ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies (2022)

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

ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies A SYNTHESIS OF TRANSIT PRACTICE Will Rodman Texas A&M Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System Dallas, TX 2022 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Administration and Management • Passenger Transportation • Public Transportation T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP SYNTHESIS 161

TCRP SYNTHESIS 161 Project J-07, Topic SG-19 ISSN 1073-4880 ISBN 978-0-309-09461-0 © 2022 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Cover photo: A nurse helps a senior man exit a demand-responsive transportation van. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob- lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera- tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 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 successful National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Commission. 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 Commission to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Commission defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat- ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen- cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP SYNTHESIS 161 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Mariela Garcia-Colberg, Senior Program Officer Emily Griswold, Program Coordinator Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications TCRP PROJECT J-07 PANEL Elizabeth Presutti, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART), Des Moines, IA (Chair) Jameson Auten, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Kansas City, MO Mallory Avis, Battle Creek Transit, Battle Creek, MI Fabian Cevallos, Tamarac, FL Roderick B. Diaz, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Los Angeles, CA Mark Donaghy, Petersburg, KY Rachel Dungca, Metro Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Anthony, MN Christian T. Kent, Christian T. Kent, Transit Management Consulting, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA Ronald J. Kilcoyne, TMD, Walnut Creek, CA Brad J. Miller, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), St. Petersburg, FL Beverly Neff, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego, CA Jarrett William Stoltzfus, Proterra, Walnut, CA Edward F. Watt, Rockaway Park, NY David C. Wilcock, VHB, Boston, MA Tara Clark, FTA Liaison Arthur L. Guzzetti, APTA Liaison William Terry, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Liaison TOPIC SG-19 PANEL John C. Andoh, County of Hawaii, Hilo, HI Mallory Avis, Battle Creek Transit, Battle Creek, MI Elizabeth Carter, Rio Metro Regional Transit District, Albuquerque, NM Ryan I. Daniel, St. Cloud Metro Bus, St. Cloud, MN Tina Dubost, San Mateo County Transit District (SanTRANS), San Carlos, CA Karl M. Johanson, Magnus Mobility Management, Pullman, WA Alanna McKeeman, Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning, Rockville, MD Angela Wynes, City of High Point, High Point, NC Susan A. Clark, FTA Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This synthesis report was prepared by Will Rodman with assistance from Todd Hansen, Kelly Blume, and Jinuk Hwang of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s Transit Mobility Program; Michelle Benoit of TTI Communications; and Vicky Nelson, TTI’s Art Director. The author thanks the members of the SG-19 panel for guidance, as well as the following individuals from the 20 transit agencies that responded to the SG-19 survey, several of whom were interviewed for the case examples. Location Transit Agency/Organization Respondent Title Abilene, TX CityLink Transit Bobby Sharpe* General Manager Ann Arbor, MI AAATA (TheRide) Bryan Smith* Robert Williams* Deputy CEO, Operations Supervisor of Call-Taking and Paratransit Bangor, ME Community Connector Sherri Clark Operations Officer Battle Creek, MI Battle Creek Transit Mallory Avis Public Transit Director Bellingham, WA Whatcom Transportation Authority Shelly Davis Paratransit Manager Bend, OR Cascades East Transit Andrea Breault* Transportation Director Burlington, VT Green Mountain Transit Jordan Posner Paratransit and Broker Service Manager Champaign- Urbana, IL Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Evan Alvarez* Special Services Manager Columbia, SC Central Midlands RTA (The COMET) John Andoh* Pamela Bynoe-Reed* Former Executive Director Director of Marketing and Community Affairs Dothan, AL Wiregrass Transit Authority Jarrod Weed Director Downey, CA City of Downey Jason Chacon Recreation Manager Fort Collins, CO Transfort Kaley Zeisel Transit Compliance Manager Frederick County, MD Transit Services of Frederick County Roman Steichen* Director Galveston, TX, and Harris County, TX Island Transit Harris County Transit James Oliver* Vernon Chambers* Ken Fickes* General Manager Assistant Director Director Gastonia, NC Gaston County Michael Coone* Twanna Littlejohn* Administrator Transportation Coordinator Monroe County, PA Monroe County Transportation Authority Peggy Howarth Executive Director Topeka, KS Topeka MTA Denise Ensley* Andy Frye* Chief Operating Officer Manager of Planning Tyler, TX City of Tyler (Tyler Transit) Melissa Medina Dispatch/Scheduler Ventura County, CA Gold Coast Transit District Margaret Heath-Schoep* Paratransit and Special Projects Manager Wenatchee, WA Link Transit Richard DeRock* General Manager * Interviewed for case examples.

