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.

1   Why You Should Read This Synthesis Most small to midsized transit agencies that provide ADA paratransit or other demand- responsive transportation services perform all day-to-day functions in-house or through a sole turnkey contractor. This synthesis was commissioned to study the other ways in which small to midsized transit agencies are providing such services so that such agencies can learn from these experiences. This synthesis identifies and provides case examples of a variety of different service models used to provide ADA complementary paratransit services, coordinated paratransit services, alternative services for ADA paratransit customers, general public dial-a-ride (DAR) services, microtransit, and flex transit. The synthesis also illustrates how the different service models for each of these different service types effectively meet the growing demands for these services, and, in many cases, how changing the service model led to cost savings. Another important finding of this synthesis is that many small and midsized transit agencies have embraced the concept of mobility management and, through a “family-of- service” approach, are providing different types of demand-responsive transportation (DRT) services to meet different needs within the community in different areas and at different times. And in several cases, discussed herein, these agencies are using different service models for the different services, rather than trying to “do it all” with one service platform. With this in mind, this synthesis is aimed at general managers, planners, and paratransit managers at small or midsized transit agencies, as well as practitioners who help such agencies. How You Should Read This Synthesis This synthesis is a bit unusual in the way it is organized. For example, the Summary is a “Reader’s Digest” version of the project and its findings. This is a good place to start. While the key findings and conclusions of this study effort are included in the Summary, Chapter 5 takes a deep dive into these findings, with conclusions for each service model or design strategy traced back to the case examples in Chapter 4, where more context is provided. Readers are encouraged to read all 11 of the case examples in Chapter 4, as they each have some important lessons learned. Each of the case examples has a summary, a background section for context, an in-depth look at each of their DRT services and their service models, S U M M A R Y ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies

2 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies and sections on contracting details (for both sponsoring agencies and service providers, asset provision, and technology). Each case example concludes with sections on benefit, challenges and shortcomings, and lessons learned. Interestingly, these 11 cases studies collectively reflect 40 different DRT services. For readers who do not have a full understanding of ADA paratransit and other DRT service types, Chapter 2 provides an overview of the different DRT services, models, and designs. It has an in-depth description of various models and designs and discusses the benefits, challenges, and shortcomings of each. Also, the survey results in Chapter 3 illus- trate the wide range of DRT services provided by small and midsized transit agencies and the diversity of service models and designs deployed. Why This Synthesis Was Commissioned With the demand for complementary paratransit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA paratransit) and other demand-responsive transportation (DRT) services provided by transit agencies continuing to grow amid dwindling resources, small and midsized transit agencies are implementing different types of DRT service models that more effectively and efficiently meet these growing demands. The vast majority of small to midsized tran- sit agencies that do provide DRT services perform almost all day-to-day functions in-house or through a sole turnkey contract. This synthesis was commissioned to study the other ways in which small to midsized transit agencies are providing DRT services so that such agencies can learn from these experiences. Indeed, the literature review, survey responses, and case examples identified a variety of approaches that illustrate how the benefits of different service models did in fact help small to midsized transit agencies achieve these and other goals. Many of these different approaches to providing DRT services are more commonplace in larger transit agencies, as documented in TCRP Synthesis 135: ADA Paratransit Service Models (see Case Example References on Page 147). However, there has been a lack of detailed information about different DRT service models that have been implemented by small to midsized transit agencies and the underlying reasons they opted to keep or change their service models. Accordingly, TRB’s TCRP commissioned this synthesis to see how such transit agencies organize the work. In this current synthesis, these other service models and strategies are found to be not just the province of larger transit agencies, and lessons are to be learned for the variety of DRT service types and service models and designs imple- mented by their smaller sister agencies. Synthesis Effort and Report Organization The study effort began with a literature review of national research studies that focused on service-model options for small to midsized transit agencies. This led to web-based searches and reports prepared for individual transit agencies that included discussions on planned or implemented changes to service models and the benefits that would hopefully or did ensue. In particular, the review sought to identify different types of service models as implemented by transit agencies serving small urban areas, small to midsized urban transit agencies that also serve adjacent rural areas, and smaller transit agencies within larger urban areas. The source documents reviewed for this effort are discussed in Appendix A. The findings from the literature review were used to prepare a practice overview of existing DRT service models used by small and midsized transit agencies. This overview is in Chapter 2.

