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.
6-31 Changes in Vehicle Type The characteristics of the vehicles used to provide a transit service (e.g., standard bus, van, perimeter seating, forward-facing seating, etc.) may affect a travelerâs perception of service quality and, to some degree, the likelihood that the traveler will choose a specific service. While focus groups and passenger surveys have shown rider preferences for various vehicle characteristics, no studies have been found that identify a controlled study of changes in ridership related to vehicle type. It may be surmised that, across a broad range of factors, traveler response is inelastic with respect to vehicle type. A possible exception may be the introduction of low-floor buses. Unlike vehicle features that are primarily cosmetic, a low floor enhances the accessibility of the service and may, therefore, permit use by a previously excluded market. RELATED INFORMATION AND IMPACTS Scale and Productivity of Demand Responsive Service Demand responsive services are operated not only by agencies engaged in providing public transportation, but also by many social service programs as an adjunct to the programâs primary goals. Transit agency data are available from the National Transit Database. In 1996, 484 of 541 reporting U.S. transit agencies provided or purchased fixed route bus service, while 482 provided or purchased demand response service (FTA National Transit Database, 1996). Operating data for social service agencies is not compiled nationally. However, it is known that over 5,000 agencies have received Federal Transit Administration funding under the Section 16(b) program to purchase vehicles for client transportation. These services tend to be demand responsive. Together, transit and social service agencies under the purview of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged totaled 426 transportation operators statewide in 1998, serving 603,661 transportation disadvantaged individuals making 36,609,800 trips annually. Of these, almost half were identified as demand response (16 percent), advance reservation (33 percent) or stretcher trips (0.2 percent), the remainder being fixed route (50 percent) or school bus trips (1 percent) (Florida Commission, 1999). National statistics indicating the characteristics and scale of the transit operator segment of demand responsive service operations are provided in Table 6-11 for the 541 transit agencies included in the 1996 National Transit Database. Comparison is provided with the total public transportation operations of the 541 agencies. Services open to the general public and ADA demand responsive services are lumped together in these statistics. Clearly, however, the ADA services dominate. 4 4 TCRP Report 98, published subsequent to the development of this chapter, provides statistics from a survey of both agencies in the National Transit Database and smaller demand responsive transit (DRT) providers that recently received federal grants. Among 28 ADA complementary services, the mean for average trips per day was 335 and the mean for vehicles operated was 22. Similarly, for 30 general urban DRTs the trips per day mean was 521 and the vehicles operated mean was 30. For 32 rural, small city, and community DRTs, corresponding means were 277 trips per day and 17 vehicles operated. Wide variation was found within the survey sample (Schofer et al, 2003).
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he new research documented in TCRP Report 98 âResource Requirements for Demand-Responsive Transportation Servicesâ and the accompanying software provide a methodology for determining the number of vehicles required given service area size, trip demand and operating policies (Schofer et al, 2003). (See the âAdditional Resourcesâ section for further information.)
6-33 Figure 6-4 illustrates the cumulative frequency function of reported passengers per revenue vehicle hour for demand responsive services operated by systems with fifty or fewer vehicles derived from FTAâs National Transit Database for 1994. Most of these demand responsive services are public, in the limited sense that a potential patron need not be an agency client or enrolled in a social service program, but most are also restricted to specific eligible individuals and do not serve general public riders. The range is from about 0.5 to 9.2 passengers per hour with a median value of 3.3. Encouraging Use of Fixed Routes Instead of ADA Paratransit While, in theory, any person capable of using an existing fixed route service for a specific trip can be deemed ânon-ADA eligibleâ for such trips, few transit agencies have been willing to apply such stringent eligibility criteria or to undertake the administrative burden of making trip-by-trip eligibility determinations. None-the-less, a transit agency has strong incentives not only to operate fixed route services in a way that accommodates disabled riders, but also to promote use of fixed route services by persons who are eligible for ADA services. The cost of providing complementary paratransit service for a given trip may be quite high, with per trip costs exceeding $20 not unusual, while the marginal costs of accommodating a disabled rider on an existing fixed route trip are essentially zero. In August 1995, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in Michigan reduced the fare for disabled persons using regular route services from $0.35 to free fare. The fare for a paratransit trip was $1.50, twice the regular fixed route fare. The experiment was repeated in April 1996. In both cases, the ADA ridership on fixed route buses was over 3 times as large as had been observed in the same month the two previous years and much greater than ridership in the prior month. However, there was no strong effect on paratransit ridership; it was reduced perhaps by 2 to 3 percent (Levine, 1997). Thus the objective of significantly reducing costly ADA service usage was not realized. The ridership results are shown in Table 6-13. Table 6-13 Effect of Change in Ann Arbor Regular Route Fares for Disabled Persons Month Fixed Route Fare For ADA Eligible Riders Fixed Route Ridership For ADA Eligible Riders Paratransit Ridership Total July, 1994 $0.35 2,600 14,600 17,200 August, 1994 $0.35 3,000 15,000 18,000 July, 1995 $0.35 3,150 16,000 19,150 August, 1995 Free 10,565* 16,300 26,865 March, 1995 $0.35 4,050 18,000 22,050 April, 1995 $0.35 3,700 15,800 19,500 March, 1996 $0.35 5,066* 17,900 22,966 April, 1996 Free 11,208* 17,000 28,208 Note: Ridership data marked with â*â taken from table in the source document. All other data estimated from charts in the source document. Source: Levine (1997).
