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.
ADA Paratransit Service Models A Synthesis of Transit Practice Will Rodman William High Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Boston, MA T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP SYNTHESIS 135 2018 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Public Transportation â¢ Administration and Management â¢ Planning and Forecasting
TCRP SYNTHESIS 135 Project J-7, Topic SG-14 ISSN 1073-4880 ISBN 978-0-309-39022-4 Â© 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Cover image: A driver helps a paratransit customer disembark with her wheelchair. The photo is superimposed on a service area map of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authorityâs The RIDE service. By Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nationâs growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob- lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera- tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213âResearch for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administrationânow the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat- ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen- cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP SYNTHESIS 135 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Mariela Garcia-Colberg, Senior Program Officer Demisha Williams, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications TCRP PROJECT J-7 PANEL Brad J. Miller, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, FL (Chair) Donna DeMartino, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, CA Michael Ford, Camas, WA Bobby J. Griffin, Griffin and Associates, Flower Mound, TX Ronald Kilcoyne, North County Transit District, Oceanside, CA Jeanne Krieg, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, Antioch, CA Paul J. Larrousse, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick David A. Lee, Connecticut Transit, Hartford Elizabeth Presutti, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority, IA Robert H. Prince, Jr., FOOT PRINCE, Jacksonville, FL Jarrett W. Stoltzfus, Foothill Transit, West Covina, CA Faith Hall, FTA Liaison TOPIC SG-14 PANEL Carrie Butler, Lextran, Lexington, KY Deva Deka, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, New Brunswick, NJ Tiffani Fink, Paratransit, Inc., Sacramento, CA Susan Florentino, Susantino Consulting, Portland, OR Tracy Harrington, Milwaukee County Transit System, Milwaukee, WI Sabrina Herrera, Sun Van, Tucson, AZ Karl M. Johanson, Magnus Mobility Management, Pullman, WA Christian T. Kent, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Washington, DC Susan Clark, FTA Liaison Stephen J. Andrle, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S
ADA paratransit demand continues to grow while resources are dwindling. For that rea son, transit agencies nationwide are exploring service models to more effectively meet present and future demand. This synthesis study, conducted by Will Rodman and William High, with support from their colleagues at Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, explains all service delivery models available and documents the way various elements of the service and contracts are structured to enhance the likelihood of achieving certain results related to cost efficiency, service quality, or the balance of the two. The synthesis includes an extensive literature review and profiles of 29 transit agencies that responded to the administered survey and reflect the various service models used for ADA (and coordinated) paratransit systems. The transit agencies were chosen because of their geographic diversity, use of different service delivery models, and size. Each profile includes a summary of the system and highlights its service delivery models, information on contracting, challenges, outcomes, and lessons learned. The synthesis will be useful to transit agencies as they evaluate their current and future paratransit service. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an imme- diately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limita- tions of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand. Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat- ing the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Coop- erative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee autho- rized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-7, âSynthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems,â searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, docu- mented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE By Mariela Garcia-Colberg Staff Officer Transportation Research Board FOREWORD
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Will Rodman and William High. David Koffman provided a technical review. Danielle DeCharles provided graphic support. Brynn Leopold compiled the survey responses. All are from Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. The authors would like to thank the SG-14 for their guidance and assistance and the agencies and indi- viduals listed here who responded to the SG-14 survey. Location Transit or Paratransit Agency Service Name Contact and Title Ann Arbor, MI AAATA A-Ride Brian Clouse, Paratransit Coordinator Chris White, Manager, Service Development Atlanta, GA MARTA MARTA Mobility Thomas Young, Director of Mobility Services Austin, TX Capital Metro MetroAccess Chad Ballentine, Director of Paratransit Kris Turner, Business Systems Analyst Boston, MA MBTA The RIDE Mike Hulak, Manager, Paratransit Operations Carol Joyce-Harrington, Manager, Paratransit