Summary 3   The identification of 30 candidates for the SG-19 targeted survey stemmed from the literature review and a review of 2019 National Transit Database (NTD) data, filtered to identify transit agencies with smaller ridership and fleet sizes, as well as those agencies that delivered service by some combination of agency-operated vehicles, contractor-operated vehicles, and taxis. The targeted survey was then sent to 30 small and midsized transit agen- cies that were selected because of their collective use of different service models for their DRT services and because of their geographic diversity (Table S-1). A total of 20 surveys were completed, for a 67 percent return rate. The survey, the survey responses, and findings are discussed in Chapter 3. Of these 20 transit agencies that completed the survey, 12 were eventually selected for case examples and all but one agreed to participate as such. Their selection was based primarily on their willingness to participate as case examples and the availability of data to evidence the achievement of intended goals—and, for some, unintended results—associated with continuing or recently changing their service model. These 11 case examples are presented in Chapter 4. Finally, a synthesis of lessons learned from the case examples is presented in Chapter 5. The three appendices include the following: • Appendix A: Literature Review • Appendix B: Survey Instrument • Appendix C: Glossary of DRT Acronyms and Terms DRT Service Types Covered in This Synthesis There are six basic types of DRT (herein as a group abbreviated “DRT services”) that are provided by small and midsized transit agencies. These include the following: • ADA complementary paratransit • Coordinated paratransit • Alternative services for ADA paratransit customers • Dial-a-ride • Microtransit • Flex transit Distinguishing characteristics of each of the DRT service types are discussed later, noting that all of these services must abide by the nondiscrimination and other require- ments of the ADA. ADA Complementary Paratransit Service (ADA Paratransit) Under the ADA, a transit agency providing fixed-route service is obligated to provide complementary paratransit where and when the fixed-route service operates to persons who, because of their disabilities, cannot access or use the fixed-route service. Coordinated Paratransit Services Many small and midsized transit agencies with ADA paratransit obligations also enter into sponsorship agreements with other entities [e.g., human service agencies (HSAs)], using the ADA paratransit service platform to also transport those sponsors’ clients, customers, or constituents, often in a comingled fashion.

4 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Alternative Services The term alternative service is used in the transit industry to mean a transit-subsidized, on-demand mobility option offered by a transit agency to ADA paratransit individuals, noting that some agencies that provide coordinated services sometimes extend eligibility for their alternative services to other riders of their coordinated service as well. The general concept is to use existing on-demand providers in the community, such as taxis or trans- portation network companies (TNCs) for an alternative service. An alternative service must provide equivalent service, as a requirement of the ADA, but does not need to abide by ADA complementary paratransit requirements. In cases where the main service providers do not have wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) available, the transit agency requires that these providers arrange for WAV service typically through a third party, although this alone does not mean that equivalent service has been achieved. Dial-a-Ride Transit agencies serving large and less dense areas often choose to provide a general public DRT service instead of fixed-route or flex transit, often as a more cost-effective solution. In the industry, these are most often referred to as “dial-a-ride” (DAR) services. Many DAR services provide coordinated service, with HSA-sponsored clients transported on the same service platform and often comingled with general public riders. Other DAR services do not offer DRT service to the general public; instead, they provide service to subsets of the population, such as seniors and persons with disabilities. Many such services are provided by municipal or county transportation departments. Microtransit Microtransit is another on-demand service, but microtransit, by definition, is available to the general public. Microtransit is often used to accomplish the following: • Expand public transit access to new areas or times and, by doing so, test the demand in these areas or times. • Replace underperforming routes or route segments or to replace coverage routes. • Reduce demand at nearby station or bus-facility parking lots. Microtransit services are provided directly with dedicated vehicles operated by transit agencies or their paratransit contractors, or by nondedicated service providers (NDSPs) such as taxis or TNCs, or a combination thereof. On-demand dispatching technology can be licensed separately by the transit agency for the service or provided by a provider. Similar to alternative services, where a main provider does not offer WAV service directly, microtransit providers must subcontract with a WAV provider. Flex Transit Flex transit provides a rider with the opportunity to request that a bus deviates in between scheduled stops to pick up or drop off the rider. There are three types of flex transit: • Route deviation. As described in FTA Circular 4710.1, Section 7.5.4, “Route deviations service operates along established routes that typically have designated stops. Between these stops, vehicles deviate from an established route to pick-up or drop off riders within a defined service area.” To be considered demand-responsive rather than fixed route, route-deviation services must accept deviation requests from all riders and pro- vide nondiscriminatory service.

Summary 5   • Comingled fixed-route transit/ADA paratransit service. In Section 7.5.4 of the same FTA circular, it is acknowledged that transit agencies, especially in less dense areas, can operate local fixed-route service while using the same bus to fulfill its ADA paratransit obligations for that route. With such a comingled service, off-route deviations are only made to fulfill requests from ADA paratransit customers, noting that this aspect of the service must otherwise fully comply with ADA paratransit requirements. • Checkpoint (or point) deviation. This is a service where a vehicle makes scheduled stops at one or more specific locations but otherwise makes pickups and drop-offs at other locations within a defined area and during prescribed service hours based on rider requests. With checkpoint deviation, there is no prescribed route, and hence no ADA complementary paratransit-service obligation associated with that service. Flex transit services are usually operated by a transit agency itself or a transit operation or management contractor. DRT Service Models DRT service models implemented by small and midsized transit agencies are defined by the structural division of functions; that is, which entity or entities provide the day-to- day call and control functions, deliver service, and provide supporting assets (vehicles or facilities). These three elements are discussed as follows. Call and Control Functions DRT service models can be defined based on which entity is responsible for each of the four major call and control center (CCC) functions associated with DRT services. These include reservations, scheduling, dispatching, and handling service-day calls from riders. Any or all of these functions can be performed by a transit agency, the operations contractor(s), or with a third-party transportation broker, especially where multiple carriers are used. Common service models implemented by small and midsized transit agencies are where all call and control functions are assigned to the transit agency or a turnkey contractor (or contractors), respectively.