!" # $%&&' ( )
6-35 Additional information relating to the Ann Arbor experience is provided in the case study âPromoting Use of Fixed Route Services by Persons with Disabilities â Ann Arbor, MI.â Several operators have tried training persons with disabilities to use fixed route bus service. These efforts seem to consistently produce increases in use of fixed routes by disabled persons, sometimes substantially. A 1991 wheelchair user training effort in Phoenix, Arizona resulted in a 75 percent increase in wheelchair user ridership on the targeted fixed route. In Dayton, Ohio, ongoing training of 180 wheelchair users annually has led to a 40 percent increase in wheelchair boardings (reaching about 2,000 boardings per month). Training of 180 Austin, Texas residents with various disabilities in 1994 and 1995 led to 65 percent becoming occasional users and 29 percent becoming frequent users of fixed route services. However, the effect on paratransit usage in Austin was unclear. In a dozen similar demonstration projects sponsored by Easter Seals and the U.S. DOT, few were able to show much diversion from paratransit, although the gains in mobility evidenced by increased fixed route usage were positive developments (Rosenbloom, 1998). Service Development and Time Lag When a transit service is introduced into a previously unserved area, some time is required for the market to develop. Potential riders must become aware of the service and adjust their travel behavior if they wish to make use of it. Figure 6-5 illustrates the ridership growth pattern observed over the first two-and-half years of operation of the Prince William County, Virginia OmniLink point-deviation services. These data suggest that it takes about a year for ridership to begin stabilizing, and about two years overall to reach a more or less mature level. This pattern is a fairly common outcome for new transit services of many types and thus may be considered representative of likely ridership development time lag, at least for new services open to the general public. In the particular case of OmniLink point-deviation service, ridership on the three lines opened first increased from about 20 percent of matured ridership in the first month to 50 percent in the fourth month. Results for initial months of any new transit service are known to vary widely, however, even when expressed relative to matured ridership. Thus these values are only broadly suggestive of possible outcomes elsewhere. Demand Responsive Service Rider Characteristics and Alternative Modes General Public Services In some cases, characteristics of ridership on general public dial-a-ride services are not that much different from services with eligibility restrictions, covered next, although more employed persons might be expected on weekday services. In Warsaw, Indiana, for example, the typical rider is thought to be a poor, elderly, or disabled passenger (Kosciusko Area Bus Service, 1998). This is probably typical of rural areas and communities. Of surveyed riders using the Phoenix Sunday dial-a-ride service, eight out of ten had no car, 77 percent had no driverâs license, and the typical rider was a female senior citizen with limited income (Crain & Associates, 1983). (See the case study âDemand Responsive Service at Times of Lesser Demand â Phoenixâ for further detail.)
