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.

23   Introduction Study Goals There has been a historical tendency for small to midsized transit agencies to rely on themselves, if not a single turnkey service-provider contractor, to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other demand-responsive transportation (DRT) services. This is in contrast to larger transit agencies that, as a group, tend to have more complex DRT service models. But in the face of dwindling resources, many small and midsized transit agencies have instead opted to use multiple service-provider contractors and nondedicated providers and split the day-to-day call and control functions, while others have adopted an older concept, user-side subsidy programs, as a result of the availability of new technologies. In addition, more small to midsized transit agencies are embracing the concept of being their communities’ mobility manager. In several locations, this has involved providing different types of DRT services to meet specific needs within their communities and opting to use dif- ferent service models for those different services, a departure from the one-service, uniform approach to meeting those needs. This study was commissioned because of the lack of detailed information about the other DRT service models used by small to midsized transit agencies. Indeed, the goal of this study effort is to identify a variety of approaches that illustrate how the benefits of different service models do in fact help small to midsized transit agencies to control costs, achieve service performance goals, and otherwise achieve their desired balance between cost efficiency and service quality in addressing the transportation needs of their communities. Methodology and Report Organization This study was accomplished by conducting a literature review, a targeted survey, and 11 case examples. The literature review began with a search for national research studies and local planning efforts that focused on service-model options for small to midsized transit agencies. Per the SG-19 Panel’s direction, the objective of the review was to identify different types of DRT service models as implemented by the following: • 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 ways in which each of these reports and plans informed this study, and the overview in Chapter 2 in particular, are discussed in Appendix A. C H A P T E R   1

24 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies This overview includes a detailed description of the types of DRT services provided; the types of service models and designs that are collectively used to provide these services; and a discussion of the benefits, shortcomings, and challenges of each service model and design. A total of 30 candidates for a targeted survey were identified 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. Concurrently, the survey instrument (found in Appendix B), was developed and sent to the SG-19 Panel for review. Panel feedback was used to revise some of the questions and add others. The final version of the proposal was then sent to the panel for approval. The survey questions were then transposed into Qualtrics, a web-based survey program. This was pre-tested inter- nally and with the help of a few panel members. The pre-testing resulted in some minor adjust- ments, after which an invitation to participate in the SG-19 survey was extended to 30 targeted agencies via e-mail. The e-mail—and the survey instrument itself—explained the objective of the study and provided some hints that were provided to be helpful for the respondents. The e-mail also included a link to the web-based survey. A total of 20 transit agencies (a 67-percent response rate) responded to the survey. All 20 of the agencies provided sufficient information to understand the service models of their DRT service models, noting that these 20 agencies collectively provide 55 DRT services. A total of 12 of the 20 respondents fully completed the entire survey. The survey, the survey responses, and findings are discussed in Chapter 3. Of the 20 transit agencies that responded to the survey, 12 were eventually selected for case examples. Their selections were 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 modifying their service model. Interviews were conducted for all but one of the 12 transit agencies; one of the agencies did not respond to multiple requests for the interview. Case examples were drafted based on the survey responses and the interviews and were sent to the transit agencies for respective reviews. These 11 case examples are presented in Chapter 4. Finally, a synthesis of lessons learned from the survey and the case examples is presented in Chapter 5. In addition to the two appendices mentioned previously, a third appendix (Appendix C) provides a glossary of paratransit terms. This glossary is updated from the one that was included in TCRP Synthesis 135: ADA Paratransit Service Models.