6 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies ALL-IN-HOUSE Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC TURNKEY Contractor(s) RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC However, there are several other approaches where the transit agencies and their contrac- tors split the CCC functions, as well as models where the transit agencies assign certain functions to their broker. Brokers are oen commonly used in coordinated paratransit systems where the transit agency does not wish to (or is prohibited from) entering into sponsorship contracts. Contractor(s) SCH DIS OPS VEH FAC SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Transit Agency or Broker RES ETA Service Delivery Functions As reected by the boxes displayed earlier, service delivery for small and midsized transit agencies’ DRT services is commonly assigned to the transit agency or to a turnkey contractor. However, another common approach for both in-house delivery and turnkey contractors is for the transit agency or the turnkey contractor to contract or subcontract with one or more service providers to provide “overow” trips that the dedicated eet operated by the transit agency or turnkey contractor cannot accommodate. IN-HOUSE/OVERFLOW Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Overflow Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC

Summary 7   TURNKEY/OVERFLOW Contractor RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Subcontractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Another service model espoused by small to midsized transit agencies is to contract out service delivery to one or more service providers as a cost-reduction strategy. Contracting with more than one carrier is sometimes necessary if one service provider alone is insuf- cient to handle the demand. It is also quite common with brokers. OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S) Transit Agency or Broker RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Small to midsized transit agencies—or their brokers—sometimes contract with multiple carriers to serve dierent portions of their service area or to serve a dierent clientele. Other such transit agencies have organized service delivery based on trip purpose or by sponsor, noting that trip-purpose restrictions and priorities are not permitted in ADA para- transit services. One example of this is assigning nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) trips to a unique contractor or set of contractors who are not involved in the transport of any of the other DRT trips. Here, the rider would call the contractor based on trip purpose. Yet another service model shows that the transit agency and its contractor have divvied up the booking functions for advance reservations versus same-day calls and the service- delivery functions for nonambulatory trips versus ambulatory trips, respectively. DUPLICATE CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor – Same-Day Requests/Sedan Service RES DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency – Advance Requests/WAV Service RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC

8 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Alternative services, microtransit, and even ADA paratransit can be provided as a user- side subsidy program. In a way, this is similar to a turnkey contract in that the service providers are responsible for all of the day-to-day functions. e distinguishing charac- teristic of user-side subsidy programs is that there are no nancial transactions between the transit agency and service providers. In user-side subsidy programs, a transit agency’s nancial relationship is with the rider. On a regular basis, typically monthly, the transit agency “loads” its subsidy onto a rider’s fare card or into the rider’s fare card account. In most cases, the subsidy is a match of sorts, based on the amount the rider contributes. Once there are sucient funds on the card or in the account, it is up to the eligible rider to contact the provider (typically a taxi company) to book the trip and to pay for the entire fare at the trip destination. USER-SIDE SUBSIDY PROGRAM Transit Agency Taxi and/or Other Contractor VEHOPS RES DIS ETA FAC Rider Sub- sidy Fare Card Acct $ Service Delivery Design Another important distinction in any DRT service-delivery design is whether the service is provided by dedicated or nondedicated vehicles or both. Dedicated service is where the vehicles are used solely for the transit agency’s service or program during service hours. Nondedicated service is where a vehicle is not used solely for the transit agency’s service during service hours. Examples of NDSPs used by small and midsized transit agencies include taxis, livery operators (e.g., NEMT carriers), or TNCs, as follows: • A taxi might intersperse ADA paratransit trips with a nontransit-agency-sponsored general public trip. • A TNC-microtransit ridesharing option (UberPool or Ly Shared Rides), in which a sub- sidized transit customer might be comingled with another TNC trip that is not sponsored by the transit agency. • A human-service transportation contractor retained to provide general public DAR service might be allowed to comingle its own (sponsored) clients on the same vehicle. In addition, a transit agency or its paratransit contractor might operate a WAV in an on-call, nondedicated fashion, as needed, in support of the transit agency’s TNC-based microtransit service. Mixing dedicated and nondedicated service within one program is a common practice among small and midsized transit agencies as a way to reduce cost and to serve overow

