Toolkit for Integrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in Paratransit Service (2007)

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.

TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2007 www.TRB.org 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 REPORT 121 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Public Transit Toolkit for Integrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in Paratransit Service NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES San Francisco, CA I N A S S O C I A T I O N W I T H TWJ CONSULTING Wilmette, IL RLS AND ASSOCIATES Dayton, OH

TCRP REPORT 121 Project B-30 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN: 978-0-309-09916-5 Library of Congress Control Number 2008920209 © 2007 Transportation Research Board COPYRIGHT PERMISSION 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, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation 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 project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current 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 problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative 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 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now 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 longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of 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. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization 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 the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal 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 pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. 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 at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 121 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Hilary Freer, Senior Editor Maria Crawford, Assistant Editor TCRP PROJECT B-30 PANEL Field of Service Configuration Carol E. Wise, Central Ohio Transit Authority, Columbus, OH (Chair) Charles R. Carr, Mississippi DOT, Jackson, MS Kathleen H. Delaney, LogistiCare Solutions LLC, Silver Spring, MD Kenneth R. Fischer, McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., South Daytona, FL Steven R. Fittante, Middlesex County (NJ) DOT, New Brunswick, NJ Karl M. Johanson, Council on Aging & Human Services, Colfax, WA William F. Peterson, Peterson Consultants, Harrisburg, PA William C. Taylor, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Doug Birnie, FTA Liaison Lynne Morsen, APTA Liaison Peter Shaw, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project B-30 by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, TWJ Consulting, and RLS and Associates. Nelson\Nygaard was the contractor for this study. The work undertaken by TWJ Consulting and RLS and Associates was under a subcontract with Nelson\ Nygaard. Will Rodman, Principal Associate, Nelson\Nygaard, was the principal investigator and primary author of the report. Roger Teal of TWJ Consulting created the NDV Optimization Model and wrote the User Manual. Other contributors included David Koffman and Doug Langille of Nelson\Nygaard, and Robbie Sarles and Rich Garrity of RLS and Associates. The on-line survey was administered by Heather Cherin of Nelson\Nygaard. The work also benefited from our internal panel of advisors: Jerry Blair, Executive Director of Indigo in Indiana, PA; Richard DeRock, General Manager of Link Transit in Wenatchee, WA; Jim Laughlin, Director of Transportation Programs for Houston METROLift; Hal Morgan, Director of Research and Education for the Taxi, Limousine, and Paratransit Association (TLPA) in Kensington, MD; George Sparks, Administrator for the Pomona Valley Transportation Authority in LaVerne, CA, and Chris White, Manager of Service Development for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. 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

TCRP Report 121: Toolkit for Integrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in Paratransit Service is a toolkit that can be used by transportation managers to determine the appropriate split between dedicated and non-dedicated paratransit services to increase cost-effectiveness and meet peak demand needs. This report includes a Non-Dedicated Vehicle Optimization (NDV) Model and User Manual. The NDV Model is spreadsheet-based and may be used by paratransit system managers and planners to assist with making decisions regarding appro- priate service ratios for specific conditions and environments. In addition to the toolkit, a Case Study Report and an Interim Report (which includes an analysis of factors that influ- ence the mix of dedicated and non-dedicated paratransit service) are available for download from the project’s website. Many demand-responsive paratransit agencies in urban, suburban, and rural areas deliver services to their customers through a combination of dedicated and non-dedicated service. Providers of dedicated service use vehicles that commonly are owned internally by the lead agencies and are used exclusively for serving their customers. Often non-dedicated service is delivered by external service providers (e.g., taxi companies or community tran- sit agencies) to increase cost-effectiveness, cover peak-period demand, and provide flexibil- ity in meeting customer needs. The main advantage of operating dedicated service is that the lead agency more com- pletely controls the delivery of service. When compared with non-dedicated services, dedi- cated services may be more reliable because there is increased control of drivers, more strin- gent control of vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules, and consistent customer service and operating policies. The main advantage of using a combined service structure that includes both dedicated and non-dedicated services is its cost-effectiveness in dealing with the inherent daily and seasonal fluctuations of demand. By purchasing supplementary non-dedicated services from a third party to cover peak overflow trips or low-demand periods, fewer dedicated vehicles are needed. Currently, decisions on the ratio between the amount of dedicated versus non-dedicated service are mostly made by transportation managers on the basis of their experience and judgment. This report includes tools that may be used to assist transportation managers in deciding the appropriate ratio between dedicated and non-dedicated service in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Under TCRP Project B-30, “Optimal Split of Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Service for Demand-Responsive Paratransit,” the research team conducted a literature review related to current practices and planning for paratransit service options and operating and capital F O R E W O R D By Gwen Chisholm Smith Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

