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

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

49 Using the typology of DRT systems described in Chapter 5, this chapter presents performance data for representative DRT systems for the five performance measures selected for the Guide- book, facilitating performance comparisons among similar types of DRT systems. The chapter includes the following: • The selection of representative DRT systems. • Performance data from the representative systems, providing benchmarks within each of the seven DRT system categories. • Additional details about the characteristics of individual DRT systems affecting their perform- ance are provided in an attachment to this chapter. 6.1 Representative DRT Systems Within the Typology To assist DRT systems in comparing their performance against other systems, the Guidebook provides representative data for a number of DRT systems within each category of the DRT typology defined in Chapter 5. Selecting Representative DRT Systems To find representative DRT systems within each of the seven categories of DRT, various DRT systems of different types and in different cities across the country were contacted for participa- tion in this research project. This was not an attempt to provide a statistically valid sample of systems, but rather to provide valid reference points for each category of DRT system. There was an attempt made to provide geographic diversity of representative DRT systems, but no objec- tive to seek “stars” or “poor performers” to frame the data. Collecting Data from Representative DRT Systems Once representative DRT systems agreed to participate, the researchers collected the perform- ance data—NTD-defined and other data for FY 2005—using on-site visits and telephone inter- views. Information about the system and its operating environment was also collected to develop an understanding of the factors and circumstances affecting each system’s performance. It was also agreed with the participating systems that the research report would not relate specific per- formance data to individual systems. The participating systems are listed in Table 6-1, and their locations are shown in Figure 6-1. Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems C H A P T E R 6

50 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation DRT Systems City and State ACCESS (Orange County Transportation Authority) Orange, California ACCESS, King County Metro Seattle, Washington ACCESS Lynx Paratransit Service Orlando, Florida ACCESS Transportation Systems (Port Authority of Allegheny County) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania access-a-Ride (Regional Transportation District) Denver, Colorado ADA Paratransit – C.A.T. (Cities Area Transit) Grand Forks, North Dakota Ames Transit Agency/CyRide Ames, Iowa CAT ADA Paratransit (Citizens Area Transit) Las Vegas, Nevada CCT Connect – SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Champaign-Urbana MTD (Mass Transit District) Champaign-Urbana, Illinois Charlotte Dial-A-Ride Services CATS (Charlotte Area Transit System) Charlotte, North Carolina CitiAccess Lubbock, Texas City of Glendale Dial-A-Ride Glendale, Arizona Corona Dial-A-Ride City of Corona, California CountyRide (Baltimore County) Baltimore, Maryland DART Paratransit (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) Dallas, Texas Eau Claire Paratransit Eau Claire, Wisconsin Fastran Fairfax County, Virginia JTA Connexion (Jacksonville Transportation Authority) Jacksonville, Florida Kitsap Transit ACCESS Lift, Tri-Met LinkPlus Logan Call-A-Ride Medical Motor Service of Rochester & Monroe County, Inc. Metro Mobility METROLift (Metropolitan Transit Authority) Mobility/Paratransit (Maryland Transit Administration) MTS Rides (Monterey-Salinas Transit) Piedmont Wagon Transit RABA Demand-Response (Redding Area Bus Authority) Reserve-A-Max – MAX Transit Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride RTC/Access (Regional Transportation Commission) Spokane Transit Paratransit SweetHART (Housatonic Area Regional Transit) Teleride (Chatham Area Transit) TransIT-plus UTA Flextrans Paratransit Service (Utah Transit Authority) Zips Dial-A-Ride (Rochester City Lines) Bremerton, Washington Portland, Oregon Wenatchee, Washington Logan, Utah Rochester, New York Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota Houston, Texas Baltimore, Maryland Monterey, California Hickory, North Carolina Redding, California Holland, Michigan Roseville, California Reno, Nevada Spokane, Washington Danbury, Connecticut Savannah, Georgia Frederick, Maryland Salt Lake City, Utah Rochester, Minnesota Table 6-1. DRT systems participating as representative systems.

Figure 6-1. Representative DRT systems participating in research project.

52 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation In collecting the data from the DRT systems, it was discovered that there were cases where the reported data did not fit NTD definitions. In such cases, additional information was requested so that adjustments could be made to ensure the data were more consistent with NTD. Two common reporting problems were found. The first was the inclusion of vehicle capital costs with operating data. In several cases, the capital costs of vehicles were included in operat- ing cost data for DRT systems that contract services. There were examples of this with DRT systems in both the small urban and largest urban categories. The second problem related to reporting supplemental, non-dedicated taxi services. There were several systems using supplementary taxi services where the taxi trips were included, but not any miles or hours for the taxi service, or the taxi costs were included but there was no taxi service data included. There was a third issue, which was found at three systems, two small and one large urban sys- tem, with contracted service. And that was the absence of any city administrative costs over the contracted service cost with the reported total DRT operating costs. With additional information from the DRT systems concerning data reporting issues, adjust- ments were made to the data. The adjustments did not make major differences in the resulting performance results, and all instances of adjusted performance data are noted in the results presented in this chapter. 6.2 Comparing Your Performance Against Other Systems—Performance Data of Representative DRT Systems This section provides the performance data for the five key measures for the representative DRT systems. For four of the five measures, the data are organized within the three major groups of urban DRT systems: small urban, large urban, and largest urban DRT. Performance data on the safety measure, the fifth performance measure, then follows. Small Urban DRT Systems Within the small urban DRT systems, data were collected from 14 representative systems: of these, there are five systems within the category of ADA paratransit only, six systems within limited eligibility DRT, and three systems within the general public category. Performance data are provided below for these systems. 1. Productivity—Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Productivity may be the single most significant performance measure for a DRT system. In the early years of DRT, when much of the service was provided in smaller communities for the general public on an immediate response basis, a wide range of productivity was reported, from two up to more than ten passengers per hour (5). A more typical range was four to six passenger trips per hour for immediate response and general public DRT service (27). With the passage of the ADA and with the trends toward serving limited segments of the pop- ulation on an advance reservation basis, DRT productivity is generally lower. This is reflected in the performance data from the representative systems collected for this research project, as shown in Figure 6-2, with the majority of the systems’ productivity ranging between two and four passenger trips per revenue hour. Systems serving the general public tend to be somewhat more productive than those serving only ADA paratransit riders or those serving limited eligi- bility riders.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 53 2. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Among the representative small urban DRT systems, there is a wide range on the performance measure operating cost per revenue hour (see Figure 6-3). The range is almost $20 per revenue hour to $80 per revenue hour, with this range occurring in the ADA paratransit only category. The system at the high end is a full-scale transit entity, providing the full range of functions needed for transit operations and using a cost-allocation procedure that allocates, among other costs, a share of all fixed facilities to DRT. There is less variation shown in the limited eligibility category, and very little variation shown in the general public category, influenced by the fact that *Adjusted Figure 1.77 4.70 3.84 2.61 3.08 2.45 3.91 1.76* 2.92 2.25 3.32* 3.57 2.30 4.04 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 ADA Only Limited Eligibility General Public Type of DRT System Figure 6-2. Small urban DRT systems: passenger trips per revenue hour. *Adjusted Figure $45.94 $37.06 $41.04 $46.05 $20.09* $34.84* $79.91 $45.23$44.43 $49.85$49.60 $47.38* $28.98 $50.31 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 ADA Only Limited Eligibility General Public Type of DRT System Figure 6-3. Small urban DRT systems: operating cost per revenue hour.