Summary 9   trips. e service mix is the split between the trips scheduled and dispatched onto the dedicated eet versus the trips that are assigned to a nondedicated provider (for subsequent dispatching) or that are input into a TNC’s system through a portal. A common service mix, for example, might be 85/15 percent (i.e., 85 percent of the trips are served by the dedi- cated eet, while the remaining 15 percent are served with a nondedicated service provider or providers). Provision of Assets Service models for DRT systems can sometimes be described by the entity that is respon- sible for providing the supporting assets, such as the vehicles (revenue or nonrevenue), the facility that houses the CCC, the scheduling and dispatching system, the customer- facing technologies and in-vehicle communication equipment, the facility that houses the operations and maintenance functions, and the heavy maintenance equipment. But, more typically, the provision of assets focuses on which entity provides the vehicles and the facilities. OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S) / AGENCY ASSETS Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Transit agencies, by denition, provide the vehicles and facilities for all-in-house service, but they can also provide vehicles and facilities for service models that use contractors to perform service delivery, regardless of who performs the CCC functions. Transit agencies that own their vehicles have more direct control over the type of vehicles and the particular capacities and seating congurations used for their DRT services. ese agencies can also take advantage of 80/20 percent matching; if the vehicle is owned by the contractor, the transit agency reimburses the cost of the vehicle through the contract rate at a 50/50 percent match. For these reasons, small to midsized transit agencies using dedicated eets tend to own the vehicles. Project SG-19 Survey Survey Effort e ultimate goal of the survey was to nd at least 10 case examples that represented dierent types of DRT services and service models as provided by small to midsized transit agencies in dierent regions. e survey eort began with the development of the survey instrument (Appendix B). A total of 30 small to midsized transit agencies were then

10 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies identified and were invited to participate in the survey. These agencies represented a geo- graphically diverse set of transit agencies providing DRT services in small, urbanized areas (with populations between 50,000 and 200,000). Some of these provided DRT to adjacent rural areas (under 50,000 population). The 30 transit agencies also include some smaller transit agencies within large urban areas. Of the initial 30, 20 surveys were returned, for a 67 percent return rate. Attempts made to contact the 10 nonresponding agencies were unsuccessful. Table S-1 shows, for each region of the United States, the 20 transit agencies Region Surveys Returned Northeast Bangor, ME City of Bangor Burlington, VT Green Mountain Transit Mid-Atlantic Frederick Co., MD Frederick County* Monroe Co., PA Monroe County Midwest Ann Arbor, MI AAATA/TheRide* Battle Creek, MI Battle Creek Transit Champaign- Urbana, IL Champaign-Urbana MTD* Southeast Columbia, SC The COMET* Dothan, AL Wiregrass Transit Authority Gaston Co., NC Gaston County* Plains Topeka, KS Topeka MTA* Northwest Bellingham, WA Whatcom Transportation Authority Bend, OR Cascades East Transit* Wenatchee, WA Link Transit* Mountain West Fort Collins, CO Transfort Southwest Abilene, TX CityLink* Galveston, TX Harris County Transit/Island Transit* Tyler, TX City of Tyler California Downey, CA City of Downey Ventura Co., CA Gold Coast Transit District* *Also participated as case examples. Table S-1. Survey respondents.

Summary 11   that participated in the survey. Figure S-1 shows the location of the 20 participating transit agencies. The asterisked transit agencies in the table also participated as case examples. Survey Findings Paratransit Services per Transit Agency Of the 20 transit agencies responding to the survey, only five agencies (25 percent) provide one DRT service, while the remaining 15 transit agencies (75 percent) provide between two and seven DRT services (Table S-2). Collectively, the 20 transit agencies are providing 55 different DRT services. Figure S-1. Transit agencies that participated in the survey. Number of DRT Services Number of Transit Agencies 1 5 2 4 3 6 4 3 5 1 7 1 Table S-2. Number of DRT services per transit agency.

12 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies ADA Para- transit Coordinated Paratransit Alternative Service DAR E&D DAR Gen Pub DAR & NEM NEM Service Micro- transit Flex Transit Flex & DAR HSA Programs Total All-in-House 4 2 3 4 4 1 18 In-House + Overflow Contractor(s) 1 1 3 1 1 7 Turnkey Contractor 2 1 1 2 2 8 Turnkey Contractor with Agency Assets 1 2 2 5 Turnkey + Overflow Subcontractor(s) 1 1 Multiple Turnkey Contractors 1 1 Operational Contractor 1 1 Operational Contractors 2 2 4 Mixed CCC Functions 2 2 4 Subsidy Program 1 3 1 1 6 Total 12 7 3 2 7 1 3 11 6 1 2 55 Service Types Service Model Service Models and Service Types Altogether, the transit agencies used 10 different service models for their 55 DRT services. Table S-3 cross-references these service models by service types. A total of 19 of the 55 services (35 percent) involve ADA paratransit services, while 26 of the 55 (47 percent) involve the provision of services to the general public via DAR services, microtransit, or flex transit, or a combination thereof. A relatively high number of small to midsized transit agencies implemented 11 different microtransit services. The next most common type of DRT are the seven flex transit services. Interestingly, none of the 20 survey respondents used a broker. While small to mid- sized transit agencies use brokers mostly in connection with coordinated services (with the broker and not the transit agency entering into sponsor agreements), there were only seven coordinated services provided by the 20 agencies from the survey, and none used a broker. Use of Dedicated Fleets and Nondedicated Service Providers An analysis of the service delivery designs of the paratransit, dial-a ride, NEMT programs, and microtransit services (totaling 47 services) shows the following: • 23 (49 percent) of the 47 services are provided with a dedicated fleet operated by the transit agency or by one or more service providers. • 15 (32 percent) of the 47 services are provided with a mixture of dedicated and non- dedicated vehicles. • 9 (19 percent) of the 47 services are provided exclusively with NDSPs. Table S-4 gives a breakdown of the different service mixes by service type. Table S-3. Service models and service types.

