an “alert” with various reminders and tips. Participants in the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs have been asked if they would also like the option to send funds electronically for their magnetic swipe cards but there has been little interest in that option. With the technology, the rider swipes his or her card in the taxi vehicle’s card reader at the start and end of the trip. These two swipes capture the rider’s identification and the trip infor- mation, including the date, trip origin and destination, time points for the origin and destination, and trip length. The software installed at each taxi company captures the data on its drivers’ trips from the in-vehicle equipment. After review- ing the trips, the taxi company submits its invoice electroni- cally each week to the city’s administrator for payment. The administrator’s staff members review all the invoices, using a series of audit checks in the software, and determine and process payment for each taxi company. As an example, one of the audit checks looks for duplicate trips, and such trips are rejected and not reimbursed. Another audit check reviews rider profiles and rejects a trip if the home address is missing. Any charges on a voided swipe card are also rejected. Although the technology has automated the trip payment and reconciliation process, there are occasional exceptions. This is not surprising with technology and the involvement of 10 different taxi companies and their varying rosters of drivers. Taxi drivers who are new to the technology, which included all the drivers when the magnetic swipe cards were introduced, have some difficulty with the initial swipe of the magnetic swipe card. Swiping a card at the end of a trip has

34 been common practice with the use of credit cards but to swipe a card at the start of the trip has been a learning process. There are occasions when the card reader in the vehicle malfunctions. At that point, the driver manually processes the card with a “knuckle buster,” the old-fashioned card reader. The taxi company must then manually input such trips into their its database. Early in the use of the new tech- nology, this created issues because the software read the date of the manually entered trips as the date of data entry, which was likely several days after the trips were actually taken. The database might show three or four trips on the same day for a participant when, for the Senior Center Shuttle pro- gram, only two trips per day are allowed. The software was adjusted to address this issue, but the manual entries require somewhat more scrutiny by the taxi programs’ administrator. In addition, the manual entries may create an issue for the rider. Because the taxi company typically takes several days to enter the data for the manually processed trip, the rider does not have up-to-date information on the remaining value of the swipe card. Cost Structure For Phoenix, the costs for the technology included the up- front costs to the technology company for customizing and installing the software for the taxi companies and the contract administrator and the costs of initial training. There are addi- tional recurring monthly costs related to licensing fees, volume of trips provided, and support. In general, agreements for technology are designed for each client agency and the agency’s requirements. For example, the technology company can handle the day-to-day administrative tasks, such as loading participants’ funds onto their magnetic swipe cards, monitoring trips, and paying taxi providers, in addition to the installation and customization of software at the start. The company can also supply in-vehicle hardware for the taxi vehicles if the taxi companies do not have existing hardware. After Implementation and Experience with the Technology Implementation of the new payment system and its associ- ated technology required significant efforts on the part of the technology company and city’s contract administrator. Any technology project of this type and with the involvement of multiple entities requires dedicated time and effort, although the schedule necessitated extra dedication and effort to meet the deadline. After a year of experience with full use of the new fare payment system, the technology works well and has greatly improved the management and administration of the taxi-based programs. FIGURE 2 Phoenix’s swipe card (front and back) as mailed to the participant. Photos courtesy of city of Phoenix, Arizona.

35 Tipping Taxi Drivers Currently, none of the city’s taxi-based programs specifically include a tip for the drivers. Some years ago, there was an extra 15% added to the invoices submitted by the taxi companies for the dialysis and employment programs, and the city had assur- ances that this extra payment was used for driver tips. Report- edly, the companies and drivers appreciated the extra payment. Budget issues have required that the extra payment be removed. However, it has been difficult to tell if that removal affected service because few problems with the taxi service are reported. Taxi Regulations and Accessible Taxi Vehicles Regulations for taxi companies serving the city of Phoenix address such items as criminal background checks for drivers and insurance. There are no entry controls with limits on taxi permits and no requirements that the taxi companies provide wheelchair accessible taxis. Regulations for taxis serving the Phoenix airport are more prescriptive and require the compa- nies to compete for a franchise agreement. The taxi companies that participate in the city of Phoenix’s programs provide proof of insurance, U.S. Internal Revenue Service W-9 forms (Request for Taxpayer Identification Num- ber and Certification), a voided check, and an e-mail address. The supply of taxis in Phoenix is variable, based on special events and other contract business held by the taxi companies. There are times when program participants have longer waits or difficulty getting a cab. The taxis participate in the programs on a nondedicated basis, so they also serve general public rid- ers. When the city has special events or at other times when general public taxi demand is high, service for participants of the subsidized programs may be compromised. The lack of wheelchair-accessible taxis also affects the city’s taxi-based programs. For the Senior Center Shuttle pro- gram, participants pay $1, even when their trips are provided by a company providing on-demand wheelchair service and not a taxi company. But this is not the case for the Senior Cab and ADA Cab programs, for which participants have purchased discounted taxi fare for their trips. Participants in those pro- grams who need an accessible vehicle can call for on-demand wheelchair accessible service, but because that service is not taxi service, the rates are higher, so their $80 worth of taxi fare buys less service. These riders who use wheelchairs are also ADA paratransit eligible, so they may choose to use ADA paratransit instead. Participants’ Perspective The city has conducted a number of surveys of participants in the taxi programs for feedback. A survey of the dialysis transportation program in FY 2014 showed that the respond- ing users value the program, with 29 of 33 respondents indi- cating that the vouchers are easy to use. More than one-third said they would not be able to get to dialysis without the subsidized taxi program. Social workers at the dialysis cen- ters were also surveyed for their perspective. Their com- ments were positive and echoed comments of some patients that the taxi vouchers were the patients’ only means to get to dialysis. Participants of the employment transportation program were surveyed in FY 2013. Although there were a small number of respondents, most of the comments were posi- tive; one person said, “Allows me to be a productive mem- ber of society.” There were a few less positive comments in response to the question, “What don’t you like about the taxi program?” One respondent said, “Some drivers resent getting vouchers.” Almost 200 users of the Senior Cab program responded to a survey in FY 2014. Responses indicated a high level of responsiveness for trip pickups, with 98% indicating they were picked up within 15 min of their promised time. The most common trip purposes were reported as medical and shopping. Among respondent comments, the two most common related to a desire to see an increase in the monthly limit beyond $80 and a desire to return to the coupon system. Although more than half of the respondents indicated the magnetic swipe card was easy to use, there were clearly some who wanted a return to paper coupons. ADA Cab program users were also surveyed in FY 2014. Of the 68 respondents, more than one-third indicated that the magnetic swipe card was easy to use. The most com- mon trip purposes were reported as shopping, work, and school. Responding participants gave generally positive comments about the service. A few said they preferred the magnetic swipe card, whereas others preferred the older method of coupons. There appears to be a sense among both drivers and customers that the coupons gave them more control. Summary and Lessons Learned Phoenix’s experience with its taxi-based programs for older adults and people with disabilities provides several insights, particularly regarding the use of technology: • Depending on the structure of the program, number of participants, and number and nature of trips, technol- ogy may not be necessary. The city has continued to use paper vouchers for two programs, both of which subsidize prescheduled, repetitive trips of eligible indi- viduals. The vouchers are preprinted with the specific information for each eligible participant’s trips, and this information changes infrequently. Reconciliation

36 is done with a standard relational database program. There is minimal opportunity for misuse of the system. Vouchers have been used for more than 25 years and continue to work well for two of the city’s programs. • In contrast, two other taxi-based programs that used generic coupons reached their limits when the volume of coupons exceeded the staff’s ability to process the coupons and storage space. A more efficient and sustain- able process was needed. The city procured technology that introduced magnetic swipe cards and an electronic fare collection system that has automated many of the previous manual steps. Not only is the technology more efficient, but the monitoring and trip auditing functions are more comprehensive. • It is important that implementation of technology for taxi- based programs allow adequate time—6 to 12 months— which includes time to educate the program participants and train taxi company management, staff, and drivers. Implementation could field test the new payment pro- cess with selected riders and ensure thorough outreach to participants, with in-person presentations as well as written materials, before the technology goes fully live. Because members of the target user groups may need extra assistance with the new process, taxi pro- gram staff also could make available telephone support to answer individual questions. In short, comprehen- sive training for taxi companies and comprehensive education for the taxi program users will help ease the transition process. • Survey data from participants using the magnetic swipe card technology indicate that most find it easy to use, although a number wish to return to the paper cou- pons. Apparently, some participants believe that the coupons gave them more control. These participants may need more time with the new payment scheme (surveys were conducted within 6 months of technol- ogy implementation) or they may be more comfort- able with more tangible “proof” of what they have purchased and how much taxi service they have left. Although the magnetic swipe card “stores” what the participant has purchased and registers how much taxi service is left after a trip, this information cannot be held in a participant’s hand and viewed in the same way as a coupon can. Riders receive a receipt at the time of their trip showing what they have spent and how much is left on their card. What they lack is a booklet of $1 coupons from which they can hand the driver a coupon and count the remainder. • Although detailed plans and an adequate timeline will support a successful transition to swipe cards and associated technology, during the implementa- tion process, agencies should expect the unexpected. Phoenix found that its unexpected issues could be handled, but some required efforts that were not mapped out in the schedule or contract with the tech- nology company. To address the latter, an agreement with a technology company should include adequate contract language that allows for a degree of change and revision to the software not anticipated in project plans. • There are limited regulations on the taxi industry in the city of Phoenix and no requirements for acces- sible taxi vehicles. Providing wheelchair-accessible vehicles for the taxi-based programs has necessi- tated arrangements with companies that provide on- demand accessible service, but because these are not taxi companies, rates are considerably higher. This affects riders and is more costly for the city’s taxi programs. More comprehensive taxi regulations could address this and ensure some level of accessible taxi service. • The relationships forged between the city of Phoenix, its taxi program administrator, and the taxi companies over the past 30+ years are paramount to the taxi pro- grams’ success. This is particularly true given Phoenix’s taxi environment of limited regulation and because the city’s programs provide no financial incentives to the companies or drivers beyond payment for the meter rate or the company’s minimum charge for short trips. The relationships began when the city first turned to the taxi industry for the subsidy programs, with the city working with the companies to plan, develop, and pro- vide disability awareness training for the drivers. These relationships continue today, building on regular com- munications with and support for the taxi companies. At the heart of the relationships are mutual respect and agreement on common goals for the subsidy programs. The city—through its taxi program administrator— communicates with the taxi companies weekly to pro- vide rider updates, information on city holidays, time- tables for invoicing, driver training issues, and “kudos” for good service. There are also in-person meetings to discuss issues, new programs and innovations to improve customer service, and program management. The city’s administrator visits the cab companies at their facilities periodically. The cab companies have each designated a contact person who is the go-to per- son for the city when real-time issues arise, such as a stranded rider. • Relationships among the city, the city’s taxi pro- gram administrator, and the taxi companies extend to facilitating invoicing practices and ensuring prompt payment to the companies. The accounting staff of the city’s administrator works closely with the taxi companies’ accounting departments to support their efforts, addressing billing issues and resolving any billing discrepancies. This support may be done via telephone or in person. Payment to the cab com- panies is provided in 3 weeks or less of receipt of invoices, recognizing that the companies pay their drivers daily and delayed payment for the compa- nies’ participation in the subsidy programs is a cost to the companies.