the three representative systems in this latter category are similar—all city-based programs oper- ated by national or regional private contractors. Within all three categories of small urban DRT, the majority of the systems (11 out of 14) clus- ter between $35 and $50 per revenue hour. Nine of the 14 systems range between $40 and $50 per revenue hour. 3. Operating Cost per Passenger Trip On this measure, the small urban DRT systems range from $8 to $22 per passenger trip (see Figure 6-4). Examining the small urban systems as a whole as well as within the three categories, there appear to be two distinct groupings of systems on this measure—those with a cost per passen- ger trip ranging from $8 to $13 and those ranging from $17 to $22. There does not seem to be a discernable pattern to the two clusters: DRT systems in the group with the lower cost per passenger trip include systems with a relatively high productivity and those with a relatively low productivity. For those systems with a lower productivity, to achieve the lower cost per passen- ger trip, the system must also have a relatively low operating cost per revenue hour. 4. On-Time Performance (OTP) Of the 14 representative small urban DRT systems, four do not formally measure their OTP, although one of these four “advertises” an on-time window. A 30-min window is the most common (with six systems using 30-min windows) that is pro- vided to riders for their trip pick-up, followed by a 20-min window (three systems), and 15-min window (two systems). All but one of the ten systems reporting OTP statistics report percentages above 90%, with two reporting 100%. The one system below 90% is barely below, reporting an 89% OTP (see Figure 6-5). Not surprisingly, MDTs and AVL are not common among small urban DRT systems. Only one participating system in this group of small urban DRT reports use of MDTs and AVL dur- ing the study time frame. 54 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation *Adjusted Figure $8.11 $12.04 $19.03 $9.79 $11.36* $11.57 $10.15 $17.09 $13.49* $18.73 $19.75 $20.80 $19.76 $21.87 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 ADA Only Limited Eligibility General Public Type of DRT System Figure 6-4. Small urban DRT systems: operating cost per passenger trip.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 55 Large Urban DRT Systems The research project included ten large urban DRT systems as representative—those operat- ing in areas with populations of more than 200,000 and up to one million. Five of these operate ADA paratransit only. Of the remaining five, four are limited eligibility and one is general public. This latter category is labeled “other” to account for the one general public DRT system in the group. Reported, and adjusted in some cases, performance data on the performance measures are discussed below. 1. Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour The range on the productivity measure for the large urban systems is 1.79 to 3.55 (see Fig- ure 6-6), a smaller range than seen for the small urban systems. The range is even less if the supplemental van program is subtracted out from the DRT system with the 3.55 productiv- ity. This system directly operates DRT service, and also has a supplemental program provid- ing vehicles and support (e.g., fuel, maintenance) to local human service agencies so that they can transport their clients with specialized transportation needs. Without the data for this supplemental van program, the DRT system’s productivity is 3.0 passenger trips per revenue hour. This would make the range of productivity of the representative systems in the large urban category 1.8 to 3.0. Within both categories of large urban systems, there is a clustering of productivity between 1.8 and 2.2. 2. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour For this performance measure, the large urban systems range from $32 to $77 per revenue hour (see Figure 6-7). While this is a wide range, it is smaller than that seen for the small urban systems ($20 to $80/revenue hour). For the large systems, the variation was somewhat greater for systems in the other category compared to the ADA only category. For all ten representative systems in the large urban category, most of the systems (seven out of ten) fell within the range of $44 to $69 per revenue hour. *MDTs/AVL * 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 On-Time Window (Minutes) Pe rc en t w ith in W in do w Figure 6-5. Small urban DRT systems: on-time performance by on-time window.

3. Operating Cost per Passenger Trip The large systems show a range of performance on the measure operating cost per passenger trip, from a low of $15 to a high of almost $36 (see Figure 6-8). This can be compared to the range seen for the small urban systems of $8 to $22 per passenger trip. In the ADA only category, there is a clustering on the measure between $24 and $28 per pas- senger trip, while the data in the other category shows more variance. 56 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation *Adjusted Figure 2.68 3.55 2.01 1.79 2.00* 1.86 1.93 2.15* 1.83 2.97 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 ADA Only Type of DRT System Other *Adjusted Figure $77.20 $63.78 $49.74 $68.88 $50.01* $44.44 $67.07* $32.24*$34.40* $51.93 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 ADA Only Type of DRT System Other Figure 6-6. Large urban DRT systems: passenger trips per revenue hour. Figure 6-7. Large urban DRT systems: operating cost per revenue hour.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 57 4. On-Time Performance Of the ten representative DRT systems in this group, only one does not measure OTP data. The non-reporter is a limited eligibility system that provides no ADA paratransit service. Eight of the nine systems that measure OTP use a 30-min window to define on-time. The ninth system uses a 40-min window; this is a limited eligibility DRT system that provides no ADA service and operates in a relatively large service area. Eight of the participating DRT systems in the large urban category that measure OTP pro- vided performance data for the research project. One system which monitors OTP indicated problems with the available data, so it did not provide any OTP figures. As shown in Figure 6-9, the systems using a 30-min window reported performance ranging from 80 to 95%. The system with a longer, 40-min window reported the highest performance at 97.5%. *Adjusted Figure $35.69 $19.03 $28.31 $24.70 $25.71 $25.04* $23.94 $14.99 $17.84* $25.98 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 ADA Only Other Type of DRT System *MDTs/AVL * * * * * * 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 On-Time Window (Minutes) Pe rc en t w ith in W in do w Figure 6-9. Large urban DRT systems: on-time performance by on-time window. Figure 6-8. Large urban DRT systems: operating cost per passenger trip.