costs of paratransit services. Also, the researchers conducted case studies and documented how decisions are made regarding the ratio of dedicated to non-dedicated services. Based on the information gathered, an Excel-based optimization model was developed to help the practitioner identify the optimal split of dedicated to non-dedicated services in order to help improve the cost efficiency of a paratransit system for specific service conditions and envi- ronments. This NDV model allows for “what-if” analysis of various service structures for specific service conditions and environments. The software for this model is available for download from the TRB project website.

ix Preface 1 Section 1 Phase I Research 1 Research Goal 1 Dedicated versus Non-Dedicated Service 2 Background 3 Summary of Initial Research 3 Survey Results 5 Factors Affecting the Use of Non-Dedicated Service 6 Problems and Obstacles in Using Non-Dedicated Service 6 Other Issues from the Survey Concerning the Use of Non-Dedicated Providers 7 Case Study Research 9 Section 2 Phase II Research: Key Findings from Case Studies 22 Section 3 NDV Optimization Model—User Manual 22 I. Introduction 23 II. The Optimization Models 23 Model Descriptions 24 Description of the Core Model Computational Process 25 Core Model Computational Process Illustrated 27 Computational Procedures for Other Versions of the Optimization Model 28 III. Working with the NDV Model 28 Installing the Spreadsheet Model 29 IV. Data Requirements for the Model 29 A. Required Data Elements 30 B. Optional Data Elements 31 C. Derivable Data Elements 31 V. Entering Data into the Model 31 A. General Instructions 33 B. Instructions for the DRT System Data Entry Worksheet 34 C. Instructions for the Dedicated Vehicle Data Entry Worksheet 35 D. Instructions for the Non-Dedicated Vehicle Data Entry Worksheet 35 E. Instructions for the Passenger Trip Volume Data Entry Worksheet 37 F. Instructions for the Driver and Vehicle Shifts Data Entry Worksheet 38 G. Instructions for the Set Baseline Factors Dialog Box C O N T E N T S

40 VI. Optimization Model: Execution and Results 40 A. Model Execution Overview 41 B. Setting Optimization Model Parameters 44 C. Performing Optimization: Running the Models 45 D. Viewing and Understanding Optimization Model Results 48 E. Saving Model Results 48 VII. Sensitivity Analysis 52 Appendix A Glossary

The focus of TCRP Project B-30 was to produce a “toolkit” that would assist paratransit operators and planners in the integrated use of non-dedicated service to improve the cost efficiency of their paratransit service. The Toolkit has three sections: • Section 1—Phase I Research. This section describes the research goal, methodology, and findings of the initial research. • Section 2—Phase II Research: Key Findings from Case Studies. This section summarizes the key findings from nine case studies. • Section 3—NDV Optimization Model—User Manual. Based in part on the findings from the initial and case study research, an Excel-based optimization model was de- veloped to guide practitioners with optimizing the split between dedicated and non- dedicated paratransit service. Additionally, the model also helps guide the practitioner in suggesting the run structure of the dedicated portion of the fleet at that optimal point. The software may be downloaded from the TRB website. The user manual walks the practitioner through using the model. In addition to this toolkit, two technical reports are available for download from the TRB project website. The Case Study Report includes the full case studies summarized in Section 2. The Interim Report includes an analysis of factors that influence the mix of dedicated and non-dedicated service, the effect of non-dedicated service on community mobility, how using non-dedicated vehicles helps in achieving zero denials in ADA Para- transit, and how Medicaid and human services transportation requirements affect the service mix. P R E F A C E