37 SAN FRANCISCO’S USE OF TAXIS The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) oversees public transit as well as parking, traffic, and bicycle and pedestrian programs in the city of San Francisco. The transportation agency also regulates taxis within its jurisdic- tion. Among SFMTA’s public transit services is a network of specialized transportation services for people with disabilities and older adults. The transportation agency has used taxis as part of its net- work of services for people with disabilities and older adults since 1981. SFMTA’s regulatory authority over taxis is a major benefit to its use of taxis for these services. San Francisco Transit Environment San Francisco is the fourth largest city in California, with a population of 837,442 (U.S. Census Bureau estimate 2013). Its transit agency, SFMTA, is the eighth largest in the country as measured by ridership, providing a range of fixed-route services, with bus, light rail, historic streetcar, and cable car service. SFMTA’s services for people with disabilities and older adults are wide-ranging and include required ADA paratran- sit service as well as additional specialized services for indi- viduals with disabilities and older adults. The transportation agency contracts with a private company that serves as the paratransit broker, called SF Paratransit, to manage the vari- ous services. The broker, in turn, contracts with van and taxi companies to provide the day-to-day transportation services. SFMTA’s paratransit services include: • SF Access—This is the required ADA paratransit service, with next-day door-to-door van service for ADA-eligible riders. In FY 2014, more than 233,000 trips were pro- vided, including 71,000 wheelchair trips, to 3,800 active ADA riders. • Taxi services—Taxis provide same-day service for ADA-eligible riders and also serve other individuals with disabilities and older adults who are not ADA certified through two small programs. In FY 2014, 260,000 trips were provided, including 7,700 wheelchair trips, for 4,500 active taxi users. • Group van service—This is prescheduled door-to-door service for groups of individuals going to a single des- tination, such as an adult day health center. In FY 2014, 215,000 trips were provided to about 1,200 riders attend- ing activities and services provided by 14 human service agencies at 17 different locations. • Aging and adult group van services—This is presched- uled, door-to-door transportation for groups attending nutrition and other programs sponsored by the city’s Department of Aging and Adults Services. In FY 2014, 30,000 trips were provided to ten agencies and 7,000 trips to grocery stores. • Shop-a-Round service—The objective of this service is to provide transportation and assistance to individuals living in neighborhoods without fresh groceries nearby. In FY 2014, 6,000 trips were provided to about 1,300 rid- ers. Most trips are provided by van service with a smaller number provided by taxis. • Van Gogh Shuttle—This program, implemented in 2013, transports groups of seniors and people with disabilities to cultural and social events and activities, with an objec- tive of reducing isolation among seniors and people with disabilities who are at high risk for isolation. In 2014, more than 1,300 trips were provided to 650 riders. • Paratransit Plus—This service provides a limited value taxi debit card ($60 per month) to individuals who do not qualify for ADA paratransit but have difficulty using fixed-route transit and benefit from extra assis- tance for certain occasional trips. • Peer Escort Project—This project is in the planning stage and will provide escorts for individuals who need hand-to-hand transportation. It is intended to improve access to adult day programs for individuals with cogni- tive disabilities and the safety and on-board experience of SFMTA’s paratransit group van riders with cognitive disabilities, by providing a peer escort. Taxi-Based Programs SFMTA’s primary taxi-based program is a same-day service for individuals who are certified as ADA paratransit eligible. Referred to as SF Taxi, the service is the same curb-to-curb service that is available to the general public. As a same-day service, it is not required by the ADA; however, many ADA- eligible riders use the service because it meets their needs better than does the SF Access van service. SF Taxi is not shared ride and provides same-day service. SFMTA also has two smaller taxi-based programs. Para- transit Plus provides a limited-value taxi debit card with $60 per month of taxi service for individuals who do not qualify for ADA paratransit but who need extra assistance for certain trips. The 175 individuals enrolled for the service are gener- ally older (80+ years old) and frail. The second smaller taxi- based program is a component of the Shop-a-Round service and offers transportation exclusively to grocery stores for people with disabilities and older adults without easy access to fresh food grocery stores. Participants receive a debit card and pay $11 for $60 per month of taxi service value. This case example focuses on SF Taxi, SFMTA’s largest taxi-based program.

38 SF Taxi SFMTA’s use of taxis for serving people with disabilities and older adults predates the ADA and continued with implemen- tation of mandated ADA paratransit service in the 1990s. In SFMTA’s early years providing ADA paratransit, taxis were used exclusively for service for ambulatory ADA riders tak- ing individual trips. With changes over the years and imple- mentation of technology, taxi service is now a supplemental service available to all ADA-eligible riders. Initially, an ADA-eligible rider had to establish a ride his- tory on SF Access, the traditional next-day ADA service. After establishing that history, the rider was then offered the use of the supplemental taxi service. There were some exceptions to this: riders older than 80 years, those using wheelchairs, and those going to kidney dialysis were offered taxi service as an option when they first obtained ADA paratransit eligibility. More recently SFMTA made SF Taxi available to all ADA- eligible riders, a policy change enabled with implementation of technology for taxi fare payment with a debit card that pro- vides improved tracking of trip usage. Riders have expressed high customer satisfaction with the taxi service, and many prefer taxi service rather than the ADA van service. Although the original taxi service affected ADA paratransit demand because of the popularity of a same-day service, the changes in recent years, particularly with the introduction of technology, have made the taxi service easier to monitor. In addition, because the cost per taxi trip is considerably less than the cost of traditional van-based trips, SFMTA realizes cost savings. The average cost per taxi trip is $13.81 (meter cost, FY 2014), with an average trip length of 2.2 mi. This is sig- nificantly less than the cost per trip on the SF Access next-day van-based service of $33.95 (FY 2014), for which an average trip is 3.5 mi. Debit Card for Taxi Service SFMTA introduced a debit card payment process in late 2009 after years of exclusively using paper scrip for taxi trip pay- ment. SF Taxi was generating boxes and boxes of scrip from completed trips, requiring increasing amounts of administra- tive time to process all the pieces of paper by the taxi com- panies and the city’s broker. A more efficient and auditable process was needed. Implementation of Technology Acquisition of the technology required two procurement cycles. The first procurement asked for both components needed to implement debit cards: the in-vehicle equipment and firmware (which is software that enables the card to be read) for read- ing the debit card (about 750 vehicles, half the city’s taxi fleet at that time, lacked in-vehicle equipment) and the supporting back-end software to process all the data and handle payment. A vendor was selected through the first procurement. However, the taxi companies protested, fearing that selection of one single vendor would make the companies completely dependent on that vendor for any other or future equipment or enhancements, including computerized dispatching, a company might want for its business. The second procurement separated the two major compo- nents: the in-vehicle equipment and the associated software. SFMTA wrote specifications for the in-vehicle equipment and indicated it would accept the lowest cost, responsive vendor. SFMTA then allowed the taxi companies to choose any one of the several responsive vendors’ equipment but indicated it would finance that equipment only to the price point of the lowest-cost responsive bidder. That cost turned out to be $550 per unit per vehicle. In many cases, the taxi companies chose a different vendor and paid for the costs greater than SFMTA’s ceiling of $550 per unit. The three vendors used for the in-vehicle equipment are Verifone, Wireless Edge, and Creative Mobile Technologies (CMT) (see Figure 3). FIGURE 3 In-vehicle equipment for San Francisco’s taxis. Photos courtesy of SFMTA.

39 SFMTA then selected a technology company for the back-end processing software through the second procure- ment cycle. The company was Cabconnect, Inc., and its software was CardOne. The company assisted in develop- ing the required firmware for the taxi companies and their vehicles and the management software for the broker and SFMTA. The firmware works with the in-vehicle equip- ment to enforce the business rules while allowing the taxi’s in-vehicle equipment to read the rider’s debit card and col- lect data on the trip. The data elements collected for each trip include the rider’s ID, date and time stamps of the trip, and the locations of trip origin and destination, trip length, which is provided through GPS tracking, and meter cost. With the technology, those data elements are sent to the back-end computer for monitoring and audit purposes and to process payment information. Once the technology was installed, the technology com- pany provided training for the taxi companies and drivers as well as for SFMTA and its paratransit broker. Training for the riders was the responsibility of SFMTA and SF paratransit staff, who provided extensive outreach and hands-on demon- strations of the debit card and its use. Transition from Scrip to Debit Card Transitioning from paper scrip to the debit card was chal- lenging. It was a learning process for everyone involved. SFMTA started with a pilot, providing the debit card to a select number of riders for their use. The debit cards were then provided to more and more riders. Figure 4 shows a sample debit card. However, even with extensive outreach and information, some riders were reluctant to use their debit cards. To ease the transition, SFMTA continued to allow riders to use scrip for several more months, until the scrip expired. This transition period lasted about 9 months, and then riders could use only their debit cards to pay for their taxi trips. Riders’ Use of Debit Cards Riders who are eligible for the taxi service are provided a monthly dollar allotment to purchase taxi trips, based on their trip needs. Riders pay $5.50 for $30.00 worth of taxi service. Depending on need, eligible riders receive from $60 to $330 worth of taxi service value per month, with most receiving from $90 to $150. For example, an individual eligible for $90 would pay 3 × $5.50 or $16.50. The average trip cost, based on the meter rate, is $13.81. This represents an average trip length of around 3 mi. Advantages of Debit Card Implementation of the debit card and its associated technol- ogy for the taxi service has greatly improved the manage- ment and administration of the taxi-based services. SFMTA reports a number of advantages: • Improved monitoring of the service is a major advantage. With detailed electronic records of each trip—providing rider ID, date and time stamps of trip origin and desti- nation, trip length, locations of trip origin and destina- tion, and meter cost—the transportation agency is able to verify each trip. The trip records also become a useful data set for planning purposes. • Misuse and fraud are curtailed with the improved moni- toring capabilities. With the debit card, it is difficult for taxi drivers or riders to abuse the program, such as drivers and riders colluding to generate fictitious trips. Monitor- ing and enforcement have been heightened. For example, monitoring and audit procedures look for anomalies in the data, such as trips where cost and mileage do not agree or a rider with many trips that do not begin or end at that rider’s residence. • The technology has eliminated trips to destinations outside the defined service area. The SF Taxi program subsidizes trips only within a specific service area. With the technology, the debit card will not allow trip pay- ment should the taxi vehicle travel outside the service area boundary. Essentially, the technology provides an electric geofence, disallowing the portion of any trip that extends beyond the fence. • The prior scrip program did not allow riders to tip their drivers, although riders apparently did not always follow this rule and provided extra scrip to their driver. With the new process, SFMTA has allowed tipping, with controls allowed by the technology. Use of the debit card allows a rider to provide a tip for the driver, in an amount 10% of the fare but no more than $2. When the driver swipes the debit card at the end of the trip, the rider informs the driver whether to include a tip. If “yes,” the driver hits a button that automatically adds 10% of the meter fare or $2, whichever is less. The rider does not decide the tip amount, and the tip and the amount are automatically recorded.FIGURE 4 Paratransit debit card. Photo courtesy of SFMTA.