Summary 13   It is also interesting that three different services—an ADA paratransit, a dial-a-ride service for seniors and persons with disabilities, and an NEMT program—are operated as user-side subsidy programs. Use of Service Contractors As shown in Table S-5, transit agencies operated 18 (or 33 percent) of the 55 services in-house; that is, without the use of contractors. An additional 9 (16 percent) of the 55 ser- vices were operated by both transit agencies and service providers. And 28 (or 51 percent) of the 55 services were operated solely with contractors. Only two of the responding transit agencies did not use contractors at all. This was not surprising, because the team attempted to screen out such agencies. Of the 53 services that the other 18 agencies provided, the agencies used a contractor to provide all or part of 37 services, as follows: • One or multiple paratransit contractors provide all or part of 22 (59 percent) of the 37 services. • One or multiple taxi companies provide all or part of 13 (35 percent) of the 37 services. • One or more HSAs provide all or part of six (16 percent) of the 37 services. • TNCs were used for one (3 percent) of the 37 services. The collective number of services (40) provided in part or exclusively with contractors exceeds 37 services, owing to some services using more than one type of operator. Provision of Assets Of the 22 services provided solely or in part by paratransit contractors, • The transit agency provides all of the supporting assets for seven (32 percent) of the 22 services. Service Type Dedicated Fleet(s) Only Dedicated and Non- dedicated Fleets Nondedicated Service Providers Total ADA Paratransit Services 5 6 1 12 ADA/Coordinated Paratransit 4 2 1 7 Alternative Services (for ADA paratransit customers) — — 3 3 Dial-a-Ride for Seniors or Persons with Disabilities 1 — 1 2 Dial-a-Ride for General Public 4 3 — 7 Dial-a-Ride and Nonemergency Medical — 1 — 1 Nonemergency Medical — — 3 3 Microtransit 8 3 — 11 Dial-a-Ride and Flex Transit 1 — — 1 Total 23 15 9 47 NOTE: A dash denotes no response in that category. Table S-4. Service designs by service type.

14 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies • The transit agency and the contractor each provide some of the supporting assets for 10 (45 percent) of the 22 services. • The contractors provide all of the supporting assets for five (23 percent) of the 22 services. Table S-6 gives a breakdown of assets for the 10 transit agencies with mixed assets. Of the 13 services that were provided by taxi companies or HSAs, the contractors pro- vide the vehicles used for the service. Also, in some cases, the transit agency provides the participating, trained, or certified drivers with tablets for data collection, trips dispatching, and driver-dispatcher communication. Perceived Benefits of the Service Model Implemented Of the 20 transit agency respondents, 12 responded to questions about the benefits of their service model. Figure S-2 provides the responses. The agencies felt that their service models provided service flexibility but also control over the balance between service quality (67 percent of the responses) and productivity and cost (75 percent of the responses). A total of 12 agencies noted that their various DRT services and service models provide additional mobility for their riders (12 responses). Service Type Transit- Agency- Operated Services Transit- Agency- and Contractor- Operated Services Contractor- Operated Services Total ADA Paratransit Services 4 3 5 12 ADA/Coordinated Services 2 1 4 7 Alternative Services (for ADA paratransit customers) — — 3 3 Dial-a-Ride for Seniors & Persons with Disabilities — — 2 2 Dial-a-Ride for General Public 3 3 1 7 Dial-a-Ride and Nonemergency Medical — 1 — 1 Nonemergency Medical — — 3 3 Microtransit 4 1 6 11 Flex Transit 4 — 2 6 Flex Transit and Dial-a-Ride 1 — — 1 Funds Human Service Transportation Programs — — 2 2 Total 18 9 28 55 NOTE: A dash denotes no response in that category. Table S-5. Service types and who operates them.