Administration Broward Co., FL Broward Co. Transit Transportation Options Paul Strobis, Paratransit Manager Chicago, IL Pace ADA Paratransit Melinda Metzger, Director, Paratransit Sally Ann Williams, Division Manager Columbus, OH COTA Mainstream Amy Hockman, Director of Mobility Services Dallas, TX DART Mobility Management Doug Douglas, VP, Mobility Management Tammy Haenftling, AVP, Mobility Management Chris Hawkins, Manager, Travel Ambassadors Denver, CO RTD Access-a-Ride Bruce Abel, Assistant General Manager Larry Buter, Manager of Paratransit Services Houston, TX Metro METROLift Michael Andrade, Director, Paratransit Services Jennifer Fehribach, FTA/PMO Coordinator Kansas City, MO KCATA RideKC Freedom Jameson Auten, VP, Regional Service Delivery Lewis Lowry, Operations Manager Las Vegas, NV RTC of So. Nevada RTC Paratransit Dan Howland, Director of Paratransit and Specialized Services Los Angeles, CA Access Services Access Paratransit F. Scott Jewell, Director, Administration Milwaukee, WI MCTS Transit Plus Tracy Harrington, Director of Paratransit Nashville, TN Nashville MTA AccessRide Marilyn Yokley, Manager, AccessRide Dan Freudberg, Director of Service Quality, AccessRide New Jersey NJ TRANSIT Access Link Adam Katz, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, ADA Services New York, NY NYCT Access-a-Ride Carol Jones, Policy Analyst, Department of Buses, Paratransit Division Diane McFarlane, Eligibility & Compliance Officer, Department of Buses, Paratransit Division
Location Transit or Paratransit Agency Service Name Contact and Title Oakland/East Bay, CA AC Transit & BART East Bay Paratransit Consortium Laura Timothy, Manager of Access and Accessibility (BART) Orlando, FL LYNX ACCESS LYNX Timothy May, Manager, Paratransit Operations Orange Co., CA OCTA Access Kurt Burlingame, Manager Beth McCormick, General Manager, Transit Philadelphia, PA SEPTA CCT Connect Cheryl Jenkins, Finance Manager Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro ADA Paratransit Ron Brooks, Manager Accessible Transit Services Pierce County, WA Pierce Transit Shuttle Rob Andresen-Tenace, Manager, Specialized Transportation Pittsburgh, PA ACCESS ACCESS Karen Hoesch, Executive Director Portland, OR TriMet LIFT Eileen Collins, Manager, LIFT Service Delivery Salt Lake City, UT UTA UTA Paratransit Cherryl Beveridge, General Manager, Special Services San Francisco, CA SFMTA San Francisco Paratransit Annette Williams, Manager, Accessible Services Program Jonathan Cheng, Paratransit Coordinator Seattle, WA King County Metro Access Transportation Michael Glauner, Transportation Planner Lorrie Alfonsi, Transportation Planner Washington, DC WMATA Metro Access Christian Kent, Director, Metro Access Erkan Ekingen, Operations Performance Analyst
1 Summary 12 Chapter 1 Introduction 12 Project Goals 12 Methodology 13 Report Organization 14 Chapter 2 Literature Review 14 National Research 17 Studies of Specific ADA Paratransit Systems 17 Peer Reviews 18 Contracting Strategies and Payment Structures 18 How the Documents Informed This Study 19 Chapter 3 Service Design Archetypes and Contracting Strategies 19 Introduction 19 Management Structures for ADA Paratransit 25 Division of Work Among Multiple Carriers 28 Service Mix 30 Relationship Between Service Models, Contractor Procurement Strategies, and Payment Structures 32 Alternative Services for ADA Paratransit Customers 35 Chapter 4 Survey and Service Profiles 35 Survey Participants 35 Survey Process and Instrument 38 Transit Agency Profiles 39 Ann Arbor, MI A-Ride 41 Atlanta, GA MARTA Mobility 43 Austin, TX MetroAccess 45 Boston, MA The RIDE 47 Broward County, FL Transportation Options 49 Chicago, IL ADA Paratransit 51 Columbus, OH Mainstream 53 Dallas, TX Mobility Management Services 55 Denver, CO Access-a-Ride 57 Houston, TX METROLift 58 Kansas City, MO RideKC Freedom 61 Las Vegas, NV RTC Paratransit 63 Los Angeles, CA Access Paratransit 65 Milwaukee, WI Transit Plus 67 Nashville, TN AccessRide C O N T E N T S
69 New Jersey Access Link 71 New York, NY Access-A-Ride 73 Oakland/East Bay, CA East Bay Paratransit Consortium 75 Orange County, CA ACCESS 78 Orlando, FL ACCESS LYNX 79 Philadelphia, PA CCT Connect 81 Phoenix, AZ ADA Paratransit 83 Pierce County, WA SHUTTLE 85 Pittsburgh, PA ACCESS 87 Portland, OR LIFT 89 Salt Lake City, UT UTA Paratransit 91 San Francisco, CA San Francisco Paratransit 94 Seattle, WA Access Transportation 96 Washington, DC MetroAccess 99 Chapter 5 Survey Analysis Summary 99 Service Model Types 101 Direct Transit Agency Involvement 104 Use of Brokers and Call and Control Center Contractors 109 Use of Multiple Service Provider Contractors 114 Zoned versus Unzoned Service Areas, Centralized Booking, and Transfers 115 Single Contractor Service Models 117 Integrated Non-Dedicated Service Providers 120 Transit Agency Provision of Assets 120 Alternative Service for ADA Paratransit Customers 122 Methods of Contractor Payment 128 Other Noteworthy Findings from the Survey 135 Chapter 6 Conclusions 135 Transit Agencies Performing All or Some Primary Functions 136 Transit Agencies Using an Operational Broker 136 Transit Agencies Using Call and Control Center Managers 136 Use of Turnkey Contractor(s) 137 Use of Zoned versus Unzoned Contractors 138 Use of Non-Dedicated Service Providers 138 Contracting for Dedicated Service Providers 139 Other Conclusions 139 Future Research 140 References 141 Appendix A Glossary of Paratransit Terms 154 Appendix B List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 156 Appendix C Survey Questionnaire 174 Appendix D Survey Responses by Question