Six of the eight systems providing OTP data use MDTs and AVL. With this technology, reported OTP data tends to be more reliable. Largest Urban DRT Systems Thirteen representative DRT systems are included in the largest urban category, those operat- ing in areas with a population larger than one million. Of the 13, nine are in the ADA paratransit only group and four are in the other/limited eligibility group. Three of the four in this latter cate- gory are limited eligibility DRT systems, and the fourth, while available for general public use, is essentially limited eligibility in practice. Reported, and adjusted in some cases, performance is discussed below. Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Productivities achieved by the largest urban systems, not surprisingly, are lower than those obtained by the two other main categories of systems (see Figure 6-10). For the ADA only sys- tems, the range is 1.3 to 2.3. For four of the five other/limited eligibility systems, the range is slightly higher, from 1.5 to 2.4. This latter grouping of systems also includes a system that reached a productivity of 4.35, a level comparable to that achieved by a small urban general public sys- tem, and clearly the highest productivity among the largest systems. This system is predominately a subscription service for human service agency clients and regularly transports group loads, ben- efiting its productivity figure. The system, without any ADA service, has considerable latitude to make adjustments that improve its efficiencies and has done so in recent years, “zoning” roughly one-quarter of its riders so that they have to use the closest facility for their trip purpose. This strategy reduces trip lengths and creates more opportunities for shared riding. Operating Cost per Revenue Hour On this performance measure, the largest urban systems ranged from $35 to $76 per revenue hour, with a clustering between $47 to $63 (nine of the 13 systems are within this range) (see Fig- ure 6-11). Perhaps not surprisingly, the ADA only systems are more similar to each other on this measure than the other systems. Within the ADA only category, eight of the nine systems are within the $47 to $63 per revenue hour range. The four representative systems in the other category show much greater variation on the measure, reflecting the varying objectives and characteristics of the transportation services that are provided. 58 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation 1.491.45 4.35 2.37 1.811.84 1.84 1.95 1.97 1.98 1.28 1.53 2.34 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 ADA Only Other/Limited Eligibility Type of DRT System Figure 6-10. Largest urban DRT systems: passenger trips per revenue hour.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 59 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip The largest urban systems range from $16 to $40 per passenger trip, with greater variability seen in the ADA only category than the other category (see Figure 6-12). Among the ADA only systems, while the operating cost per revenue hour clustered within a range from $47 to $63, the cost per passenger trip shows a broader range, from $21 to $40 per passenger trip. For the other systems, the range in cost per passenger trip was less, from $16 to $26. *Adjusted Figure $75.61 $57.40* $38.84 $36.91* $51.86 $47.54 $34.86* $46.64* $59.59 $62.65 $51.77 $55.10$54.82 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 ADA Only Other/Limited Eligibility Type of DRT System Figure 6-11. Largest urban DRT systems: operating cost per revenue hour. *Adjusted Figure $17.39 $39.62* $21.11 $15.56* $26.28 $26.20 $23.43*$23.94* $32.36 $31.72 $40.31 $36.07 $23.41 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 ADA Only Other/Limited Eligibility Type of DRT System Figure 6-12. Largest urban DRT systems: operating cost per passenger trip.

Key to this performance measure is productivity. A DRT system may have a relatively high cost on a revenue hour basis, but can show a relatively low cost per passenger trip depending upon its productivity. Among the ADA only systems, the system with the highest cost per rev- enue hour exemplifies this. This system’s cost per revenue hour is $62.65, the highest in its category. Yet since this system transports, on average, 1.98 passenger trips per revenue hour, its cost per passenger trip is $31.72, which is the mid point of the systems in the largest urban category on this measure. On-Time Performance Of systems in the largest urban category, OTP data were obtained from 11 systems. Six of these systems used MDTs and AVL to report on-time data as shown in Figure 6-13. One system uses a sta- tistically valid sampling process to collect real-time OTP data, using operator and AVL information. On-time windows for determining vehicle timeliness vary, though the most common, as with the small urban and large urban categories, is 30 min. It should be noted that the three systems that have windows longer than 30 min for determining OTP use a 30-min window for schedul- ing trips with their riders. That is, the rider is provided a 30-min window when the trip is sched- uled, however, the systems’ contractors have additional time beyond the 30 min before the vehicle is determined late for purposes of contractor performance. According to one of the DRT systems, this additional time gives schedulers more latitude to fit trips onto vehicle schedules, keeps operators from rushing to meet the on-time requirement, and provides reasonableness against the liquidated clauses in the provider contracts. Summary Performance Data Summary performance data from the representative DRT systems are shown in Table 6-2, within the categories of DRT systems. The key factors influencing the reported performance are also shown, as identified through the on-site visits and interviews with the participating DRT systems. Discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, some of these factors can be controlled or at least partially controlled by the DRT system, while other factors are not controllable. 60 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation *MDTs/AVL * * * * * * 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 On-Time Window (Minutes) Pe rc en t w ith in W in do w Figure 6-13. Largest urban DRT systems: on-time performance by on-time window.