ABOUT THE TCRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Cooperative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-07, “Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD By Mariela Garcia-Colberg Staff Officer Transportation Research Board ADA paratransit demand continues to grow while resources are dwindling. Because of this, transit agencies continue to explore models to more effectively meet the demand. Small agencies in particular may be finding unique and better ways to adopt “hybrid” service models (such as brokerage services or TNCs) and community-based operations using nontraditional operators. The objective of this synthesis was to document for a comprehensive set of service models the different ways that transit agencies provide DRT services, other than by the traditional in-house model or through a sole turnkey contract. In particular, this synthesis explored paratransit delivery models for small and midsize systems (fewer than 50 fixed-route buses and often a dozen or fewer vehicles operating paratransit service). The synthesis report documents the way various service and contract models are structured to enhance the knowledge base of small agencies. TCRP Synthesis 161 includes an introduction, a literature review, and case examples of 11 transit agencies that responded to the administered survey and that reflect the various service models used to provide ADA complementary paratransit services, coordinated paratransit services, alternative services for ADA paratransit customers, general public dial-a-ride services, microtransit, and flex transit. The transit agencies were chosen because of their geographic diversity, use of different service delivery models, and size. Each profile includes a summary of the system and highlights their service delivery models, information on contracting, challenges, outcomes, and lessons learned. The synthesis will be useful to small and midsized transit agencies as the agencies evaluate their current and future paratransit services. Will Rodman and his team from Texas A&M Transportation Institute collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report, under the guidance of a panel of experts in the subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

1 Summary 23 Chapter 1 Introduction 23 Study Goals 23 Methodology and Report Organization 25 Chapter 2 Overview of DRT Service Models 25 Introduction 25 The Players 25 DRT Service Types 30 DRT Service Models 36 Benefits, Challenges, and Shortcomings 52 Chapter 3 Survey and Survey Results 52 Survey Development and Methodology 52 The Survey Instrument 53 Targeted Agencies and Survey Respondents 53 Survey Findings and Analysis 65 Chapter 4 Case Examples 65 Case Example Selection 65 DRT Service Types Reflected in the Case Examples 67 Paratransit Service Models Reflected in the Case Examples 69 Abilene, Texas: CityLink Plus Two 75 Ann Arbor, Michigan: A Trio of Service Models—Unpacked 85 Bend, Oregon: Taking Advantage of Cascading Funding 91 Champaign-Urbana, Illinois: A Rocky-Road Approach 98 Columbia, South Carolina: The COMET’s ReFlex-sive Actions 102 Frederick County, Maryland: Blending ADA Paratransit with E&D Dial-a-Ride 106 Gaston County, North Carolina: Deconstructing a Service Mix 110 Galveston and Harris County, Texas: User-Side Subsidy Taxi Programs 116 Topeka, Kansas: Topeka Metro’s Unusual Service Mix 121 Ventura County, California: The Premium Gold Standard 130 Wenatchee, Washington: A Tale of Two Service Areas 137 Chapter 5 Key Findings and Conclusions 137 Adopting a Family-of-Service Approach to DRT Services Is a Key Component of Mobility Management, with the Customer Benefits of Tailored Services Outweighing Uniform Service Models 138 Comingling ADA Paratransit Trips and Other Compatible Trips on the Same Service Increases Productivity and Cost Efficiency 138 Directly Operating Paratransit, Dial-a-Ride, and Microtransit Service Provides Transit Agencies with More Control over Service Quality C O N T E N T S

139 Using a Turnkey Contractor Is a Cost-Effective Service Model and Provides Focused Accountability; Service Quality Can Be Controlled with Incentives or Penalties Tied to Performance 140 Providing Vehicles and Other Assets to a Turnkey Contractor Reduces Need for Local Capital Funding While Ensuring Vehicle Type, Software Preferences, and Facility Location, to Level the Playing Field 141 Using Multiple Turnkey Paratransit Contractors Makes Sense for Taxi and TNC-Based On-Demand Services, and for Paratransit in Large Areas or Where Trip Types Are Served by Different Contractors 141 Using Nondedicated Service Providers for Overflow Is a Proven Cost-Reduction Strategy and a Solution to Driver Shortage Issues 143 Using Nondedicated Service Providers for Microtransit Services Is a Proven Model for Large Areas and Where Demand Is Sparse or Unknown 143 Using Operational Contractors While Performing Call Center Functions In-House Provides Both Cost Savings and Service Quality 144 Splitting Up the Call and Control Functions Provides Transit Agencies with More Control over Direct Customer Interaction, While Taking Advantage of Contractor Expertise 144 Using a Broker Is a Proven Model for Multisponsor Coordinated Services and Where Expertise Is Needed for a Multicarrier Design 145 Using a User-Side Subsidy Program Is a Cost-Effective Approach, with Newer Technologies Controlling Fraud and Improving Data Collection 146 Using DRT Resources for Food Delivery and Vaccination Shots During the Pandemic Has Been a Community Benefit 146 Need for Future Research 147 Appendix A Literature Review 152 Appendix B Survey Instrument 160 Appendix C Glossary of DRT Acronyms and Terms