40 • The electronic payment processing provides for more frequent payment to the taxi companies. With the paper scrip, the companies were paid monthly. Now, they are paid twice per month. Ramp Taxis There are approximately 1,900 taxis licensed in the city of San Francisco. This includes 100 permits for wheelchair accessible taxi vehicles, which are called “ramp taxis” in San Francisco. Until 2010, SFMTA did not allow taxi permits, also called medallions, to be sold. However, now they can be sold and have a market value of about $250,000. Permits for ramp taxis are not available for sale. SFMTA’s regulations for ramp taxis have evolved, but they have not required taxi companies to operate a certain percent- age of accessible vehicles, an approach used by a number of cities. When SFMTA first made permits for ramp taxis avail- able, the permits were granted to individuals who had been on a waiting list. These individuals also had to meet certain criteria, including experience driving a ramped taxi and certification that they had received additional training on ramp taxi opera- tion and wheelchair securement. Once receiving a permit, the individual would affiliate with a particular taxi company. Now a taxi company is allowed to have a ramp taxi medal- lion should the company’s driver who was awarded the medallion decide to relinquish it. In such a case, the taxi com- pany can find or train drivers who will drive the ramped taxi and provide service. Figure 5 depicts a ramp taxi driver and his passenger and vehicle. SFMTA is considering new options for the ramp taxis: directly leasing the medallions to drivers who would then affiliate with a company or possibly leasing the medallions directly to a company. All potential ramp taxi medallion own- ers would still have to meet specified requirements, including having a current ramp taxi training certificate. Leasing to an individual driver, in particular, creates an investment for the driver, who is motivated to provide service. Every taxi—sedan and ramp taxi—in San Francisco is required to participate in SFMTA-sponsored paratransit taxi services, including SF Taxi, and serve trips for individu- als eligible for the service and carrying a SFMTA-provided debit card. Imposing this requirement on the taxi industry was straightforward because SFMTA regulates San Francisco taxis. This regulatory oversight is also beneficial because SFMTA can emphasize service to seniors and people with disabilities as part of the taxi training required for all new taxi drivers. Incentives for Wheelchair Trips SFMTA provides a number of incentives to ramp taxi drivers to provide trips for riders who use wheelchairs, one of which was recently modified and two of which were newly intro- duced to encourage drivers to remain in the taxi industry and drive an accessible ramped vehicle. With the rise of TNCs in San Francisco, such as Uber and Lyft, taxi drivers have left the industry to drive for TNCs. Incentives to ramp taxi drivers to provide trips for riders who use wheelchairs include: • A $10 payment for each wheelchair trip. • For every two trip pickups provided for riders using wheelchairs in the outlying parts of the city’s service area, the driver gets a “short,” which is a ticket that allows the driver to go to the front of the taxi line at the airport, with the likelihood of getting a lucrative long trip. Trips in the outlying service area require more deadhead time and mileage to serve and thus are less attractive to the drivers, so the shorts provide a measure of incentive compensation. • For every trip provided for riders using wheelchairs, SFMTA provides $10 toward the driver’s down pay- ment for a taxi permit if the driver is not already a permit holder. This incentive will provide as much as $12,500. Future Options for Accessible Taxi Services SFMTA has considered options for improving the ramp taxi service for riders who use wheelchairs. Currently, a rider who wants to book a ramp taxi calls one of the companies that oper- ates ramp taxis. If that company’s dispatcher responds with a long wait time, the rider can call a second company and pos- sibly a third company to book a ramp taxi trip. To address this, SFMTA would like to have all the ramp taxis, regardless of company affiliation, available through a single booking procedure. Taking advantage of new technol- ogy, such a procedure could be available through an app that riders could download onto their smartphones, similar to apps used by the TNCs. Riders could book a trip directly from their FIGURE 5 Ramp taxi driver and passenger. Photo courtesy of SFMTA.

41 smartphone, filter the request to display only ramped taxis, and “see” the taxi approaching on their smartphone screen through GPS technology. This option is still in the planning stages. Impact of TNCs San Francisco is ground zero for TNCs, with unregulated com- mercial drivers providing rides, typically in their own cars, for individuals who book and then pay for their trips using an app on their smartphone. These app-based ride services have become well established in San Francisco since their arrival in 2010, and such companies have spread to many other U.S. cities. (Uber has also expanded to other countries.) According to various reports, taxi companies have been significantly affected. They have lost drivers and riders to the TNCs. The San Francisco Cab Drivers Association (SFCDA) reported that the city lost as many as one-third of the approxi- mately 8,500 taxi drivers to the TNCs (21). Taxi ridership is down. Although there are limited data to quantify this, research conducted by the University of Califor- nia found that 39% of 302 surveyed TNC users in San Fran- cisco indicated that they would have used a taxi if the TNC service were not available (22). The impacts of TNCs on the SF Taxi riders who use a taxi sedan are not clear, but it appears that some riders may be getting better service from the taxi drivers because the sedan drivers have less business from the general public. SFMTA reports that the number of complaints about taxi availability for its subsidized riders has not changed significantly in the past 2 years, yet the transportation agency recognizes that this is a limited measure of TNC impact. However, the impacts on SF Taxi riders who use wheel- chairs are clearer. There was a 44% decrease in the number of wheelchair trips completed in ramp taxis, with data show- ing the total number of wheelchair ramp taxi trips decreas- ing from 15,487 trips in FY 2013 to 8,706 trips in FY 2014. This is directly related to fewer ramp taxis providing service. Although the city has provided 100 permits for ramp taxis, reports indicate that as many as one-fourth of those vehicles are not in service (23). The companies report that they do not have drivers for the vehicles. Although there are fewer trips on ramp taxis, some SF Taxi wheelchair users have established relationships with a particular driver, with the rider calling the driver directly on the driver’s cell phone for a trip (such trips are called “person- als”). Figure 6 shows a ramp taxi driver and passenger as well as the vehicle with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. One challenge that remains is that although taxis are regu- lated under the SFMTA, the California Public Utilities Com- mission regulates TNCs. Having two separate regulatory bodies has led to two different sets of operating standards for what is essentially the same on-demand ride service provided by these entities. This imbalance limits the ability of the city’s transportation agency to address the impact of TNCs on the taxi industry. Summary and Lessons Learned SFMTA has more than 30 years of experience using taxis for its transportation services for people with disabilities and older adults. With this experience, SFMTA provides insights and advice: • Regulatory authority over the taxi industry greatly enhances the ability to use taxis to serve people with disabilities and older adults. With SFMTA’s oversight of the city’s taxi industry, an advantage not shared by many public transportation agencies, the transportation agency has been able to require every taxi licensed in the city to participate in its subsidized programs for people with disabilities and older adults. The agency has also issued permits specifically for wheelchair accessible taxis (called ramp taxis in the city’s vernacular) and has been proactive and creative in establishing incentives to encourage drivers of the ramp taxis to serve trips of rid- ers using wheelchairs. Enforcement and service moni- toring also rest with SFMTA. FIGURE 6 Ramp taxi driver and passenger. Photo courtesy of SFMTA.

42 • Implementing technology that provides electronic processing of rider payment and trip data can be chal- lenging, but SFMTA reports that it is well worth the chal- lenge. SFMTA’s implementation of technology required significant efforts, with two procurements and various delays, but the agency reports that the monitoring and audit capabilities are major advantages to the use of scrip. The technology has also provided cost savings for SFMTA, particularly with reduced administrative efforts and curtailment of misuse. Beyond these advantages, which go to the transportation agency, the technology also provides advantages to the taxi drivers, their com- panies, and the users (after the start-up phase), with less administrative effort for the drivers and compa- nies and streamlined and more secure trip payment for riders. • Incentives for taxi drivers of accessible vehicles are important to support the drivers’ participation as acces- sible vehicle drivers and encourage the provision of trips for riders who use wheelchairs. Accessible taxi vehicles cost more to operate and maintain than do typical taxi sedans, and providing trips to riders who use wheel- chairs takes somewhat more time, given the need for boarding and alighting with the ramp and wheelchair securement. Financial incentives help the taxi driver with these extra costs. In San Francisco’s case, such incentives have taken on greater importance since the arrival of the TNCs. • Regarding the TNCs, San Francisco has clearly been affected by the new app-based mobility services. Long- term impacts are hard to foresee, but thus far TNCs have resulted in the exodus of a significant number of taxi drivers who have left the taxi industry to drive for one of the new services. The impact of this loss falls particu- larly hard on the ramp taxi service. Drivers of the acces- sible vehicles face more challenges and expenses than do drivers of sedans, so the attraction of the TNCs can be especially strong. SFMTA has responded with increased incentives for the ramp taxi drivers, but there remain ramp taxis parked in lots without drivers. Significantly, the TNCs do not have viable accessible services that are available to the general public who use wheelchairs, which means the ramp taxis are important not just for wheelchair users who are ADA eligible but also for wheelchair users in the general public. The loss of accessible taxi service affects the entire San Fran- cisco community of wheelchair users. • SFMTA has found the use of taxis to be cost-effective and popular with users. Although there may be challenges in establishing taxi-based services, SFMTA reports that “It’s worth the trouble.” For transit agencies considering the use of taxis to serve people with disabilities and older adults, SFMTA offers these suggestions: – First, the transit agency develops relationships with the taxi companies so the companies understand that publicly subsidized transportation service for people with disabilities and older adults is a market opportunity for taxis. This relationship building will also give the transit agency an understanding of how its subsidized services fit within the taxi industry framework. – Second, the public transit agency works with the taxi regulators to ensure that the regulations encourage the type of services to be subsidized. – Third, the public transit agency includes mechanisms to ensure that demand does not escalate beyond the program’s budget. Same-day taxi service tends to be popular with users and may induce trip volumes that become financially unsustainable. For taxi-based programs targeted for those who are ADA paratran- sit eligible, it’s important that those users understand that the required, next-day ADA paratransit service remains an option once they reach limits to their sub- sidized taxi use. – Fourth, introducing a taxi-based service to riders will require outreach and training and perhaps some hand-holding at first, but riders’ acceptance of such service should not be an issue, and in SFMTA’s expe- rience, many users see taxi service as an appealing alternative. – Fifth, it is important to implement methods to verify trips. Use of technology with electronic tracking and GPS data on trips provides many advantages. • SFMTA’s concluding words of advice: Particularly in urban areas with a robust taxi industry, public transit agencies should consider partnerships with taxi com- panies. Establishing those partnerships likely will take some time, and there may be challenges, but taxi-based service can be cost-effective and user friendly for ADA-eligible individuals. The efforts to establish such partnerships are worthwhile. DENVER’S REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND TAXIS The Regional Transportation District (RTD) was created in 1969 to develop and operate public transportation services for the city of Denver and surrounding metropolitan region. The RTD now provides fixed-route transit services, with bus and light rail, as well as general public demand response ser- vice (known as Call-n-Ride) in 23 communities and ADA paratransit service (called Access-a-Ride). RTD uses taxi service for Access-a-Ride as well as dedi- cated van providers and also provides a same-day taxi ser- vice (known as Access-a-Cab) for ADA paratransit–certified riders.