Representative DRT Systems by Category Passenger Trips/Revenue Hr. Effectiveness Operating Cost/Revenue Hr. Cost-Efficiency Operating Cost/Passenger Trip Cost-Effectiveness On-Time Performance Service Quality Small Urban Systems • ADA Only (5 systems) • Limited Eligibility (6 systems) • General Public (3 systems) 1.77 - 3.84 1.76 - 4.04 2.92 - 4.70 $20.09 - $79.91 $28.98 - $50.31 $45.23 - $49.85 $11.36 - $20.80 $8.11 - $21.87 $9.79 - $17.09 15-min. window: 92% - 100% (2 systems) 20-min. window: 94.5% - 95.2% (2 systems) 30-min.window: 89% - 100% (6 systems) Large Urban Systems • ADA Only (5 systems) • Other (5 systems) 1.83 – 2.68 1.79 – 3.55 $34.40 - $68.88 $32.24 - $77.20 $17.84 - $28.31 $14.99 - $35.69 30-min.window: 80.2% - 95% (7 systems) 40-min.window: 97.5% (1 system) Largest Urban Systems • ADA Only (9 systems) • Other (4 systems) 1.28 – 2.34 1.49 – 4.35 $38.84 - $62.65 $34.86 - $75.61 $21.11 - $40.31 $15.56 - $26.20 15-min. window: 80% (1 system) 20-min. window: 89.8% -92.2% (2 systems) 30-min.window: 87% - 97.4% (5 systems) 35-min. window: 97.5% (1 system) 45-min. window: 96% - 97.8% (2 systems) Factors Influencing Performance Controllable/Partially Controllable - System focus on productivity - No-shows/late cancels - Dwell times - Scheduling/dispatch skills - Degree of group trips - Matching revenue hours to ridership demand - Use of local non-profits as supplemental providers - Type of operator (e.g., private transit contractor, taxi co., city/county, transit authority) - Administrative/overhead costs - Costs for operator labor - Use of local non-profits as supplemental providers - Cooperative arrangements to purchase fuel, maintenance - Type of operator - Administrative/overhead costs - Costs for operator labor - Matching revenue hours to ridership demand - Use of local non-profits as supplemental providers - Cooperative arrangements to purchase fuel, maintenance - Focusing on productivity - No-shows/late cancels - Dwell times - Scheduling/dispatch skills - Degree of group trips - Use of MDTs and AVL - Use of CASD system - Scheduling/dispatch skills - Vehicle operator availability, i.e., fully staffed, under- staffed - System focus on on-time performance Uncontrollable - Type of ridership (e.g., ADA vs. non-ADA) - Trip length - Size of service area - Density of service area - Service area constraints, e.g., traffic congestion, bridges - Location in higher/lower wage region of country - Increasing demand for service - Type of ridership - Trip length - Size and density of service area - Service area constraints - Location in higher/lower wage region of country - Size of service area - Service area constraints, e.g., traffic congestion, bridges Table 6-2. Range of performance data from representative DRT systems and factors influencing performance.

62 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour This measure of productivity showed a range of performance among the participating DRT sys- tems, with the smaller systems generally achieving higher productivities than the larger systems. Factors Influencing Performance The key controllable and partially controllable factors that seem to affect DRT systems’ abil- ity to achieve a higher performance relative to the other representative systems include: • A specific focus on increasing productivity, by increasing shared-riding, by developing new services that feature group trips (e.g., shopper shuttles), and in several cases, by including a productivity standard in the contract for the private operator; • A low rate of no-shows and late cancellations; • Short dwell times; • The skills of scheduling and dispatch staff to create effective operator schedules; • Reducing unproductive revenue time by better matching revenue hours to ridership demand; and • Using community-based non-profit agencies as supplemental providers, which provide group trips at high levels of productivity. The uncontrollable factors include: • The type of ridership market that is served, in particular, whether the system is ADA only; • Average trip lengths; • The size of the service area, which impacts trip lengths; • The density and development patterns of the service area; and • Service area constraints, such as traffic congestion which is a serious constraint in large metropol- itan areas, bridges, bodies of water or other features impacting travel within the service area. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour On the performance measure operating cost per revenue hour, the representative systems ranged from a low of $20 to a high of $80. Interestingly, this range comes in the small urban category, reflecting the diversity of systems in this category as well as differences in cost allocation methods to DRT. The system operating at $20 per revenue hour is a city-based system, with minimal administrative and overhead costs for such ancillary functions such as accounting and planning, and day-to-day service is operated by a small, regional private provider with a competitive cost structure. The system operating at $80 per revenue hour is a full-scale transit entity, providing all functions necessary for transit operations, and using a cost-allocation procedure that allo- cates, among other costs, a share of all fixed facilities to DRT. This procedure contributes an esti- mated $20 per hour to the reported operating cost per hour figure. Factors Influencing Performance For this performance measure, the important controllable and partially controllable factors include: • The type of DRT operator, that is, whether the service is operated by a private transit con- tractor, a local taxi company, a city or county, or a full-scale transit authority. This is a fac- tor that might be considered only partially controllable, since decisions on the type of oper- ator are often determined by the system’s decision-making body, and not directly by the DRT manager. • The administrative effort and cost for the DRT service. The representative systems with low operating costs per revenue hour typically have limited administrative and overhead costs allocated to the DRT service.