Summary 15   In a related question, the transit agencies were asked why they have chosen to maintain the current service model for their various DRT services or why they changed their service model. Several of the respondents indicated that they had changed their service model in the recent past; some of these are documented in the case examples. A total of 12 of the 20 agencies responded to this survey question. The most common response was to provide more mobility options for their customers, followed by controlling the balance between cost efficiency and service quality and having more direct control of both (Figure S-3). Case Examples Of the 20 surveys returned, and the 16 agencies that agreed to participate as case examples, 11 were eventually selected. The locations of these 11 transit agencies are shown in Figure S-4. The DRT service models used by these 11 transit agencies are identified in Table S-7. Collectively, these agencies provide 40 different DRT services. The service types represented among these 40 services include ADA paratransit services, ADA/coordinated services, alternative services for ADA paratransit customers, DAR services for the general public, Assets Provided by the Transit Agency for Contractor Use Number of Services Vehicles 5 Operations/Maintenance Facility 5 Call Center Telephone System 7 Scheduling/Dispatch Software 8 Vehicle Communication System and Equipment 7 Table S-6. Assets provided by the transit agency for contractor use. 4 7 8 9 12 7 8 3 12 Creates cost efficiency by fostering competition Creates cost efficiency through economies of scale Enhances control over service quality Enhances control over productivity/cost Enhances flexibility to respond to service quality issues Helps manage demand and encourage use of alternatives Minimizes risk for transit agency Minimizes risk for contractor(s) Provides additional mobility for our customers Figure S-2. Service model benefits.

16 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies 10 8 11 7 12 4 To improve cost efficiency (afford more trips) To provide more control over service quality To better control the balance between cost efficiency and service quality To better manage demand To provide more mobility options for our customers Other Figure S-3. Reasons why respondents maintained or changed service model. Figure S-4. Case example locations.

Summary 17   DAR services for seniors and persons with disabilities, NEMT programs, microtransit services, and flex transit services. Table S-7 also shows the types of service models represented among these 40 services. Key Findings and Conclusions A total of 15 of the 20 survey respondents and all 11 of the case example participants have embraced the family-of-service approach, with the transit agency providing different types of DRT services 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. Location All-in- House In- House + OFP Turnkey Cont Turnkey Cont + Assets Turnkey Cont + OFP + Assets Multiple Turnkey Cont’s Opera- tional Cont Opera- tional Cont’s Mixed Call and Control Functions User- Side Subsidy Total Abilene, TX 2 1 3 Ann Arbor, MI 2 1 3 Bend, OR 2 1 1 4 Champaign- Urbana, IL 4 3 7 Columbia, SC 2 1 2 5 Frederick County, MD 1 1 2 Galveston and Harris County, TX 1 3 4 Gaston County, NC 2 1 3 Topeka, KS 1 1 2 West Ventura County, CA 3 3 Wenatchee, WA 1 2 1 4 Total 13 4 4 5 1 2 2 2 2 5 40 NOTE: Cont = contractor; OFP = overflow provider. Table S-7. DRT services reflected in the case studies by service model.

18 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies within its service area, often with different service models. For these transit agencies, the cost savings from a more consolidated and uniform approach are outweighed by the customer benefits that stem from a more pinpointed approach to serving a particular need associated with different neighborhoods, for example, or at different times. One of the transit agencies discussed in one of this report’s case examples actually provides seven different DRT services. An important lesson learned is that a small to midsized transit agency can use a different service model for different DRT services that it provides. And in some cases, transit agencies have gained efficiencies by using the same vehicle for two different services at different times. A total of seven of the 20 transit survey respondents, includ- ing the transit agencies in four case examples, stated that serving ADA paratransit and other paratransit riders on the same service (and comingling such riders on the same vehicles) resulted in service-provision flexibility and cost efficiencies that would not have been possible had the separate sets of riders been served on two separate services. One of the related challenges of blending the services, however, is data reporting, as ADA paratransit data needs to be reported separately. Indeed, one of the case examples (in Ann Arbor) has decided to split out services that were for- merly coordinated to ensure that it is meeting its ADA paratransit obligations. Of the 55 DRT services reflected in the survey, 25 were operated solely or partially in-house. These 25 include 17 services discussed in the case examples. The primary motivation for transit agencies that directly operate services is better control over the service quality of all associated functions. The trade-off here is cost, as in-house services tend to cost more, largely because the higher driver wage rates and fringe benefits tend to be higher. Almost all of the case example contracts acknowledged this trade-off. Sometimes, bringing a service in-house, whether it be permanent or temporary, is the only option, as there may be only a limited number (if any) of local private carriers with which to contract. And in one of the case examples, the transit agency discovered that its contractor was not fulfilling its contractual obligations. And, of course, with an all-in-house system, transit agencies can take advantage of the 80/20 percent match associated with capital purchases. Of the 55 paratransit services and DRT services reflected in the survey, 13 of these services involved a single turnkey contract, and this may have been more of a function of the screening process used to target survey participants. One of the case example partici- pants uses its turnkey contractor to operate a variety of paratransit services, including its coordinated paratransit service (and three embedded programs) and its microtransit services. Small to midsized transit agencies tend to use turnkey contracts for their paratransit services where they have no interest or lack experience in performing any of the day-to-day functions, or where, in some states, they are prohibited by state law from operating service in-house. Comingling ADA paratransit trips and other compatible trips on the same service increases productivity and cost efficiencies. Directly operating paratransit, dial-a-ride, and microtransit service provides transit agencies with more control over service quality. Using a turnkey contractor for DRT services is a cost-effective service model and provides focused accountability; service quality can be controlled with incentives/penalties tied to performance.