!"#$! %
6-37 The general public dial-a-ride services in the relatively well-to-do outer Minneapolis suburbs of Shakopee, Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska, Minnesota had senior citizens as 15 to 25 percent of their weekday daytime riders, students as 20 percent (primarily from private schools) to 50 percent, and other general public for the remaining 25 to 65 percent. Evening service in Shakopee attracted mostly students with evening extra-curricular activities. Saturday service riders were divided more or less evenly between senior citizens and students on the one hand and other general public on the other (Pratt, 1989). Surveys soon after introduction of OmniLink service in Prince William County, Virginia identified primary OmniLink travel purposes as work (29 percent), shopping (26 percent), medical (15 percent) and social-recreational (11 percent). Surveys at the end of the first year found 61 percent of the riders to be female, 79 percent under 45 years of age, and 64 percent having less than a $25,000/year salary. Some form of automotive travel was the prior mode for 72 percent; 21 percent drove alone, 29 percent were car passengers, and 22 percent had used taxis (Rosenbloom, 1998). Other data specifically identified as being for OmniLink demand response patrons indicate 22 percent formerly drove alone to work and 19 percent formerly drove alone to shop (Michael Baker et al, 1997). It is not clear whether or not some of the Prince William County rider survey data includes the roughly one in four of total OmniLink demand response and fixed route patrons who used the fixed route commuter rail feeder component of the overall service. Logically, occurrence of trips not made previously should be significant for new demand responsive services. Reported information on this appears to be universally lacking, however. Eligibility-Restricted Services Demand responsive services with rider eligibility restrictions obviously cater to persons with the defined characteristics, typically persons with disabilities, or other transportation disadvantaged clientele. The defined characteristics will vary according to the objectives or legal mandate of the system. Results of different approaches are illustrated by the client characteristics presented in Table 6-14. The Florida passenger characteristics data in Table 6-14, being statewide, reflect a full gamut of eligibility requirements. Extra caution must be applied in interpreting the Florida percentages, however, since each individual is assigned to only one category, even though many undoubtedly fit into several. Also, the Florida data is for a 50-50 mix of paratransit and fixed route transit disadvantaged riders (Florida Commission, 1999). In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, the target population is senior citizens, people with disabilities, and young children going to school, especially Head Start. The rider characteristics presented in Table 6-14, based on a survey of 272 riders, reflect this emphasis (Ben-Akiva et al, 1996). The Chicago client mix reflects a more narrow application of federal ADA requirements. Although not reported, presumably all the riders at least nominally meet the criterion of being unable to access or use conventional transit services because of a disability. Note the virtual absence of children as Chicago paratransit clients, in contrast to Florida and Winston-Salem.
Florida Statewide a Winston-Salem Chicago ADA Category Percent Category Percent Category Percent !" # $ % & $' ( ) * +( ,-. $ / & 0 " # ' $ ..- , / #( ,/ 1 .( # # # 2 '# $ '' ' 3 !' ( & 1 ( ( # $ 0 4 5 4 6 $$ ,/7 8 9 $5 3 : ,/7 6(# 5 6(# ; ( ,/ #( ## . $ 6(# < * ( '# $' . ' # $ !( % % '# , % ' /* # ( '# . ( ' ! .$ 2 ( ( . . ( older! er, '# . /* '# ( a house- ( # $ . ( )* ' # '# * '# * * ( '# ! . $ ( ( +. ( ' * '# ( ( ( #:ed ' (# ,6(# ; ( */ ; ('' ' . # # ' . ( $( = !* (# *(6(# ' $' . !(#( ( ! # $ ' # ..# '' 9 # %'# . 6(# ' '#( $* $ , . ( ' #' '*!(#(> $ $ $'.> # .('!:*$ $ ( (' ' . ' ##. $ $ ! ' #( ! : # ',6(# ; ( * / *'# .6(# : ' ( $ ' $ :(' ($ +.(%'# !( . ' * ( $ ? ! - , '# /* ## - ,%'# /* '# 6;; -##1 $,'# /*.- #,'# /* # ( ( # # ,'# /* ' # ,'# / ( , '# / 9 # ( @+(A # # ' :@. *A@ A @ ( A ('*' # $ !( $ !( (# !,6(# ; ( */
! "# $ Category Percent Category Percent Category Percent ! " # $ " $ " % $ " & ' ' ( ) ' * ' " # " % + ! " " + & , - " are+&(.) */* that " 0 1 failed to " */* 0 " "" " ' 2) 0 , 3 4 3 - 5867 ' 4 8 * 0 567 - " 4 - " * 56 Impacts on VMT, Energy, Environment, Costs " ) 0 0 ) 0 " 9 ) 9 " 1 9 " ) 0 9 0 " : " ;1 " 9 ; 9 1 9 * ; " 1 " ) 0 " 9 0 )) " 1 ; ) ; " 1 0 " ) 0 5<$ 6; " ) 0 0 " 0 ) ) 2 " */* " ) " 0 ) " " 9 0 " = " # " - ) 0 0 " ) + ( 0 " = " - ;< ; 0 ) >! ;??? 0 ; 1 )1 >;???9 0 1 )> " 0 " )9 0 " 539 ;6 $ $ " " 0 @ 0 " A 0 5* 0 " ) 2 ) ; " ) " " " 9 " 9 0 0 " " 1 1 6$ B 0 0 " 9 0 0 */* 1 ;9 */* 1 1 : ;$ $ " 0 )>??;??? */*1 ) C 0 >!;???;??? 5( ; 6 " 3 ; 2 " 0 ) 2 0 " 9 */* D 8 9 9 9 *" 0 " D D 0 " 0 ) 0 " */* 91 9 >%?;??? >;???;??? 5< ;%6