43 Denver’s Transit Environment RTD’s service area is expansive—2,340 mi2—encompass- ing all or part of eight counties and serving a population of 2.9 million. This includes the city of Denver (649,495 popula- tion, U.S. Census Bureau estimate 2013) and an additional 40 municipalities. ADA paratransit service is provided within the required ¾-mi corridors of local fixed-route service, with 696,415 total passenger trips provided in FY 2014. RTD contracts with a private transportation company to serve as the call center for both ADA paratransit and the same- day taxi program. ADA paratransit service is operated by three private contractors providing dedicated van-based service and one Denver taxi company, Yellow Cab. This company and two additional taxi companies participate in the same-day taxi program. Taxi-Based Programs ADA Paratransit Service The taxi company participates as a “full-fledged” private pro- vider of RTD’s ADA paratransit service. The company meets all of RTD’s provider requirements, including compliance with driver background checks, drug and alcohol testing, and driver training. The call center contractor develops driver manifests for the taxi company for next-day service, as it does for the other pro- viders. The taxi company delivers the scheduled service, and the taxi drivers document the trip information on the mani- fests. Once the completed manifests are returned to RTD, the call center enters the trip information into RTD’s computer- ized scheduling/dispatch system. The taxi company is paid on a per-trip basis—$37.40 per trip—for both completed trips and for no-shows. The full payment for no-shows recognizes that the taxi driver spent time traveling to the scheduled pickup location and waiting the required time for the passenger who did not appear. More importantly, the no-show payment serves as an incen- tive that encourages taxi drivers to continue participating in RTD’s program. One operational issue of note is that the call center does not have direct communication capability with the taxi drivers. The taxi vehicles do not have any in-vehicle technology, such as mobile data terminals, that would facilitate direct com- munications with the call center. Thus, when the call center needs to contact a taxi driver, such as to respond to a rider’s “where’s my ride” call, a call center staff member telephones the taxi company dispatcher, who then contacts the driver by radio; the taxi dispatcher relays this information back to the call center, at which point call center staff can respond to the inquiring rider. RTD reports that the advantages of using taxis outweigh the inconveniences of communications with taxi drivers for day-to-day operational issues. The primary advantage is cost efficiency: the cost for an ADA trip provided by taxi is $37.40. This can be compared with the $57 cost per ADA passenger trip provided by the dedicated van providers. Same-Day Taxi Service Access-a-Cab, RTD’s same-day taxi program, began in 1997 and was one of the first such programs provided for ADA paratransit-certified individuals by a large transit agency. As a same-day program, it is considered a service that is beyond the requirements of the ADA and thus does not have to com- ply with ADA’s regulations for the mandated next-day ADA paratransit service. The objectives of Access-a-Cab initially were to address ADA trip denials experienced at that time and provide trips more cost-effectively than by the dedicated van-based ser- vice. There was a particular interest in shifting the shorter ADA trips to taxis during peak hours to free up capacity on the dedicated service. The taxi service also provides a trip option for trips beyond the ADA paratransit service area that conforms to the ADA requirements of the ¾-mi corridors around fixed routes. When RTD initiated Access-a-Cab, it reimbursed the par- ticipating taxi companies on a meter basis, which varied by the trips taken by eligible riders. Riders paid only the first $2 on the meter, and the driver completed a paper voucher, also signed by the rider, documenting the trip charge based on the meter. Vouchers were then submitted to RTD for reimbursement. This reimbursement method was changed in 2001 so that the taxi trips were reimbursed only to a set amount, with rid- ers responsible for any trip charges beyond that. With this change, riders continued to pay the first $2, RTD paid the next $7, and if the meter charge for the trip exceeded $9, the rider was responsible for any excess. RTD also placed a ceiling on the total number of taxi trips that could be taken per day. This ceiling capped daily trips at 600, which remains the cap today. Riders also have a limit on their daily trips, with no more than four one-way trips per day allowed. The change to the taxi trip reimbursement in 2001 was important because it gave RTD cost certainty. Each trip was limited to a not-to-exceed amount. Coupled with the cap on the number of trips per day, RTD knew its maximum expo- sure for the taxi trips.

44 The cost cap per trip also gave the taxi drivers an incentive. Not only were they guaranteed the meter rate, but for trips less than $9, they could keep that “extra” money between the meter cost and $9. This change also simplified RTD’s monitoring of the taxi service. Instead of reviewing and monitoring the mileage for every taxi trip, RTD knew the cost of every trip. When correlated with the number of taxi trips provided, the transit agency had much better control of program costs. With increases in taxi meter rates, the subsidy level was raised in 2008. Riders continue to pay the initial $2 of the meter fare, with RTD subsidizing the next $12. If the meter fare exceeds $14, the rider is responsible for the excess. A meter fare of $14 provides a trip of approximately 5 mi, depending on waiting time charges. Booking a Taxi Trip Riders call RTD’s call center to request a same-day taxi trip; they do not call a taxi company directly. Channeling trip requests to the call center gives RTD several advantages: the trips are entered into the computerized scheduling/dispatch system for monitoring and recordkeeping purposes, and RTD can monitor the number of trips requested in relation to the daily cap on trips as well as the daily per-trip limit for a rider. The call center has dedicated a specific telephone number for taxi trip requests, with staff available from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days per week to take trip requests. When request- ing a trip, riders provide their ADA ID number and basic trip parameters and choose one of the three participating cab companies. The call center enters the trip information into the scheduling/dispatch system and transmits the trip information directly to the chosen taxi company. If a rider is staying at the trip destination for more than 2 h or is scheduling a trip for after 9:00 p.m., the rider can make the return reservation at the same time as the original trip request. In other cases, return trips are to be requested when the rider is ready to go. Auditing Taxi Trips At the end of the service day, the taxi companies provide to the call center the numbers of completed (and no-show) taxi trips. The call center updates the taxi data in the scheduling/ dispatch system database. The following day, the call center provides a listing of the taxi trips from the previous day to RTD. From this list, RTD staff members telephone a sample of riders to verify their taxi trip on the previous day. RTD strives to contact a 10% sample, which on an average day would result in telephoning about 30 riders. Given staff workloads and that a rider may not be home when telephoned, RTD reports that it typically reaches about half of the riders in the sample. Thus far, RTD has been able to verify all the sampled trips. Although this process requires staff time, it is straightfor- ward and also allows the sampled riders to make comments about the service, which can be helpful in addressing any service issues. Numbers of Same-Day Trips In the early 2000s, taxi trips numbered about 180 to 210 per day, well below the daily cap of 600 taxi trips. Use of the same-day program grew, then stabilized, and by 2006 to 2007 dropped somewhat because the subsidy level at that time pro- vided for a shrinking trip distance after a taxi meter increase. Starting in 2008, Access-a-Cab ridership grew after the RTD subsidy was raised from $7 to $12. In FY 2014, Access- a-Cab provided 195,015 same-day taxi trips. Currently, daily taxi trips are nearing the 600 cap on an aver- age weekday and sometimes exceeding the cap. RTD reports that it is not strictly enforcing the limit at this point, so if daily requests tip slightly over 600, the call center allows the trips. Accessible Taxi Vehicles Taxi service in Denver is regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Currently, there is no regulatory mandate on the taxi industry to provide accessible taxi vehicles. Despite this, the company that is a provider for ADA paratransit service operates accessible vehicles (see Figure 7). But the lim- ited number of accessible vehicles hampers RTD’s use of taxi service. For example, this company is not always able to serve all its scheduled trips requiring an accessible vehicle, so some of these trips are turned back to the call center. It would be to RTD’s advantage if the state’s taxi regula- tions addressed accessible vehicles. The transit agency is working toward the possibility of updates to the state’s taxi regulations so that a percentage of new taxi permits would be reserved for an accessible vehicle. One of the prominent FIGURE 7 Yellow Cab of Denver’s accessible taxis. Photo courtesy of Yellow Cab of Denver (from website).

45 disability organizations in Denver has joined RTD in address- ing the need for accessible taxi vehicles. Transportation Network Companies The TNCs are active in Denver. Both Uber and Lyft are pro- viding trips in the Denver area, much to the objection of the local taxi companies. In mid-2014, the state passed legislation allowing TNCs to operate, so the app-based ride services have a legal operating framework. The state’s PUC has been tasked with reviewing regulations on taxis and limousines and also preparing more permanent rules for TNCs. To date, RTD has not seen any specific or clear-cut impact to its subsidized taxi-based services caused by TNC com- petition with the Denver taxi industry. However, RTD has seen the taxi industry’s willingness to pursue, along with the RTD, a regulatory mandate that a certain percentage of taxi company vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. Such sup- port from the industry for a regulatory requirement for acces- sible taxi vehicles may be one avenue the local taxi industry takes to compete with TNCs, which do not operate accessible vehicles. Summary and Lessons Learned The RTD’s insights and perspectives on the use of taxis to serve people with disabilities are built on almost 20 years of experience. Access-a-Cab, the transit agency’s same-day taxi program, has served an important role in providing trips for ADA-certified riders since its inception in 1997; currently, three taxi companies participate in the program. One of these companies is also a contract provider operating ADA paratransit service. Highlights of RTD’s experience and insights include: • A same-day taxi program can play a significant role in addressing the demand for next-day ADA paratransit ser- vice. It is important that such a program have adequate controls to monitor use and maintain financial sustain- ability. RTD has employed several efforts in this regard: – Taxi trips should be reimbursed on a set limit, not on a mileage/meter basis. RTD’s program requires the rider to pay the first $2 on the meter, and the transit agency reimburses the taxi company for the next $12. If the trip costs more than $14 on the meter, the rider must pay the excess. In this way, RTD pays exactly the same price per trip. – A rider can take no more than four one-way trips per day. – Daily taxi trips are capped at 600. This provides a ceiling on the daily cost of the same-day program and gives RTD cost certainty. With the price control per trip and the ceiling on the number of trips, the agency knows the program’s maximum cost. – All requests for taxi trips go through RTD’s call cen- ter for its ADA program. This provides several ben- efits: trip information and data are captured within the agency’s scheduling/dispatch system for reporting and recordkeeping purposes (as opposed to collecting the data later from the taxi companies); it allows real- time monitoring of the daily trip cap; and the limit on daily trips per rider can be monitored and enforced. • A same-day program can be a cost-effective strategy for supplementing an ADA paratransit program. RTD’s cost for a same-day trip is less than one-fourth the cost of the next-day ADA paratransit service. Even if the same-day program induces new trips over what is provided with next-day ADA services, which some in the transit indus- try believe is the case, the trips are so significantly less costly than the next-day trips that, to the extent there may be new trips, RTD still realizes cost savings. • Taxis can also be cost-effective in serving next-day ADA paratransit trips. RTD uses one taxi company as an ADA provider, reimbursing the company a standard price per trip for both completed trips and no-shows. The transit agency believes that payment for no-show trips provides one incentive for the taxi drivers to continue participat- ing in the RTD’s sponsored program. RTD also suggests that incentive payments for trips provided by accessible taxis and those in the outlying part of the service area, which require more deadhead time and mileage, would be beneficial for taxi drivers, encouraging their partici- pation, which in turn benefits the subsidized program and the transit agency’s ability to use taxis. • Monitoring a same-day taxi program can be accom- plished without technology. RTD’s method for verifying trips relies on confirming trips with a sample of riders the day after their trips. Although this method does not use sophisticated technology, RTD has combined this process with a centralized trip request procedure for all same-day taxi trips, giving the agency more control over the program than if the trip requests went directly to the taxi companies. As is the case with any taxi program, RTD acknowledges that the issue of possible misuse remains. • The benefit of taxis to a transit agency increases with the availability of accessible taxi vehicles, and requirements set by a taxi regulatory body for accessible vehicles would serve to increase the numbers of accessible taxis. RTD relies on its local taxi industry for both a same- day program and for next-day ADA service. Additional accessible taxi vehicles would benefit same-day users who now may wait excess time for an accessible vehicle, and it would benefit the next-day ADA program because the limited number of accessible taxis hampers RTD’s use of the taxi company contractor. The taxi company providing ADA service does have accessible vehicles but not enough to meet the full trip volume that RTD could send to the company. The transit agency would like to see the taxi regulatory authority, which in Colorado is a state entity, require that a certain percentage of taxi vehicles be accessible.