Summary 19   But where there was a choice, virtually all the survey respondents indicated that they chose a turnkey contractor-service model to reduce operational cost and simplify oversight, while benefiting from all day-to-day functions being under one roof (which aids communi- cation). For these transit agencies, the balance tipped to cost. At the same time, these transit agencies felt they were able to successfully compensate for the lack of direct control with contractual incentives and penalties that are tied to service-quality-performance metrics. While long-term contracts do enhance these partnerships and result in stability and consistency for the agency, the drivers, and the riders, and result in more transit resources being poured into improving service quality than procurement efforts, more than a few of the transit agency respondents noted the importance of having a contractual “exit clause” that can be triggered by substandard performance. In most cases, turnkey contractors are paid by the revenue-hour, although many transit agencies first split out fixed costs that are paid via a monthly fixed fee. Several of the survey respondents and case example participants provide vehicles, software, and other equipment to their turnkey (and operational) contractor(s), also allowing their contractors to operate service out of transit agency facilities. By doing so, transit agencies can use FTA capital funding at an 80/20 percent match versus assigning asset provisions to its contractor(s) and paying for it via operating funding at a 50/50 percent match. By providing these assets, the transit agency also creates a more level playing field for the procurement of service providers. Additional benefits of a transit agency procuring its own vehicles include direct control over the type and capacity of vehicles, the fleet mix, the seating configuration, and the replacement and retirement schedule. Similarly, transit agencies that directly license DRT scheduling software have more direct control over the scheduling parameters and other configurable aspects of the technology. Providing vehicles and the software scheduling system also provides some consistency as a new contractor is retained and there is no need to convert data from one system to another. Some of the case-example transit agencies also noted that by providing the software and vehicles, it is much easier to switch out a contractor. With the exception of some of the alternative services, some microtransit services, and one user-side subsidy program, there were no survey respondents with multiple turnkey contractors. For small and midsized transit agencies, multiple turnkey contracts are appropriate primarily for multizone delivery networks covering large areas; riders would then know who to call for service based on the service provider that is assigned to their zone. They also work where the customer base can be easily divided by trip type or trip purpose. In a multiple carrier environment, agencies must weigh the addi- tional cost of having two or more sets of staff performing CCC functions, two or more sets of road supervisors, two or more sets of facilities, and the like, against the cost benefits associated with using contractors versus in-house operations and lower rates resulting from competition. Of the 25 DRT services (from the survey) that are operated solely or partially in-house, seven also use NDSPs for overflow. Also, there was Providing vehicles and other assets to a turnkey contractor reduces need for local capital funding while ensuring vehicle type and software preferences, facility location and leveling playing field. Using multiple turnkey paratransit contractors makes sense for taxi and TNC-based on-demand services, and for paratransit in very large areas or where trip types are served by different contractors. Using nondedicated service providers for overflow is a proven cost-reduction strategy and a solution to driver shortage issues.

20 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies one additional case where a turnkey contractor was permitted to and does use an overflow subcontractor. All eight of these services were also reflected in the case examples. Based on the interviews, the motivations for using overflow service providers are to supplement an at-capacity dedicated fleet, to reduce the overall cost per trip, and, for ADA paratransit services, to ensure no pattern of denials. Where NDSPs do not have WAV vehicles, the transit agency can actively be a part of solving that deficiency. The consensus among the transit agencies involved in the study effort is that providing— or requiring the contractor to provide—tablets in the nondedicated vehicles is a labor- saving solution to dispatching and collecting trip data and contributes to improved service quality and data accuracy. Without this, indirect dispatching and driver communications are cumbersome and problematic, while manual entry of data and trip verification can be labor-intensive and lead to data inaccuracies. The trips best assigned to the nondedicated providers are the trips that would adversely impact the productivity of the dedicated fleet. Assigning shorter trips to an overflow provider to minimize out-of-pocket costs may backfire if it drives down the productivity of the dedicated fleet and results in an increase in the overall cost per trip. Distance-based rates for NDSPs make sense where the trip length of trips assigned to the providers varies significantly. Where trip lengths are homogeneous or fairly limited based on a small service area, per-trip rates provide administrative simplicity and reduce labor required for monitoring. By definition, all alternative services use NDSPs, while some microtransit services, such as the two in Columbia, South Carolina, are being served with taxis or TNCs in whole or in part. Some small to midsized transit agencies elect to use NDSPs for microtransit to augment a dedicated fleet or vice versa, where the dedicated fleet is providing WAV service. Others choose to use NDSPs to solely provide microtransit in “new” areas where the demand for microtransit is unclear and in large areas where demand is spread out. In such areas, dedicated service could, respectively, be a gamble from a cost-efficiency perspective or not cost efficient. Similarly, small to midsized transit agencies are using taxis or TNCs for a first-mile/ last-mile microtransit service (with trips allowed only to and from transit connections) as a cost-efficient solution to serving a highly peaked demand. Of the 55 services reflected in the SG-19 survey, five use operational-contractor service models, where the transit agency performs all the call center functions and retained one or more contractors for service delivery. A total of four of these five use multiple contractors, which is more typical with such models. An additional four services are provided with mixed call and control functions (discussed later), noting that these models also use one or more contractors for service delivery. By and large, use of operational contractors for service delivery while the transit agency performs all or some of the call center functions is adopted by small to midsized transit agencies for some of the reasons previously discussed: mainly to reduce operational costs and to have direct control over both the service quality of call and control functions and the Using nondedicated service providers such as taxis or TNCs for microtransit services is a proven model for large areas and where demand is sparse/unknown. Using operational contractors while performing call center functions in-house provides [or] yields both cost savings and service quality control.