• Costs for vehicle operator labor, with several of the higher cost DRT systems indicating that their wage rates for operators were comparable to those for fixed-route operators. • Use of community-based non-profit agencies as supplemental providers, which operate with lower and, in some cases, significantly lower operating costs than the DRT system. The key uncontrollable factors influencing this measure include: • Location of the system relative to higher or lower cost regions of the country. In particular, the DRT systems operating within the major urban/suburban regions on the east and west coasts are subject to higher wage pressures than those located outside such areas. • Increasing demand for service, particularly for those systems that provide ADA paratransit, has required DRT systems to increasingly add service to ensure that capacity is available. Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Reflecting DRT systems’ operating costs and productivity, this measure ranges from $8 to $40 per passenger trip for the representative systems. Among the 14 systems within the small urban category, performance clusters within two ranges, with seven systems ranging from $8 to $13 per passenger trip, and the other seven between $17 to $22 per passenger trip. Within the large urban category, performance on this measure ranges from $15 to $36 per pas- senger trip, with six of the ten systems in the group falling between $24 and $28 per passenger trip. Performance in the largest urban category shows somewhat higher costs per passenger trip, from $16 to $40. Among the 13 systems in this category, 11 range between $21 and $40 per passenger trip. Factors Influencing Performance The factors influencing performance on this measure are the same as those impacting the prior two measures, since operating cost per passenger trip relates productivity to cost per hour. What is important to recognize, however, is that a DRT system can have a relatively high operating cost per hour and still have a low cost per passenger trip if productivity is high. On-Time Performance Data obtained from the representative systems reflect different perspectives and definitions of “on-time.” Among the smaller systems, four do not even measure OTP, given the small scale of their operations. The larger systems, particularly those that are ADA paratransit, focus consid- erable attention on this measure, given ADA regulations concerning capacity constraints. Among the 29 systems providing data on the measure, the majority uses a 30-min on-time window. The other systems use windows of 15, 20, 35, 40, and 45 min for determining if the vehicle is late. More than two-thirds of the systems with data for OTP reported on-time percentages at 90% or higher. Of the remaining systems, most were in the high 80% range. Relative to OTP, one of the important issues raised by participating DRT systems was the use of AVL technology, with MDTs. System managers with this technology were very positive about its capabilities that allowed the systems to monitor vehicles in real-time and to make adjustments to improve timeliness. Factors Influencing Performance The primary controllable and partially controllable factors impacting DRT systems’ perfor- mance on this measure include: • Use of AVL/MDT technology, as indicated above. However, at least one small system reported that use of a CASD system, without AVL/MDTs, facilitated its improved OTP. Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 63

64 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation • Ability of systems’ scheduling and dispatch staff to create effective and realistic schedules. • Operator availability. Several systems noted issues related to having an inadequate number of vehicle operators, which can then impact OTP if scheduled vehicles are not assigned on the day of service because of operator shortages. • A focus on OTP. Particularly for those DRT systems that are ADA paratransit, OTP is a key operational focus of DRT managers, given ADA regulations on capacity constraints. The uncontrollable factors related to OTP, according to the representative DRT systems, include: • Size of the service area and geographic constraints of the service area. • Traffic congestion and the increasing unreliability of that traffic congestion. These were cited as particular factors by systems in major metropolitan areas. The unreliability factor is increas- ingly problematic, as recent research has found that the majority of congestion delays are caused not by recurring traffic but by unpredictable, non-recurring events such as crashes, bad weather, and vehicle breakdowns (28), which makes it more difficult to predict travel times. This in turn impacts DRT scheduling and OTP. Safety Performance—Safety Incidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles Safety incidents per 100,000 vehicle miles is the last of the five key performance measures iden- tified for the Guidebook. As discussed in Chapter 3, safety incidents are defined through the NTD reporting requirements and include both NTD’s major and non-major safety incidents. What became clear through the project’s data collection efforts from the representative sys- tems is that the NTD safety data are not the critical safety data that DRT systems monitor. The DRT systems have more stringent definitions of accidents and incidents than those used by NTD and such data are monitored closely. DRT systems that contract for service often include per- formance incentives and liquidated damages associated with accidents to ensure contractor attention to safety. While not the key safety data from DRT managers’ operational perspective, use of the NTD definition provides for a standardized definition of a safety-related incident. Those DRT systems that are NTD reporters provide the required data on safety with their NTD reports. The safety data are reported on a quarterly or monthly basis depending on the size of the transit agency. The safety incident data, available from 30 of the representative systems, are shown in Figure 6-14. The experience of one small urban DRT system skews the data for the remaining systems. This sys- tem reported six safety incidents (all non-major) for the reporting year (FY05), and given its small size, traveled less than 400,000 annual vehicle miles. No other small urban DRT system participating in the research (and that are NTD reporters) reported any NTD safety incidents for that year. Figure 6-15 shows the safety incident data without the small urban DRT systems. As can be seen, the range on this performance measure is 0.00 to 0.34 incidents per 100,000 vehicle miles. Within the large urban category, eight systems provided data, with four reporting no incidents. Within the largest urban category, ten systems provided safety incident data. All of these systems reported incidents, with three incidents as the least reported and more than 25 incidents as the most reported for the system. What the safety data also demonstrate is that safety incidents are not very common relative to the transportation service that is provided. For example, within the largest urban category, two systems measured 0.10 incidents per 100,000 vehicle miles. The first system traveled almost five million vehicle miles, and the second system more than eight million miles in DRT service. Given the relative infrequency of safety incidents, a DRT system that wants to review peer data would likely need a data pool larger than what is available in this chapter.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 65 0.00 0.04 0.100.11 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.34 0.00 0.04 1.58 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 Small Urban Large Urban Largest Urban DRT System Figure 6-14. Safety incidents per 100,000 vehicle miles: small, large, and largest urban DRT. 0.04 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.16 0.34 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 Large Urban Largest Urban DRT System Figure 6-15. Safety incidents per 100,000 vehicle miles: large and largest urban DRT.