46 ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN’S, TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND TAXIS The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA), which is known as TheRide, operates public transit services within the city of Ann Arbor and surrounding communities. Ann Arbor is located in southern Michigan, about 45 mi west of the city of Detroit. The transit agency’s service for people with disabilities and older adults predates the ADA and has been contracted to a private, for-profit company with a fleet of taxis and dedicated small buses and vans until recent events, which occurred after this case example was initially completed, prompted AAATA to change course. As explained in a postscript to this case example, Ann Arbor’s experience points to the importance of monitoring and oversight of transit agency subsidized taxi service. Ann Arbor’s Transit Environment TheRide’s service area includes Ann Arbor as well as the sur- rounding communities of Ypsilanti City, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, and Superior Township, encompassing about 81 mi2 and a population of 212,492. AAATA provides local fixed-route and express bus ser- vice, vanpools, and accessible services for people with dis- abilities and older adults. A-Ride, the transit agency’s ADA paratransit program, serves individuals who have been certi- fied as ADA eligible and is also open to seniors age 65 and older once they have registered. Taxi-Based Programs AAATA has a long history of providing demand-response transportation, and the transit agency’s use of taxis has evolved from that history. The agency began providing trans- portation service in the early 1970s, operating service directly with its own employees. At that time, the service was entirely demand response for the general public. By 1979, the agency transitioned to operating fixed-route service while continuing to provide demand response service but offering that service primarily for people with disabilities and older adults. The last general public dial-a-ride service ended in 1983. Service remained a direct in-house AAATA operation until 1985 when the transit agency began using taxis on a non- dedicated basis to serve the ambulatory riders for the demand- response/specialized service. However, AAATA kept the accessible van and small bus service as an in-house operation. After the ADA was enacted, the transit agency modified its demand-response/specialized service to meet ADA paratransit requirements, and by the late 1990s, the transit agency con- tracted out all specialized service. AAATA contracted with Yellow Taxi (now named Select Ride), Ann Arbor’s largest taxi company, for its early taxi ser- vices, beginning in 1985 and continuing that contractual rela- tionship to the present time, with the company providing ADA paratransit and a same-day taxi service. The AAATA has solicited proposals for the operation of ser- vice at least every 5 years. In some instances, Select Ride/Yellow Taxi submitted the only proposal; in other instances, there were multiple proposals. In 2005, the AAATA awarded the contract to a national firm. Following a disastrous rollout, the company was unable to operate the service, particularly the same-day service, and the AAATA canceled the contract after 30 days and worked with Select Ride/Yellow Taxi to restore service. Eligible Riders AAATA historically has included older adults in its special- ized services, and that inclusion holds true today. Seniors who are 65 and older and who obtain an AAATA ID card are eligible for the transit agency’s ADA paratransit service and the same-day service. The same-day service for older adults is “A-Ride Good As Gold,” a term that originated as a branding scheme to publi- cize the service. However, from an operational perspective, there are no differences in the day-to-day service of the same- day program for ADA eligible riders and for the older adults. AAATA reports that there are an estimated 5,000 riders registered for its specialized services, including those who are ADA certified and those registered as age 65 and older. Of total registrants, fewer than 1,000 are active users, predominantly individuals with disabilities. Reportedly, the older adults use the service only infrequently, often treating it as a backup or using it only for a specific purpose, such as trips to the grocery store or church. ADA Paratransit Service The taxi company operates the required next-day ADA para- transit service with a fleet of 23 sedans and eight accessible vehicles. Riders contact the taxi company directly to sched- ule trips. The accessible vehicles are driven by employees of the taxi company, not independent contractors. However, the taxi sedans are driven by independent contractors. The service area is structured into two defined parts: the “base service area” includes Ann Arbor City and Ypsilanti City, and the “township service area” includes the base service area and extends to include the three townships of Ypsilanti, Pitts- field, and Superior. Service is also provided to four specific des-

47 tinations that are outside the service areas, with trips to these four locations provided according to defined A-Ride rules. Service days and hours are different for the base area and the township area, with more service available in the base service area. Eligible riders pay $3 per one-way trip, either with cash or tickets. The transit agency sells ticket books, with a book of 10 tickets costing $30. The tickets are pro- vided for riders’ convenience and are not discounted. Same-Day Taxi Service The same-day service evolved when, in 1985, AAATA began using taxis on a nondedicated basis as part of its service for people with disabilities and older adults. AAATA determined to take advantage of available capacity in the for-hire taxi operation and offer same-day trips to eligible riders. Initially, the same-day service fare was the same as the fare for the advance reservation service. However, because same- day trips are more attractive than next-day trips, demand on the same-day program grew to levels of concern, so the transit agency increased the same-day fare to help control demand. Currently, the same-day fare is $4, one dollar more than the next-day ADA fare of $3. Although seemingly not a major fare difference, AAATA reports that the user group is price sensitive, with the fare differential not only helping to control demand for same-day trips but also encouraging riders to plan ahead and book next-day trips. The advance notice allows the taxi company to increase shared riding and improve productivity. In addition to the fare difference, there are controls on the same-day service. Significantly, same-day service is available only within the city of Ann Arbor, the base service area, which is a relatively compact area of 25 mi2. Trip lengths tend to be short. Data from FY 2014 show that the average trip length on the same-day program is about 3.3 mi. Moreover, the transit agency has encouraged the taxi contractor to operate the same- day service as shared ride, and given the relatively condensed service area, this is achievable to some degree. Riders are also restricted to two round trips per day. Trips generally are provided by sedan and, as available, by acces- sible vehicle. Payment to the Taxi Company The taxi company is paid by the hour for the dedicated service, which includes the accessible service. The current contract provides for an hourly rate of $55.95. The non-dedicated service, which includes the ambulatory ADA service and the same-day service, is reimbursed based on the meter charges. Data used to prepare the FY 2014 NTD report show that the average cost per trip is $22.34. For the trips provided by the nondedicated vehicles, the taxi company reviews each driver’s manifest at the end of the driver’s shift, and the driver is paid only for trips that were dispatched and that include all the required trip information. AAATA reviews the trip data provided by the taxi company before submitting payment. In the earlier years with taxi service, AAATA provided an extra payment to the taxi company that was specifically intended to go to the drivers in lieu of a tip. To ensure the payment went to the drivers, this stipulation was written into the contract with the taxi company. The extra payment is not currently included. Tipping Drivers There is no strict prohibition for riders regarding tips for the taxi drivers, although the transit agency informs the riders that its service is not traditional taxi service and tipping is not expected. Apparently, some riders do not necessarily adhere to that no-tipping guideline. AAATA reports that seniors tend to view the service as a shared-ride taxi service, and some may tip. People with disabilities tend to view the service as public transit and generally do not tip. Accessible Vehicles In AAATA’s early years using taxis, the transit agency required only sedans because the taxi company served only ambulatory trips. But once the transit agency contracted out all its special- ized service to taxis, accessible vehicles were needed. The taxi company then added a small number of accessible small buses to its fleet and since then has also added accessible minivans. In recent years, AAATA has purchased accessible small buses and leased them to the taxi company. To date, the tran- sit agency has provided six accessible vehicles to the taxi company and plans to provide an additional nine by 2016. Taxi Regulations The city of Ann Arbor has regulated taxis, and AAATA has relied on the city’s regulatory oversight of the taxi industry with regard to inspections of vehicles and drivers and rate setting. However, with changes to the regulatory structure in recent years, most of the taxi companies, including the one contracted to AAATA, converted to limousines, which are not regulated by the city. Limousines are licensed by the state, which pro- vides less oversight. This means that the taxi company providing ADA para- transit and same-day service for AAATA is no longer a taxi company but a limousine company, although its sedans still look like taxis, complete with meters and a rooftop light.

48 Although the regulatory change has provided greater flexi- bility to the company, the transit agency’s contract provisions for its ADA paratransit and same-day service ensure that the services meets the transit agency’s standards, and the transit agency reports that it has continued to receive good service, although there have been some recent concerns. However, the change in regulatory oversight has affected the Ann Arbor area. On-demand transportation is more com- petitive, with companies charging different rates and new companies entering the market to take advantage of the new flexibility. TNCs TNCs began operating in the Ann Arbor area in 2014, and it appears they have begun to have an impact on business for the established taxi/limousine companies. It is not clear if Ann Arbor will try to regulate TNCs. AAATA has a contractual relationship with its now- limousine company, which provides certain controls over the service it receives and helps ensure quality service, and the emergence of TNCs in the Ann Arbor area has not yet had an impact on the service provided to the transit agency. How- ever, particularly for the same-day service, this might be less true if the transit agency relied on more than one company and used the community’s on-demand transportation industry to serve the same-day trips with riders’ choice of company. AAATA’s ADA paratransit and same-day service for peo- ple with disabilities and older adults has operated well, but the transit agency reports “it is not clear yet” whether TNCs will affect the transit agency’s use of taxis/limousines in the future. Summary and Lessons Learned Ann Arbor’s transit agency has provided specialized transpor- tation service for people with disabilities and older adults for more than 35 years. AAATA first began using taxis for ambu- latory riders of the specialized service in 1985 and then transi- tioned all of the service to taxis by 1995, contracting with Ann Arbor’s largest taxi company. The transit agency developed a strong relationship with that company over the years, which provides required ADA paratransit service and same-day ser- vice for ADA-eligible riders. Both the ADA and same-day ser- vice are open to adults age 65 and older. The transit agency’s ability to provide more than just required ADA paratransit service and offer the services for older adults results, in part, from a stable and dedicated fund- ing stream that the agency receives from a portion of the local property tax. It also stems from the transit agency’s objective to provide a high level of service to the community’s residents, including those who have disabilities and those who are older. AAATA’s long-standing experience with taxis provides a number of insights: • The transit agency emphasized that its successful use of taxis—for more than 30 years—was built on a col- laborative relationship with the taxi company. AAATA specifically dedicated efforts to understand the taxi industry, and in turn, the taxi company learned what was important to the transit agency. The two organizations grew to understand each other’s business and developed a level of trust. For example, the transit agency under- stood early on that its service, although contracted to the taxi company, had to make economic sense for the driv- ers, most of whom operated as independent contractors. The transit agency also understood that it was important to compensate the taxi company for its time and costs to comply with the transit agency’s specific contract provisions that were above and beyond traditional taxi business, such as data requirements for the NTD and drug and alcohol testing. • The transit agency’s use of taxis through its contract with Select Ride/formerly Yellow Taxi benefited the entire taxi industry in the Ann Arbor area. Although the company grew its transit agency business, which makes up as much as 50% of the company’s total work, remain- ing taxi companies were left with more of the traditional demand for taxis. With more business available, these formerly smaller and less healthy companies expanded and got stronger. This was good for the taxi industry and also for the greater Ann Arbor community. Whether the industry continues on this path will depend to a great extent on the continuing effects of regulatory changes, with the industry’s move to limousine service, and the impact from TNCs. • AAATA’s same-day taxi service uses a different model than the one typically seen. More often, a transit agency uses a same-day taxi program to meet some of the demand for the required next-day ADA paratransit ser- vice by allowing eligible ADA riders to choose one taxi company from a number of participating companies and book a trip with the chosen company. The transit agency either provides a defined amount of discounted funds for riders to pay for their trips or subsidizes a predetermined trip cost on the taxi meter, with riders responsible for any cost over that amount. With such a user choice model, the transit agency does not have to require FTA’s drug and alcohol testing or extensive NTD reporting, and it sets cost controls by limiting eligible riders’ monthly funds or the per-trip cost. AAATA’s same-day program is different. First, its origins are not a strategy to help meet ADA paratransit demand; instead, the program evolved from the agency’s use of taxis before the ADA was enacted and continued as a way to meet more spontaneous trip needs than those provided by advance reservation ADA paratransit. The same-day service is also open to seniors. The transit agency does have limits on the same-day service, which

