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.

25   Overview of DRT Service Models Introduction Based on the documents reviewed in the project’s literature review (Appendix A) and the study team’s knowledge of the industry, DRT service models for small and midsized transit agencies can be differentiated primarily based on the following: • The division of day-to-day call and control functions; • How service delivery is organized; and • Which entity or entities provide the supporting assets, and especially the vehicles used to operate the service and the facilities that house the management, administrative, and support team; the call and control center (CCC); and the operations and maintenance functions. The Players Within the context of small and midsized transit agencies, there are generally four possible entities to which all or some of the day-to-day functions can be assigned: • The transit agency • A “turnkey” contractor (or contractors) • An operations contractor (or contractors) • A third-party transportation broker The author has noted that a transit agency or operations contractor might also contract out vehicle maintenance to a third-party vehicle maintenance vendor, but these instances are fairly rare among small to midsized transit agencies primarily because the cost is usually higher than performing maintenance with one’s own employees or through a transit agency’s operation and management contractor(s) and because there is an additional cost and inconvenience factor associated with getting the vehicle to and from the maintenance vendor. DRT Service Types Based on the study team’s experience, the literature review, and the survey response, there are six basic types of DRT services provided by small and midsized transit agencies, discussed as follows. • ADA complementary paratransit • Coordinated paratransit • Alternative services for ADA paratransit customers • Dial-a-ride • Microtransit • Flex transit C H A P T E R   2

26 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Distinguishing characteristics of each of the DRT service types are discussed as follows, noting that all six of these service types are covered by the nondiscrimination and other provisions of the ADA. The legend to the eligible customers for the graphics which accompany each service type is found here: ADA SR NEM DRT Service Types PWD ADA Paratransit Seniors Persons with Disabilities General PublicGP Non-Emergency Medical HSA Human Service Agency ADA Complementary Paratransit Services Under the ADA, transit agencies providing fixed-route service are obligated to provide ADA complementary paratransit (ADA 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., state agencies, municipali- ties, human service agencies (HSAs)], using the ADA paratransit service platform to transport those sponsors’ clients, customers, or constituents in a comingled fashion. (PWD = persons with disabilities and SR = seniors) 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 para- transit individuals (and possibly others if the transit agency provides a coordinated paratransit service). An alternative service must meet ADA requirements (e.g., for equivalent service) but does not fall under the six service criteria governing ADA complementary paratransit. For example, transit agencies can set fares at any levels, and trips can be limited. It is up to the eligible rider to use the alter native service for a particular trip or not. Use of the alternative service does not impact the rider’s ADA paratransit eligi- bility or the rider’s right to continue to request trips on the ADA paratransit service. And, ADA ADA PARATRANSIT ADA SR PWD COORDINATED PARATRANSIT NEM HSA ADA ALTERNATIVE SERVICES

Overview of DRT Service Models 27   notably, none of the vehicles used for the alternative service are to be owned, operated, or controlled by the transit agency. While not necessarily limited to taxis and transportation network companies (TNCs), most alternative services do indeed use these service providers. 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 to ensure service equivalency. Also, while many alternative services can be accessed by a smartphone app or through web-based booking, especially those that use TNCs, there must be a call-in option to accommodate eligible riders who do not have a smartphone or access to the Internet. Some transit agencies also provide a call-in option for any eligible customer who would simply prefer to call in their requests. With an alternative service, a transit agency can use only one taxi company or TNC. In such cases, FTA drug and alcohol testing requirements apply. However, FTA’s “taxi exception” policy (66 FR 41996, August 9, 2001; FTA Shared Mobility FAQs: Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Requirements, 2018) allows transit agencies not to require such testing for its alternative service programs if all users have a choice of service providers. Requiring that a taxi company or TNC require drug and alcohol testing for their drivers as a condition for participating in an alternative service program has, in some communities, influenced the taxi company or TNC to not participate in the program. 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. General public dial-a-ride (DAR) services often have limited capacity and as such are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Because of this, advance requests up to 7 to 14 days in advance, if not longer, are allowed. Some DAR services allow subscription trip requests, while others accept same-day requests but on a space-available basis only. Many general public 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 pro- vide service to subsets of the population, such as seniors and persons with disabilities. Many such services are provided by municipal and county transportation departments. Microtransit Microtransit is another on-demand service but is also available to the general public or GP. 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 replace coverage routes. • Reduce demand at nearby station or bus-facility parking lots. Microtransit can be operated by the transit agency itself, by the transit agency’s paratransit contractor, or with taxis or TNCs. GP DIAL-A-RIDE GP HSA DIAL-A-RIDE SR PWD DIAL-A-RIDE MICROTRANSIT GP