66 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation But significantly, in terms of monitoring safety, what is important is the trend shown within a system rather than comparisons between systems. Attachment to Chapter 6 Performance Data of Representative DRT Systems: Additional Detail This section provides additional detail about the performance of the representative DRT sys- tems included in the research project, providing a context for the performance data. What are the factors and characteristics of a particular DRT system that enables it to achieve a higher produc- tivity than others in its category? What factors impact the DRT system with the lowest reported productivity in the category? Such information may be useful to an individual DRT system reviewing the reported performance data in this Guidebook and may help the system synthesize what the reported results mean in relation to its own circumstances and operating environment. For Figures 6-2 to 6-4, Figures 6-6 to 6-8, and Figures 6-10 to 6-12, there is a corresponding table in this attachment that provides information about the DRT systems with the highest and the lowest reported performance on the specific measure. The tables are labeled to show the corresponding figure so that the reader can refer back to the graphic presentation if desired.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 67 Table 6A-1 (Figure 6-2) Small Urban DRT: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (Productivity) Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Highest —3.84 passenger trips per revenue hour • The average trip length is relatively short, at 4.4 mi. • No-shows and late cancellations, defined as a cancellation made less than one hour before the scheduled pick-up time, are relatively infrequent, at 1.6% of scheduled trips. • Service is provided only within the ¾-mile corridors required by ADA. • Drivers are experienced, with an average tenure of 13 years. • Transit system is focused on improving performance, experimenting with different ways to serve demand. • The service is predominately directly operated by the transit system, with some contracted service. • DRT as well as fixed-route service is provided by the system, which is a public transit entity created by the local jurisdictions (the county and included cities) in accordance with state law, with the ability to levy dedicated transit funding. Lowest —1.77 passenger trips per revenue hour • Trip lengths are long, at 10.7 mi. • The service is provided by a contractor, on a per trip basis. • The transit system is a department of a small city, which has negotiated an agreement with its larger county to provide ADA paratransit service throughout the county and in the main city. • Funding and local support for transit have been continual challenges. • City transit staff is very small, with an estimated less than 0.25 FTE (full-time equivalent) staff oversight for the DRT service. Limited Eligibility DRT Highest —4.04 passenger trips per revenue hour • Average trip length is very short, at 2.1 mi. • The service area is a compact and relatively developed university town. • The system manager reports that the population is relatively “young,” and many of the ADA riders are young, mobile individuals, resulting in short dwell times. • Service is directly operated through the local transit district. Lowest —1.76 passenger trips per revenue hour • Limited shared-riding, with service provided more as “taxi-type” service. • Service is provided by a contractor. • Productivity figure is impacted by an over-reporting of revenue hours, resulting in a lower productivity number. This was affected in part by the contract definition of revenue hours, which did not correspond to the NTD definition. • A correction to revenue hour reporting and a greater focus on shared riding resulted in a productivity improvement, to 2.2, the following fiscal year. • System is provided and administered through a city department. • Operating funds come from a portion of a local sales tax. Small Urban DRT Systems

68 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation General Public DRT Highest —4.70 passenger trips per revenue hour • The average trip length is 5.3 mi. • Compact and developed service area. • DRT system is mature, having started in the 1970s; it has always been provided by a contractor. • High productivity achieved despite operation of a limited fixed route service in the same service area. • Productivity benefits from DRT service to school children during peak school travel periods. • The majority of riders are general public, with ADA passengers comprising 33% of total passenger trips. • Service is curb-to-curb, with only a 3-min wait time. • Service is provided through a city department. Lowest —2.92 passenger trips per revenue hour • Ridership is predominately specialized, with ADA paratransit eligible and other disabled and senior riders comprising 86% of total ridership. • The system manager notes that there has been an increasing number of ADA paratransit, other disabled, and senior riders in recent years. • The service area has been expanding in recent years, as the city incorporates new developments at its periphery and as the city limits expand. • Service is provided through a city department and operated by a private contractor. Table 6A-1 (Figure 6-2) Small Urban DRT Systems (Continued)

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 69 Table 6A-2(Figure 6-3) Small Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest—$20.09 operating cost per revenue hour • Service provided by contract on a cost per trip basis, with FY05 rate of $11.20 per trip; contractor retains the $1.80 fare, for a total per trip payment of $13.00. • Contractor’s costs are competitive; company has a centralized office and call center that is used to manage and schedule/dispatch trips for a number of paratransit contracts in the region, keeping overhead low. • Operators keep vehicles at their homes overnight, decreasing deadhead time and costs. • Very low city administrative burden on the contract, with limited city staff, estimated at less than 0.25 FTE staff. Highest—$79.91 operating cost per revenue hour • The service is directly operated by a full-scale transit entity, with all functions needed to provide service – planning, IT systems, marketing, maintenance. • System allocates a share of all its fixed facilities (e.g., transfer center) to DRT, contributing approximately $20/revenue hour to the operating cost per revenue hour figure. • DRT drivers are paid at same rate as fixed-route drivers. • Drivers have an average tenure of 13 years, so many drivers are at the top of the pay range. • System achieves the highest productivity of the five DRT systems in its category. Limited Eligibility DRT Lowest—$28.98 operating cost per revenue hour • DRT service is operated on a contract basis by a local taxi company, which is a low cost provider. • There is very limited administrative overhead and cost on the contractor, given the small scale of the service and strong confidence in the taxi contractor. • System is provided through a city department. Highest —$50.31 operating cost per revenue hour • This is a directly operated service, by a full-scale regional transit entity, with a significant allocation of overhead on the DRT service. • The system is located in a higher cost region of the country with unionized labor. • DRT vehicle operators are paid at a rate almost comparable to that for fixed route operators, with a $1.00 per hour differential. • The service area is relatively large, a region with eight towns. • High levels of service are provided to meet objectives of participating towns with significant local funding available to support local transit. General Public DRT Lowest—$45.23 operating cost per revenue hour • The service is operated on a contract basis by a large, national private contractor for a city sponsor. • The contractor also operates the city’s fixed-route service, so administrative costs are shared between the two modes, decreasing the contractor’s DRT administrative costs. • The city provides the maintenance and fuel for the contractor (costs are included in total operating costs), which are obtained through a cooperative arrangement with other city departments and the local school district, providing cost savings for both maintenance and fuel. Highest—$49.85 operating cost per revenue hour • Costs are not greatly dissimilar from the lowest cost general public DRT shown above of $45.23 (10% higher). • This DRT system is similar to the lowest cost general public DRT system above in that it is operated on a contract basis by a large, national private contractor for a city sponsor. • Some of the higher costs can be attributed to its location in a higher cost region of the country, with a higher wage scale.