49 include restricting trips within a defined and compact service area, encouraging the contractor to provide shared ride and not exclusive ride trips, and allowing riders to take no more than two round trips per day. Postscript After the case example in Ann Arbor was completed for this synthesis, AAATA changed course with its long-time contrac- tor (Select Ride/formerly Yellow Taxi) and decided not to renew the contract expiring on April 30, 2015, as a result of some serious contract issues. Therefore, as of May 1, 2015, Select Ride is no longer operating service. As of that date, on an interim basis, AAATA began directly operating the service in the ADA-accessible vehicles the AAATA already owned and contracting with Blue Cab, a local taxi company, to provide same-day taxi-operated trips and some of the advance reserva- tion service for ambulatory persons. Blue Cab was the other proposer in the most recent request for proposers and operates a smaller service under contract to AAATA to provide general public service during late night hours and on holidays when fixed-route bus service does not operate. The interim opera- tion will continue for a year, and AAATA is in the process of evaluating whether to continue a turn-key operation, directly operate the service, or continue a combination of the two. WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND’S, SAME-DAY VOUCHER PROGRAM Washington County, the first county in the United States to be named for President George Washington, is located in the rural western portion of Maryland. The county’s transit depart- ment operates fixed-route and paratransit services as well as an employment-oriented service called JOBS in partnership with the county’s Department of Social Services. The public transit program, known as the County Com- muter, includes a same-day voucher program for people with disabilities and older adults. Washington County’s Transit Environment Washington County has a population of just under 150,000 (U.S. Census Bureau estimate 2014). Hagerstown is the larg- est community, with a population of 40,612 (U.S. Census Bureau estimate 2013); it is also the county seat. Washington County is primarily agricultural in character and includes more than 100 mi of shoreline along the Potomac River. Parts of the county include ridges that are part of the Appalachian Mountain system. The County Commuter runs eight fixed routes serving Hagerstown, some of which extend to small communities around Hagerstown. Service is provided weekdays and on Saturdays. The County Commuter also provides ADA paratransit ser- vice to complement the fixed routes as well as a subsidized same-day taxi voucher program for older adults and people with disabilities, known formally as the “Ride Assist Pro- gram.” This program is funded by Maryland’s Statewide Spe- cialized Transportation Assistance Program (SSTAP), a state grant program designed to support transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities. Same-Day Voucher Program Washington County’s same-day program for older adults and people with disabilities can be considered a taxi-based pro- gram, but it is officially a sedan-based program. Maryland’s Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates taxi ser- vices in several jurisdictions in the state including Hagerstown and also regulates sedan service statewide, differentiates between taxi and sedan service. Regulations governing sedan service are somewhat less rigorous than those for taxi services. For example, vehicles used in sedan service do not have to meet the same vehicle age requirements stipulated for taxis; sedan vehicles have no age or model year requirements—they need only to be “in good working order.” Sedan vehicles are also not required to have a rooftop light or meter. The fare-setting require- ments are also different, with more flexibility given to sedan service. With the relatively small population in Hagerstown and more rural nature of Washington County compared with more urbanized parts of Maryland, the market for the for- hire transportation industry is apparently not large enough to sustain taxi service as defined by the state’s PSC. Hagerstown did have a taxi company at some point when the same-day program started in the early 1990s, but for many years, local for-hire, on-demand transportation has been pro- vided by sedan companies. Currently, four of the sedan com- panies are providers for the same-day voucher program. To participate as a provider, a sedan company must be licensed with the Maryland PSC and meet the state’s regu- latory requirements for sedan service, including compli- ance with required insurance coverage. A company must also complete and submit Washington County’s provider registration form to participate in the program. This form asks for information about the company’s years in busi- ness, size of fleet, number of drivers, and service informa- tion, such as the company’s current average response time to a trip request.

50 Eligibility The voucher program is available to adults age 60 and older and individuals with disabilities. Those interested in the pro- gram apply by completing a one-page application form and providing proof of age or disability, the latter through written confirmation by a healthcare professional. Once approved, an eligible individual obtains a photo ID card, which is to be shown to the sedan driver to verify eli- gibility. Eligible users also can purchase vouchers, either in person or by mail. There are now about 350 eligible users in the program. Vouchers Users of the same-day program purchase books of paper vouchers to pay for their trips (see Figure 8). Each book rep- resents $10 worth of service, for which the user pays $3.75. The book contains individual vouchers in increments of one dollar, 50 cents, and 25 cents, together totaling $10. Users can purchase a set number of voucher books each month depending on where they live in relation to Hager- stown’s “public square,” which is considered the geographic center of the city. The Hagerstown area has been configured into four concentric zones around the public square. Those who live in the zone farthest from the public square can pur- chase 14 books of vouchers each month; those in the next farthest zone can purchase 12 books; those in the next zone can purchase 10 books; and those in the closest zone can purchase eight books. Washington County’s program subsidizes users based on distance from the city and its activity centers, recognizing that those who live farthest from the city and its medical ser- vices, grocery stores, and other needed destinations will have longer trip distances and therefore more costly trips. This scheme differs from many such programs, which subsidize users depending on income level or type of trip need (e.g., trips for dialysis). Users are encouraged to tip their drivers, but the pro- gram does not allow vouchers to be used as tips. However, there is recognition that users may not always observe this program rule. Users call any one of the participating sedan companies to schedule a trip. After the trip, the user shows the driver his or her photo ID card and pays the fare with the vouchers. An eligible individual can ask the cost of the trip beforehand, either when scheduling the trip or even before that by calling the company when considering a trip. Recordkeeping and Provider Payment The sedan drivers record each trip completed for a voucher program user on a trip log, documenting the rider’s name, address of the pickup and drop-off locations, and the trip fare. The fares are based on a zone map and per-mile charge. PSC regulations allow sedan companies to set their own fares, but the fare structures set by the participating companies are all within a similar range. The drivers return the completed logs and collected vouch- ers daily to their respective sedan company office, where the information is compiled at month’s end for a monthly invoice that is submitted to the county. Transit Department staff members review the invoice, matching trip information on the driver logs with returned vouchers. Reportedly, it is not uncommon for the review to find errors on the submitted invoices. Often, the errors are small but may be up to 10% to 20% and sometimes more of the billing figure. Invoices with errors or questionable data are returned for cor- rection, which in turn delays payment to the sedan company. Monitoring and review of the monthly invoices are time- consuming, and the county has begun researching technology options that would automate fare payment, trip reporting, and trip data collection. Implementation of in-vehicle equipment FIGURE 8 Washington County, Maryland’s, vouchers. Photo courtesy of Washington County, Maryland.

51 for fare payment and back-end software to process the data for monitoring and provider payment would greatly facilitate program management and oversight, reducing the opportu- nity for errors in provider company billing and program mis- use, a vulnerability of paper-based taxi subsidy programs. Accessible Vehicles There is no regulatory requirement for the sedan companies to have accessible vehicles, and the four companies partici- pating in Washington County’s voucher program have none. To provide accessible service for its voucher program, the county has an arrangement with one of Hagerstown’s largest human service agencies, the Community Action Council, Inc. (CAC), which operates accessible vehicles. Voucher program users who need an accessible vehicle call this human service agency, which provides the trip generally on a same-day basis. Users pay for the trip with vouchers. The CAC charges on a time and mileage basis. Summary and Lessons Learned Washington County, Maryland, is relatively rural in nature and its largest community, Hagerstown, has fewer than 41,000 residents. The market for on-demand transportation does not currently support a formal taxi industry. Never- theless, Washington County’s Transit Department for many years has offered a same-day voucher program for adults 60 years and older and people with disabilities; the program uses sedans instead of taxis. Regulations for sedan providers are somewhat less rigorous than those for taxi providers, and there is adequate business in the Hagerstown area to support a number of sedan companies. A key advantage of the voucher program is its cost- effectiveness, with a reported average trip cost of $7.25. County staff efforts for monitoring and oversight add admin- istrative time and cost to the program, but outsourcing the ser- vice to local transportation providers is more cost-effective than operating the service directly with county employees. Although the program serves a broader demographic than ADA-eligible riders only, the voucher program does meet some of the trip demand for ADA service in a more cost-effective manner when ADA-eligible individuals use the same-day ser- vice instead of next-day ADA paratransit. The average trip cost for the county’s ADA paratransit service is $17.24 (FY 2014). Washington County’s experience with its same-day voucher program offers several insights: • Public transportation agencies in small and rural com- munities can offer a same-day transportation program for older adults and people with disabilities even with- out a formal taxi industry. If the community has some level of for-hire on-demand transportation, a same-day program is possible. Sedans may not have meters as do traditional taxi vehicles, which means that the transit agency needs to structure a payment scheme that recog- nizes the lack of a meter, such as using a zone structure. The payment structure should be as straightforward as possible, understandable to users, rational for the driv- ers, and auditable for the transit agency. • There are options for providing same-day accessible service if the primary providers—taxis or sedans—do not operate wheelchair accessible service. Washington County entered into a partnership with a large human services agency that is able to offer same-day trips to those who are eligible for the voucher program and use wheelchairs. Costs to a transit agency for such trips will depend on the arrangement with the partnering agency. The arrangement ensures inclusive and equitable ser- vice for riders using wheelchairs. Payment to the human service agency for the trips also contributes some mea- sure, albeit small, of financial support to the human ser- vice agency. • A distance-based subsidy structure can be an effective and appropriate approach to subsidizing same-day taxi trips when the transit agency has a large service area with dispersed residential areas, some of which are con- siderably farther from the community’s major activity center. Washington County’s voucher program allocates voucher books to users depending on how far they live from the center of Hagerstown, the county’s main city, which offers the medical, shopping, and other services needed by the users. The transit agency uses a plan in which there are four concentric zones around the center of Hagerstown; users living in the zone farthest from the city’s center can purchase 14 voucher books each month, whereas those in the closest zone can purchase just eight books a month. • A paper-based taxi subsidy program requires time and effort on the part of the public transit agency to man- age, monitor, and audit completed trips. For Washing- ton County, this includes time devoted to working with the sedan companies, which are small businesses, their recordkeeping procedures, and with the users to ensure they understand the program and use it appropriately. • The regulations governing the sedan industry in Hagerstown are controlled by Maryland’s PSC, an agency located 75 mi away in downtown Baltimore. Washington County transit staff say that the county’s sedan industry, which is viable in great part because the regulations are less rigorous than those governing taxis, would benefit from somewhat tighter regulations, particularly regarding vehicle age and condition. However, county transit staff recognize that significantly stricter regulations that require substantially more sedan company investment might put the sedan companies out of business, which would eliminate providers for the transit agency’s same-day