Summary 21   scheduling, dispatching, and distribution of trips, which can have a direct impact on both service quality and cost. A multicarrier procurement can generally increase competition, as they may be smaller. Local carriers that would not be able to serve the systemwide demand and increased competition often result in competitive rates. This also presents a way for the transit agency to meet small and midsized enterprise and disadvantaged business enterprise (SME/DBE) goals. Using multiple carriers also provides a transit agency with a built-in backup in case one of the contractors defaults; in such an event, a transit agency can temporarily expand the service area or scope of the other contractor(s) until a replacement contractor can be secured. And in unzoned service designs, transit agencies are freer to re-allocate the volume work between and among the carriers during the contract period, based on service performance. This strategy is facilitated where the transit agency owns the vehicles and therefore can re-allocate its vehicles among the contractors to mirror the re-allocation of service. From the survey, four of the 55 services (three of which are case examples) use one or more operational contractors for service delivery, with the transit agency providing only some of the call and control functions and with the contractor(s) performing the others. Examples from the case examples include (1) a transit agency being responsible only for the reservations function; (2) a service provider being responsible for estimated time of arrival (ETA) calls; (3) a transit agency performing reservations and scheduling for all advance-reservation trips and its operations contractor being responsible for same-day reservations and all dispatching and ETA call functions; and (4) the transit agency and service-provider contractor splitting the dispatching and ETA call functions for the trips that have been scheduled and assigned to each. In general, though, a transit agency takes on the reservations and ETA functions when it wishes to have more direct control of the customer-facing functions and takes on the scheduling of the function when it wishes to control the scheduling functions. In the first case, it boils down to the perceived need to improve service quality. In the second case, controlling the scheduling function directly impacts the balance between service quality and cost. From the literature review, most small to midsized transit agen- cies retain a broker for their DRT services to support coordinated systems, where the broker also enters into sponsorship agreements with other entities (such as HSAs). Brokerages are also appropriate for multicarrier service designs where the transit agency believes a broker is better suited to establish the service-delivery network, procure service providers, and allocate trips among the service providers. Lastly, some transit agencies choose a brokerage service model to diffuse risk, as the transit agency is no longer in a direct contractual relationship with the service providers. User-side subsidy programs can be used—and are used—by small and midsized transit agencies for almost any kind of DRT service, including ADA paratransit service. For many such services, vouchers have been replaced by fare card systems, where a rider directly loads money into the rider’s fare card account and the Splitting up the call and control functions provides transit agencies with more control over direct customer interaction, while taking advantage of contractor expertise. Using a broker is a proven model for multisponsor coordinated services and where expertise is needed for a multicarrier design. Using a user-side subsidy program is a cost-effective approach with newer technologies controlling fraud and improving data collection.

22 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies transit loads into that account a matching or higher subsidy (depending on the service or program). A significant benefit of some fare card systems is that they provide all the service data required for reporting and monitoring. The major benefit of user-side programs is cost reduction. For example, the City of Galveston in Texas was able to reduce its ADA paratransit per-trip cost by 70 percent by switching from transit-agency-operated dedicated vehicles to user-side subsidy programs using taxis operating nondedicated WAVs. In cases where user-side subsidy programs are used for a DRT service other than ADA paratransit, a transit agency’s financial exposure can be further controlled by the amount of the matching subsidy and by a maximum subsidy per month, as well as by the service area. A number of the transit agencies reflected in the case examples used DRT resources during the pandemic when ridership was down and there were drivers and vehicles available to provide home delivery of food and meals and trips to testing sites and vaccination clinics for seniors and persons with disabilities. Needs for Future Research The findings of the study suggest that small to midsized transit agencies do have service- model options for their DRT beyond the more traditional approaches of an all-in-house and a single turnkey contractor. The SG-19 study confirms that these have a broader spectrum of applicability than might have been generally realized by small and midsized transit agencies. Moving forward, it is important to ensure that small to midsized transit agencies are included within the scopes of these current and future efforts. Using DRT resources for food delivery and vaccination shots during the pandemic has been a community benefit.