70 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Table 6A-3(Figure 6-4) Small Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest —$11.36 operating cost per passenger trip • This is the same system with the lowest operating cost per revenue hour among ADA paratransit only DRT systems, at $20.09 operating cost per revenue hour. • Despite its having the lowest productivity in this category, the system has the lowest operating cost per passenger trip, given its cost structure. Highest —$20.80 operating cost per passenger trip • This is the same system with the operating cost per revenue hour of $79.91 (the higher cost per revenue hour of representative systems) and the productivity of 3.84 (the highest productivity of the representative systems). • Despite its high productivity, with its higher operating cost per revenue hour, the cost per passenger trip is the highest of the five systems in the category. • However, given its high productivity relative to the other systems in its category, the differences on this performance measure are not as large as they are on the measure operating cost per revenue hour. Limited Eligibility DRT Lowest —$8.11 operating cost per passenger trip • This is the same system with the low operating cost per revenue hour of $28.98. • The system has the second highest productivity of the DRT systems in its category, at 3.57 passenger trips per revenue hour, achieved in part with its small, concentrated service area and provision of senior center trips (the DRT service is coordinated with the senior center transportation program). • With the low operating cost per revenue hour and relatively high productivity, this system has the lowest cost on operating cost per passenger trip. • The cost of $8.11 per passenger trip is the lowest of the 14 DRT systems in the small urban category. Highest —$21.87 operating cost per passenger trip • This is the same system with the highest cost on the measure operating cost per revenue hour, at $50.31, in this category. • With its productivity of 2.30, which is the third lowest productivity of the six systems in its category, this system shows the highest operating cost per passenger trip. • Its productivity is impacted by the service area, which is regional in nature and includes eight small towns, an objective to meet all local specialized needs, and a high proportion (20%) of will-call trips. • The cost of $21.87 is the highest cost per passenger trip of the 14 DRT systems in the small urban category. General Public DRT Lowest —$9.79 operating cost per passenger trip • This system has the highest productivity of the three systems in the category—4.7—and with an operating cost per revenue hour of $46.05, it has the lowest cost per passenger trip. Highest —$17.09 operating cost per passenger trip • This system has the lowest productivity in this category—2.92—and given its operating cost per hour of $49.85 which is also the highest in its category, the result is the highest operating cost per passenger trip.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 71 Table 6A-4(Figure 6-6) Large Urban DRT: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (Productivity) Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Highest —2.68 passenger trips per revenue hour • The DRT system focuses on productivity. • Service provided by a private contractor, which has a productivity standard of 2.8 passengers per revenue hour included within contract incentives and liquidated damages. This level of productivity was promised by the contractor. • In addition to ADA paratransit service, the system provides “shopper” routes, essentially service routes with same-day service for ADA riders; these flexible routes, which serve specific areas and target senior and other housing complexes, achieve group loads and help increase productivity. • Average trip length is 6.2 miles, despite growing service area. • The DRT service is provided by a legislatively created transportation entity, with service contracted to a private provider. Lowest—1.83 passenger trips per revenue hour • The service area spans one large county and part of a second county, with two major population centers separated by 18 miles of rural land uses. Additional small communities throughout the rural parts of the service area are also served. • Average trip length is 10 miles. • DRT service is provided by a joint city-county entity, with day-to-day service operated by a private contractor. Other DRT Highest—3.55 passenger trips per revenue hour • The DRT service is directly operated by the transit entity, with a supplemental program that provides vehicles and support (maintenance, fuel, insurance) to local human service agencies for their own client transportation. Data for this supplemental program are included with NTD data. • The directly operated service has a productivity of 3.0 and the supplemental program for human service agencies achieves a productivity of 8.6, increasing the DRT system’s overall DRT productivity. • For its directly operated service, the DRT system has a sophisticated CASD system but reports that is often over-rides the computer to manually schedule trips for “better” schedules. • Scheduling/dispatch staff is experienced. • The DRT system is a part of a larger transit entity created by the local jurisdictions (county and included cities) in accordance with state law, with the ability to levy dedicated transit funding. Lowest—1.79 passenger trips per revenue hour • The service area is large, at close to 800 square miles. • The average trip length is 11 miles. • The DRT system serves the largest population of the ten DRT systems in the large urban category, at close to 1 million population. • System’s no-show/late cancel rate is relatively high, at 8% in FY05, negatively impacting productivity. Large Urban DRT Systems

72 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Table 6A-5(Figure 6-7) Large Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest —$34.40 operating cost per revenue hour • The DRT system is provided on a contract basis, by a private contractor that bid a very competitive rate for the service. • There is minimal allocation of city administrative or overhead cost on the contractor’s cost. Highest — $68.88 operating cost per revenue hour • The DRT system is part of a full-scale transit entity, with all functions needed to operate public transit services. • There is a relatively high allocation of costs to DRT administration. • Comprehensive eligibility/certification process, requiring administrative effort and cost. • Operates within an area with competition for lower wage employees. Other DRT Lowest—$ 32.24 operating cost per revenue hour • The service is provided by and operated by a private non-profit agency. • Administrative and overhead costs for the service are reduced through a cooperative arrangement with other local non-profit agencies in the community that partner together to share facilities and support services. • There is no ADA paratransit service provided; service is provided to various specialized rider groups. Highest —$77.20 operating cost per revenue hour • The DRT service is directly operated by the city sponsor. • DRT vehicle operators are paid at the same rate as fixed-route drivers. • Operating costs include city payments to the regional transit provider for ADA trips that extend beyond the city boundaries.

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 73 Table 6A-6(Figure 6-8) Large Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest —$17.84 operating cost per passenger trip • This is the same system with an operating cost per revenue hour of $34.40, the lowest operating cost per revenue hour of the systems in the category. • Given the operating cost per revenue hour and its productivity of 1.93, the system has the lowest operating cost per passenger trip in the category. • While the system’s productivity is mid-range for its category, it could potentially be higher with a reduced rate of late cancellations and no-shows, and with a more experienced operator work force (retention is an issue). Highest —$28.31 operating cost per passenger trip • This system has the second highest operating cost per revenue hour in its group, $51.93, and given its productivity of 1.83, the lowest in the category, it has the highest operating cost per passenger trip. Other DRT Lowest —$14.99 operating cost per passenger trip • This DRT system has the lowest operating cost per revenue hour of the systems in its category, of $32.24. • With a productivity of 2.15, which is the mid productivity in the category, the result is the lowest operating cost per passenger trip in the category. Highest—$35.69 operating cost per passenger trip • The DRT system has the mid-point operating cost per revenue hour in its group, of $63.78. • Given its productivity of 1.79, which is the lowest in the category due in large part to the large service area and long trip lengths, the system has the highest operating cost per passenger trip.