52 voucher program. At the same time, the county transit staff would like to see improvements to the condition and appearance of the sedan companies’ vehicles and increased vehicle inspections. Regulations addressing these aspects of the sedan industry would improve the in-vehicle comfort for the voucher program users, the image of the program, and the image of the sedan indus- try in the community. TAXI COMPANY PERSPECTIVE Structured interviews with principals at two large taxi com- panies that provide transit agency–subsidized services for individuals with disabilities and older adults provide a bal- ance to the case examples of this synthesis. Summaries of the interviews with the two companies, Red Top Cab in Arlington, Virginia, and Luxor Cab in San Fran- cisco, California, are included here with background infor- mation on the companies and services provided and, more significantly, the company’s perspectives on providing the subsidized services. Red Top Cab—Arlington County, Virginia Red Top Cab, with a fleet of 355 taxicabs, including 28 wheelchair-accessible vehicles, is based in Arlington County, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the nation’s capital. Red Top is the flagship operation of its parent company, Transportation General, which has four additional taxi companies operating on the Virginia side of the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan region. Involvement in Public Transit Subsidized Service Red Top Cab has been providing taxi service in Arlington County for more than 50 years. Since the start and continuing over the years, seniors and people with disabilities have been a key ridership market for the company’s services. When Arlington County began using grant funding to pro- vide a specialized transportation program for seniors and people with disabilities, the county called upon Red Top as a provider. This program, “Arlington Access,” predates the regional ADA complementary paratransit program and transitioned, with var- ious changes, into the county’s current Specialized Transpor- tation for Arlington Residents (STAR) program, which serves individuals with disabilities who are ADA certified. Red Top has been one of Arlington County’s service pro- viders since STAR officially began in the late 1990s, provid- ing nondedicated service on a prescheduled next-day basis and on a same-day basis for eligible users’ medical trips. Red Top Cab has also been a provider for the Washington, D.C., region’s ADA paratransit program, known as Metro Access, provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Tran- sit Authority (WMATA). Although the MetroAccess service model has changed three times since the program began in 1994, Red Top has been a service provider since the start and currently serves as a subcontractor through a contract with one of the transportation service providers. For MetroAccess, Red Top provides nondedicated service for prescheduled next-day service. On day-of-service, the taxi company provides trips to riders not served by the dedicated providers. Red Top reports that about 10% of its overall service is contract work, defined as service for the transit agencies, Medicaid, and human service agencies. Of the contract work, somewhat more than half is for the paratransit services spon- sored by Arlington County and WMATA. Accessible Taxi Vehicles Red Top’s wheelchair-accessible taxi vehicles, which make up about 8% of its fleet, facilitate the taxi company’s involve- ment in the public transit agency programs (see Figures 9 and 10). In the early years of Arlington County’s specialized service for older adults and people with disabilities—before the regional ADA paratransit program—both the county and Red Top realized that wheelchair-accessible vehicles were needed. The county then issued new taxis licenses, called certificates, specifically for accessible vehicles, which Red Top received. This is a different approach than requiring that a taxi company ensure wheelchair-accessible vehicles make up a defined percentage of its total fleet. This latter approach is the one used by a county neigh- boring Arlington, where Red Top has a sister taxi company. FIGURE 9 Red Top Cab accessible taxi used for Arlington County’s STAR program. Photo courtesy of Arlington County, Virginia.

53 That county established a regulation requiring each taxi company with 25 or more vehicles to include 4% of the fleet as accessible taxis. Over the years, as Arlington County has issued new certifi- cates identified for accessible vehicles, Red Top has added to its accessible vehicle total. The availability of the taxi compa- ny’s accessible taxis is a key factor in providing transit agency subsidized service. Drivers Participating in the Public Transit Agency Services Red Top’s taxi drivers are independent contractors, as is the case for the vast majority of taxi drivers across the country. Unlike a traditional employee, a taxi driver cannot be told what work to do or what trips to serve. Instead, incentives are used to encourage taxi drivers to participate in the public transit agency programs and serve the subsidized trips. Such incen- tives can be provided by the public transit agency sponsor or the taxi company. In Red Top’s case, the company has been successful in working with the transit agencies to include driver incentives, and the company also provides incentives. For Arlington County’s STAR program, the county pro- vides an incentive payment of $5 for each trip for a rider using a wheelchair. Drivers of both sedan and accessible vehicles receive an extra $5 if the rider requires door-to-door service (as opposed to curb-to-curb service). Arlington County also provides a payment of $5 for a rider no-show. For the WMATA service, the drivers also receive a $5 no-show fee. Red Top gives these incentives directly to the drivers as well as the full fare for the trip. For drivers of the accessible vehicles, Red Top provides an incentive with a lower weekly vehicle lease fee, which equates to about 25% of the rate for an equivalent nonaccessible vehicle (of the same model year and nonhybrid). Red Top reports that most of its drivers, about 55% to 60%, participate in the two transit agency subsidized programs. Participation is voluntary and requires that the drivers attend additional training beyond what the company requires for new drivers. For drivers of nonaccessible taxis, an additional sensi- tivity training session is required beyond the initial 2 to 3 days of training (initial training varies by the specific experience that the driver brings to Red Top). It is essential that drivers of the accessible vehicles accumulate several months of sedan driving before being considered for an accessible vehicle, and then receive another day of training. Significantly, the drivers take on the additional training commitments although they are not paid for any training time. The high percentage of Red Top drivers participating in the transit agency subsidized trips results, in great part, because the trips tend to be “good trips,” meaning that fares are typically more than the fares for general public, private- pay riders. Red Top reports that the average fare for a public transit agency trip is about 50% higher than the average fare for a general public, private-pay rider. In addition, although the regular taxi business tends to be seasonal in nature, the transit agency trips are relatively steady throughout the year. This means that taxi drivers taking the transit agency trips have a steadier flow of business throughout the year. Requirements for Participating in Public Transit Agency Programs A taxi company that participates in transit agency subsidized services typically must meet extra requirements, such as those related to driver training, reporting, FTA’s drug and alcohol testing program, and insurance. As noted previously, Red Top provides the extra training for its drivers necessitated by its work with the two transit FIGURE 10 Red Top Cab accessible taxi. Photo courtesy of KFH Group.

54 agencies, with an emphasis on the transit agencies’ policies and procedures. Supplemental training is required if poli- cies and procedures change. For example, WMATA’s poli- cies regarding passenger pickups were revised several years ago, requiring door-to-door service for all riders when cer- tain conditions are met at the pickup location. Red Top then had to provide the supplemental training for its drivers on the revised procedures. Reporting requirements set by the two transit agencies can be significant, requiring administrative time and cost, particularly compiling data and billing information for end- of-month reports. For Red Top, this is considered part of the cost of doing business with transit agencies. Participation in public transit agency work also requires that Red Top and its drivers comply with the FTA’s drug and alcohol testing requirements. Because the trips served by Red Top are assigned by the transit agencies through their call center contractors, the FTA’s drug and alcohol testing rules apply. This is not the case for taxi-based programs where riders choose the taxi company for their trips, which is the system used by most same-day taxi programs spon- sored by public transit agencies. For those same-day pro- grams, the FTA’s drug and alcohol testing requirements do not apply. WMATA has facilitated Red Top’s drug and alcohol test- ing requirements by including Red Top within its program. This means that the taxi company has not had to set up its own separate program, which would have required additional time and expense to implement and administer. Arlington County benefits from this arrangement as it uses the same pool of Red Top drivers as does WMATA. Regarding insurance, both Arlington County and WMATA accept the insurance levels set by Arlington County, which regulates its taxi industry (24). These levels are considerably below those set by the types of auto liability insurance policies seen for dedicated transportation contractors, which may be as high as $5 to $10 million. Red Top also reports that it does not have extra insurance premiums for its wheelchair-accessible taxis, something that is not the case for all taxi companies. This could be because of the large size of Red Top and perhaps its training program, but operating the accessible vehicles has not added extra insurance costs. Thus, insurance costs have not affected Red Top’s par- ticipation in the transit agencies’ programs. Should require- ments for insurance be set at significantly higher levels, for example $1 million for auto liability, Red Top indicates that it would need to revisit its participation in transit agency pro- grams. As the company noted, a transit agency that wants to take advantage of the lower cost structure of a taxi company cannot layer on significant extra costs and still expect the company to offer a lower cost structure. Advantages and Challenges of Partnering with Public Transit Agencies Red Top sees several advantages to its participation with public transit agency programs. Company representatives said that seniors and people with disabilities have been “our riders” from the start. The company wanted to continue serv- ing those riders, whether through traditional taxicab service, as was the case before federal funding began subsidizing spe- cialized transportation, or through the various programs now sponsored by public transit agencies and other public entities. Red Top has been successful in continuing its role as a trans- portation provider for seniors and people with disabilities. From a business perspective, the accessible equipment and experience gained from the public transit agency work has positioned the company to gain similar work for other programs and agencies, such as Medicaid transportation. Red Top’s contract work has grown since its involvement with Arlington County’s specialized transportation service in the 1990s and now represents about 10% of its total work. The business case also shows that the transit agency sub- sidized trips are “good trips.” This provides business and income for the drivers, who in turn generate income for the taxi company. Participating with transit agencies and their subsidized programs is not without challenges. There are various require- ments to meet, as noted, most of which require time and cost. Red Top has incorporated the requirements for which it is responsible into its business model—the reporting, driver training, and provision of accessible equipment. In addition, the company benefits from WMATA’s inclusion of the taxi drivers and other safety-sensitive staff in WMATA’s drug and alcohol program, which saves Red Top time and cost. Payment for transit agency trips can be an issue. Red Top pays its drivers daily, which is a benefit for the drivers, but it is not paid for the transit agency work until, at the earliest, 30 days later. The taxi company is essentially lending money on the transit agency’s behalf without any interest payment. There are occasions when the taxi company’s invoice is held up beyond the usual time and the full amount not paid for rea- sons such as a handful of questionable trips or late submittal of the large complex invoices. Such delays can be problematic. For Arlington County’s service, Red Top works cooperatively with the county’s call center managers to review and resolve billing questions before the bills are conveyed to Arlington County so that potential billing delays are avoided. Transportation Network Companies TNCs such as Uber and Lyft are active in the Washington, D.C., area and have had an impact on Red Top’s business. The company reports that it has around 10% fewer drivers

55 than previously, most likely the result of TNCs. The com- pany also reports that its call volume is down about 15%. The company has seen its call volume fluctuate in the past, often because of actions of the federal government that affect fed- eral employees, such as the 2013 federal government shut- down. The recent decline is likely mostly because of TNCs but may also be a result of the federal government’s seques- tration, which brought automatic across-the-board spending cuts to federal agencies. Red Top has used technology, including a commercial app, for many years. With the arrival of TNCs, company rep- resentatives report Red Top has “stepped up our game.” Red Top has introduced its own apps that riders can use to book a trip, and one of these has features similar to those of the Uber app. Reportedly, 10% of current dispatch trips are booked by one of Red Top’s apps. Red Top has not seen as much impact from TNCs on its sister taxi company that operates in a neighboring large suburban county. But it may be a matter of time before TNCs expand from the higher-density, closer-in suburbs such as Arlington County to the more suburban, less-dense jurisdictions in the region. Summary Comments Red Top has been involved with public transit programs since the 1990s, contributing to the cost efficiency of STAR and WMATA’s MetroAccess program and benefiting from the business the two transit agencies generate. Red Top’s advice to other taxi companies considering involvement with a public transit agency’s subsidized service is twofold. First, a taxi company could seriously consider an offer of work- ing with its local transit agency and serving the subsidized trips; as long as a taxi company is willing to meet the extra requirements of the transit agency, the transit agency’s work is “good business.” Second, the taxi company must be aware of the details that come with that work and address them up- front. For example, cash flow is an issue because drivers are paid weeks before payment is received for the transit agency work. The taxi company must have the financial capability to deal with that reality. Red Top’s experience with transit agency subsidized ser- vice suggests that transit agencies should understand several aspects of the taxi business when considering use of taxis. Incentives for drivers to provide transit agency subsidized trips are effective. This is particularly true for accessible taxi service, given the additional costs and time associated with providing such service. Red Top provides its own incentives but emphasizes the important role of the transit agency’s incentives. Requirements set by transit agencies for data reporting, especially end-of-the-month reports, increase a taxi company’s administrative time and cost. A taxi company must consider the extent to which the business generated by the transit agency business covers this added cost. A taxi company may face additional costs related to lia- bility insurance and FTA’s drug and alcohol testing require- ments for providing transit agency subsidized service. Again, a taxi company must weigh how the additional requirements affect the company’s bottom line. As a private business, a taxi company must remain profitable to keep operating. It is also important that transit agencies understand that any delays to its payment to the taxi company can be prob- lematic, given that taxi companies typically pay their drivers daily for the subsidized trips. Some transit agencies may hold up an entire month’s payment for a handful of questionable trips. Red Top suggests that it is helpful to have a contract that allows for delayed payment of specifically disputed charges, not the entire invoice. Luxor Cab—San Francisco, California Luxor Cab, Inc., has provided taxi service in San Francisco since 1928, almost 90 years. The company currently has 148 sedans and 17 wheelchair-accessible minivans in its fleet. Early Involvement with Accessible Taxi Service Luxor Cab began providing accessible taxi service in 1989, not because of any regulatory requirement but because the wife of the company’s president had a disability. The com- pany has continued to provide accessible taxi service and currently has the largest fleet of accessible minivans among San Francisco taxi companies. Participating in Public Transit Agency Subsidized Services Beginning in the early 1980s, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which now regulates taxis in the city, has required that all taxi companies participate in its subsidized services for people with disabilities and older adults. Initially, SFMTA used taxis to serve ambulatory riders eligible for the transit agency’s subsidized transportation

56 service, and Luxor participated with its sedans. Over the years, the transit agency expanded its use of taxis and, once accessible taxi vehicles were available, SFMTA used San Francisco’s taxi industry to provide a same-day service to individuals who are eligible for the transit agency’s ADA paratransit service. This service, called SF Taxi, is the tran- sit agency’s major taxi-based program. SFMTA also has two smaller taxi-based programs that serve specific groups of individuals with disabilities and older adults who are not ADA paratransit eligible. Luxor Cab is one of three taxi companies that are the main providers for SFMTA’s taxi-based programs. Figure 11 shows one of Luxor Cab’s taxi vehicles. Accessible Taxis To ensure that San Francisco’s taxi industry had acces- sible vehicles—called ramp taxis—permits were issued specifically for such vehicles starting in 1994. With vari- ous issuances, Luxor Cab gained accessible vehicles and now has 17. The company reports that the accessible taxis have a shorter life-span and are more expensive to maintain than sedans, with slim financial returns to the company. Luxor typically gets 220,000 to 250,000 mi from a ramp taxi, compared with 350,000 mi from a sedan. Maintenance costs are higher for the ramp taxis than for the sedans by a factor of three. The heavier weight of the vans, with their additional 900 to 1,500 lb resulting from the conversion to include the accessible equip- ment, coupled with the difficult operating environment of San Francisco’s steep hills are particularly hard on the vans’ transmissions. The regulations governing the ramp taxis have evolved. Initially, a ramp taxi permit or medallion was owned by an individual who affiliated with a taxi company. The taxi com- pany operated that vehicle, and part of the cost of operating the vehicle was a payment to the medallion holder. At that time, Luxor reports that the company charged $100 per 12-h shift to a driver to operate the van. That charge covered not only payment to the medallion holder but maintenance, lia- bility insurance, accounting, dispatching, and other support for the ramp taxi service. SFMTA’s regulations now allow a taxi company to have a ramp taxi permit, and Luxor reports that its charge per 12-h shift has been reduced to $70. SFMTA with support from Luxor has developed incen- tives for drivers of the accessible taxis, which have become particularly important as TNCs such as Uber and Lyft have become active in San Francisco and lured taxi drivers away from taxi companies. As documented in the case example of San Francisco in this synthesis report, these incentives include a $10 payment for each wheelchair trip, a ticket (“short”) that allows the driver to go to the front of the airport’s taxi line after two wheelchair pickups in the outlying parts of the service area, and a contribution to the driver’s down payment for a taxi permit for each wheelchair trip, if the driver is not yet a medallion owner. These incentives have been helpful in encouraging drivers to operate the ramp taxis. Despite this, just 11 of Luxor Cab’s 17 ramp taxis are in service. Advantages and Challenges of Participating with SFMTA Luxor reports that a primary advantage of its participation in San Francisco’s subsidized transportation services for people with disabilities is to “give back to the city.” The company initially started accessible taxi service for family reasons, and it continues to derive fulfillment from providing transporta- tion for people with disabilities. However, the taxi company reports that its ramp taxi business for SFMTA has declined in the past several years. Luxor has been active in disability transportation issues. The company’s president now serves as the chair of SFMTA’s Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), which is the transit agency’s advisory group for riders, service providers, social service agency representatives, and others to provide input for the paratransit services. A primary challenge of participating in the subsidized pro- grams for SFMTA is the cost associated with the ramp taxis. In addition to the higher operating costs for the accessible vehicles, they are more expensive to acquire. Luxor reports that an accessible minivan costs from $25,000 to $34,000, whereas a sedan for taxi service costs $15,000 to $18,000. The emergence and strength of TNCs in San Francisco have also been a challenge. TNCs The impact of TNCs, such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, on San Francisco’s taxi industry was described earlier in the syn- thesis report’s case example of San Francisco. Similar to the other taxi companies in the city, Luxor Cab has been directly affected. FIGURE 11 Luxor Cab, Inc., taxi vehicle. Photo courtesy of Luxor Cab, Inc. (from website).

57 The company has lost more than one-third of its taxi driv- ers to TNCs: 400 to 500 from an initial roster of 1,300. Some of the taxi drivers began by using a TNC-provided device while driving their taxi. Apparently, one of the TNCs was essentially “buying” Luxor’s drivers with various incentives. Luxor reports that it saw the opening created for TNCs to emerge in San Francisco. By 2003 and 2004, the demand for taxis surpassed what the industry could supply. Luxor’s taxis were serving as many as 82 fares over the day’s two shifts and were essentially “maxed out.” The company could not serve all its calls. The taxi industry tried to get more taxi permits issued to meet the demand. With strong demand for taxi service continuing and not enough taxi supply, the TNCs entered the market and by 2010– 2011 began to meet trip demand, particularly for younger people in the city. By 2014, it was reported that there were as many as 10,000 TNC vehicles operating in San Francisco (25). San Francisco still has a taxi industry, but it has shrunk. Luxor reports that now its users are predominantly riders older than 40 years and those loyal to taxi service. Summary Comments Luxor Cab has been in the taxi business for almost nine decades and has seen the business change over the years. In particular, its participation in the paratransit services subsidized by San Francisco’s public transportation agency has been important and worthwhile, although particularly for the accessible ser- vice, not a service that is highly profitable. It is important to recognize the costs involved in providing transit agency subsi- dized services, but “it’s the right thing to do.” Regarding competition from the TNCs, Luxor is devel- oping new ideas and strategies to boost business. One is the Luxor Legacy Program, which would recognize and reward taxi drivers who consistently provide dependable and good service. This would encourage those drivers to stay in the taxi industry and continue to provide good taxi service. Luxor also reports that taxi company apps, which operate like those of the TNCs, are an important tool for dealing with competition from TNCs. Luxor Cab’s experience with SFMTA-subsidized ser- vice emphasizes two aspects of the service that a tran- sit agency should understand when considering the use of taxis. First, transit agency incentives for drivers to pro- vide the service are important, especially for wheelchair- accessible service. Second, transit agencies must recognize the higher costs borne by a taxi company to acquire and maintain accessible vehicles as compared with traditional taxi sedans. ISSUES FOR A TRANSIT AGENCY TO CONSIDER IF PLANNING TO USE TAXIS The experiences of the case example transit agencies, the insights and comments of the two taxi companies interviewed, and the results from the surveyed transit agencies together identify issues and program elements that a transit agency should consider if planning or implementing a taxi-based pro- gram to serve people with disabilities and older adults. These include: • Service model: How will the taxi company (or companies) by used? – As a contractor for dedicated service. – As a contractor for nondedicated service. – For a user-side subsidy program. n Ensure the program is designed so that trip demand does not result in costs exceeding the transit agen- cy’s budget for the subsidized program. • Taxi regulations: – What entity regulates the local taxi industry? – Are there regulations or regulatory incentives for accessible taxi vehicles? – Consider working with the taxi regulatory entity to suggest how the regulations might encourage and support the transit agency subsidized service. • Liability insurance: – What are the insurance requirements established by the taxi regulatory entity? – Are these sufficient for the transit agency? • FTA drug and alcohol testing: – Does the service model require compliance? – If so, does the transit agency have options to facilitate the taxi company’s compliance with the requirements? • Accessible taxi vehicles and service: – How will the taxi program ensure accessible vehicles and service to riders who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices? – Consider options to ensure the taxi company has accessible vehicles. – Consider specific incentives for the drivers operating accessible vehicles to provide accessible service. • Ensure an understanding of the taxi industry and initiate a relationship with the taxi company: – Look for a taxi company interested in developing a relationship with the transit agency and seeking to grow its business with a new market opportunity— that of transit agency subsidized service. • Payment structure: – How will be the taxi company be paid (which may depend on whether the service is dedicated or non dedicated)? – How frequently will payment be made? – What data will be required of the taxi company for billing and invoicing purposes? – What incentives might be provided to taxi drivers for the transit-agency subsidized trips?

58 – Will payment be provided for passenger no-shows? – If questionable trips in an invoice submitted by the taxi company are found, consider delaying payment only for those questionable trips, not for the entire invoice. – Recognize that transit agency requirements such as data reporting, accessible taxi vehicles, and liability insurance result in additional costs and efforts for the taxi company. • Technology: – Does the taxi company have in-vehicle technology? – Does the transit agency have the resources to imple- ment an automated rider payment system, using swipe or debit cards, with electronic tracking and GPS data? – If technology is introduced, allow adequate time, resources, training, and outreach for implementation. • Data reporting: – What operational data will be required from the taxi company? – Ensure the taxi company understands the data reporting requirements (particularly if NTD data are involved). • Driver training: – What training will be provided to the taxi drivers who participate in the transit agency subsidized service? – Who will provide that training? • Outreach and training to riders: – Ensure adequate efforts to introduce a taxi-based service to the eligible older adults and people with disabilities. – Be clear as to what the service is and what it is not. – Develop clear policies and procedures about the taxi program and how to use it, which could be provided to riders (as well as the taxi drivers). • Design and implement comprehensive monitoring and oversight procedures: – Ensure dedicated efforts and adequate transit agency resources, including staff time to monitor and audit taxi trips. – Technology that provides electronic processing of rider payment and trip data is a major advantage for monitoring subsidized taxi trips. • Communications: – Maintain continuous communications with the taxi company.