74 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Table 6A-7(Figure 6-10) Largest Urban DRT: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour (Productivity) Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Highest —2.34 passenger trips per revenue hour • DRT system’s average trip length is 8.9 miles, which is the second shortest of the nine systems in the category. • Service is provided only within the required ¾ mile corridors of fixed-route service. • System management is proactive in managing the supply of revenue hours for its service contractors, “flexing” the start and end times of DRT routes the day before service—based on demand for the next day. This reduces unproductive revenue time. • On-going rider education programs, on such topics as no-shows, calling to cancel unneeded trips, and boarding on time, to foster responsible use of the ADA service. Lowest —1.28 passenger trips per revenue hour • DRT system operates in very large area, over 2,000 square miles. • The average trip length is 11.5 miles, which is among the four longest trip lengths of systems in the largest urban DRT category. • With about 8% of total passenger trips provided by the system’s same-day taxi program, which is structured to subsidize shorter trips particularly during peak travel times, the DRT system provides a larger proportion of riders’ longer trips, impacting productivity. • Suburbanization of the service area and in particular decentralization of medical complexes and hospitals are increasing passengers’ trip distances, also negatively affecting productivity. Other Limited Eligibility DRT Highest—4.35 passenger trips per revenue hour • More than 90% of the service is subscription service for human service agencies, with significant group riding. • Service area is 400 square miles, smaller than the other DRT systems in the largest urban category, in some cases by significant amounts. • Starting in 2004, the DRT system “zoned” much of the service, requiring riders to use the closest facility for their trips. This change affected roughly 25% of riders, and allowed the system to reduce its peak fleet by 12%. • There is no ADA service provided. Lowest —1.49 passenger trips per revenue hour • The system operates in a large service, composed of 3 counties and over 2,500 square miles. • Average trip length is almost 13 miles. • Medicaid non-emergency transportation is provided, comprising about 44% of total passenger trips, with a portion of trips traveling beyond the 3-county service area with one-way distances of over 50 miles. The system limits such trips to specific days and time periods in an attempt to create shared rides, but even with such efforts, the trips are very long and impact productivity. Largest Urban DRT Systems

Assessing Performance—Data from Representative Systems 75 Table 6A-8(Figure 6-11) Largest Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest—$38.84 operating cost per revenue hour • One of the DRT system’s two service contractors is a taxi company; service is provided on a dedicated basis predominately using sedans. The operating cost per revenue hour for the taxi contractor is $29.78 (FY05) which includes the capital cost of the sedan. This can be compared to the operating cost per revenue hour for the second contractor, which uses vans, at $35.73 without capital. Subtracting the cost of capital for the taxi contractor would further improve the cost competitiveness of the taxi provider. • Use of a taxi contractor puts competitive pressure on the van provider to manage its cost structure. • Extensive use of part-time staff for reservations, scheduling and dispatch functions, reducing costs for wages and benefits. Highest—$62.65 operating cost per revenue hour • The DRT system has a comprehensive administrative and rider support structure, including a sophisticated eligibility/certification program with 100% in-person assessments, comprehensive no-show/late cancel policy requiring staff resources, travel training provided by staff, and a program that involves DRT staff working with riders with cognitive disabilities in group homes to ensure their understanding of the paratransit service. • Service is provided 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. • The service is provided on a contract basis by one contractor. • System operates in a low unemployment region, creating competition for vehicle operators which impacts wages. • Operating funds are local, from a portion of local sales tax. Other Limited Eligibility DRT Lowest—$34.86 operating cost per revenue hour • The DRT system uses six service contractors. One is the primary contractor, and others are community based non-profit human service agencies with lower cost structures for transportation. • The community-based agencies provided 18% of all passenger trips (FY05). • Except for the primary service contractor, providers are paid on a per trip basis. • ADA paratransit trips comprise approximately 43% of total passenger trips (FY05). Highest — $75.61 operating cost per revenue hour • This DRT system serves predominately agency-based subscription trips, with an aide traveling on the vehicles to assist riders. Costs for the aides contributed almost 10% to total operating costs (FY05). • System operates in a higher wage, low unemployment region.

76 Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance of Demand-Response Transportation Table 6A-9 (Figure 6-12) Largest Urban DRT: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Characteristics of Systems Affecting Performance ADA Paratransit Only DRT Lowest —$21.11 operating cost per passenger trip • This DRT system has the lowest operating cost per revenue hour in its category, and with a productivity of 1.84 (the mid range for productivity in the category), achieves the lowest operating cost per passenger trip in the category. Highest—$40.31 operating cost per passenger trip • While this DRT system has the third lowest operating cost per revenue hour in the group ($51.77), it has the lowest productivity, resulting in the highest operating cost per passenger trip. Other Limited Eligibility DRT Lowest—$15.56 operating cost per passenger trip • This system has a relatively low operating cost per revenue hour ($36.91) and with its productivity of 2.34 (the second highest in its category), it has the lowest operating cost per passenger trip. • Its lower operating cost per revenue hour is impacted by the use of multiple, predominately local providers, with competition among the providers structured by the DRT system. • The system stresses productivity, with productivity standards in their provider contracts. It is aggressive in pursuing business that provides group trips, such as shopper shuttle-type services and senior center services with group trips. Highest—$26.20 operating cost per passenger trip • This limited eligibility DRT system has the second highest operating cost per hour in its category ($47.54, which interestingly would be among the lowest in the ADA paratransit only category) and given its productivity of 1.81, the result is the highest operating cost per passenger trip in the category. • While its productivity is not the lowest in the category, it is impacted by the service area, which is a major metropolitan area with significant congestion. It is likely that productivity would be lower except for the system’s commingling its ADA riders with non-ADA riders. Management indicates that this works well, with ADA riders more concentrated during peak travel times and non-ADA riders more concentrated during off-peak times, with the two ridership types generally complementing each other relative to time of use.