28 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies A microtransit service can be designed as a many-to-many (also known as curb-to-curb) service, a many-to-few service, or a many-to-one service. The latter two designs are appro- priate to microtransit services whose trip eligibility is limited to trips to and from transit connection points (first-mile/last-mile) or to other major demand generators. While many microtransit services allow same-day requests, next-day requests, advance requests, and, some- times, subscription requests, the defining characteristic is that riders are able to request service on demand (or within a short lead time) for immediate fulfillment of their request. Stop types can vary from service to service or even within a service. By policy, pickup and drop-off locations can be at the curb, in front of the requested location, or at physical stands, such as at bus connection points; a college, business, or medical campus; or a mall or other multi-entrance building. Some microtransit services harness their supporting technology to create “virtual stops” that are within a configurable distance from a requested location and are usually at a nearby intersection. Virtual stops can also be set for certain geo-fenced areas where curb-to-curb service is a challenge or where a transit agency wishes to designate a physical stand. Some systems direct all riders to go to virtual stops. Others may allow seniors or persons with disabilities to get picked up and dropped off in front of their requested locations. Microtransit services can be provided directly with dedicated vehicles operated by transit agencies or their paratransit contractors, or by nondedicated service providers (NDSPs) such as taxis, TNCs, or a combination thereof. Microtransit zones tend to focus on a certain smaller area, anchored by stops at transit connections and other major demand-generators so as to keep a dedicated fleet productive, although transit agencies tend to serve larger microtransit zones with NDSPs or a mixture of dedicated and nondedicated vehicles. In the case of microtransit, zones often are nonadjacent, and therefore allowing interzonal trips is not common. Where the main provider does not offer WAV service directly, transit agencies must require that the main provider provide such service through a subcontractor. And under the ADA, equivalent service must be provided if the microtransit service is operated by taxis or TNCs, and there must be a valid choice of carriers for all riders for the testing requirements not to apply, as described previously under Alternative Services. Route-Deviation Service Route-deviation service is a general public transit service that primarily operates along an established route on an established schedule with designated stops along the route. Between these stops, however, the vehicle may deviate (roughly at right angles to the route) off-route to pick up or drop off, within a defined off-route service area, a rider who has requested the deviation. After the pickup or drop-off, the vehicle generally returns to the route in the quickest way possible from where the vehicle exited the route (or as close to that point as possible). There are no minimum requirements for the size of the area for off-route deviations, although minimum ¾-mile corridors are common. See FTA Circular 4710.1 ADA Guidance, Chapter 7, Demand Responsive Services, Section 7.5.4, Route Deviation Service, pp. 7–10 through 7–12. Policies vary on how far in advance a rider may request a pickup or a drop-off. Most sys- tems allow same-day requests, either with a minimum of a 1-hour or 2-hour notice. Some of

Overview of DRT Service Models 29   these systems also allow next-day requests, while others only allow next-day requests, if not a longer advance period. Some systems also do not require requests for off-route drop-offs, which are made known to the driver when the rider boards the vehicle. Fare policies also vary. Transit agencies are permitted to charge a higher fare for deviated service; however, it may not be more than twice the regular on-route fare, conforming to ADA paratransit requirements. Route-deviation services are typically provided in corridors where there are pockets of demand beyond the bus stop walkshed but not enough to warrant implementing or modifying a fixed route to these areas. Route-deviation services must accept deviation requests from all riders. While there are no minimum requirements for the corridor size where deviations are permitted, FTA guidance states that anything less than ¾-mile deviations may be considered unreasonable and hence limiting or discriminatory. However, an off-route service area cannot be so large that devia- tions will consistently jeopardize the ability of the vehicle to make its next scheduled stop along the route. This in turn would suggest that enough slack be built into the system to accommodate a reasonable number of deviations. At the same time, the transit agency must also consider the extra travel time incurred by on- route passengers that result from the deviations. Making too many deviations can be prob- lematic if the slack in the schedule only allows a certain number of deviations per vehicle trip and the maximum number of deviations for that run has already been reached. While limiting the number of deviations per vehicle run allowed is a good practice to ensure that the bus gets to the end of the route with sufficient time to begin the route back the other way on schedule, transit agencies need to make sure that such limitations do not constitute a discriminatory practice. Discriminatory practices include the following: • Not advertising the deviation aspect of the service. • Establishing restrictive policies that would limit use by persons with disabilities, such as – Charging excessive surcharges, – Establishing restrictive deviation areas, – Limiting deviation by trip purpose, and – Unreasonably capping the number of deviations. To be considered demand-responsive rather than fixed-route, route-deviation services must accept deviation requests from all riders and provide nondiscriminatory service. If a transit agency were to provide a route-deviation service only at certain times, the transit agency would still have to provide ADA paratransit service when the route is being run as a fixed route. Alternatively, a transit agency could operate a comingled fixed-route and ADA comple- mentary paratransit with the same vehicle, which would deviate from the scheduled fixed route only for ADA paratransit passengers. If a transit agency were to operate such a service, all requirements that would apply to ADA paratransit must be followed in serving ADA paratransit trips. These ADA paratransit obligations are detailed in 49 CFR Part 37, Subpart F (https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transpor- tation-services-individuals-disabilities) and are also covered in Chapters 8 and 9 of the FTA Circular 4710.1. Included in these requirements is a pertinent one related to a pattern of denials resulting from capacity constraints. Therefore, if a transit agency chooses to operate such a comingled service, the schedule must have enough slack time in the route to not result in a pattern of denials or other discriminatory patterns that limit service for ADA paratransit riders.

30 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Checkpoint Deviation Service Checkpoint (or point) deviation is similar to route deviation with one major distinction: there is no dened route; rather, there are scheduled stops. Between the stops, the bus makes pickups and drop- os based on rider requests within a dened area during prescribed service hours. As with route deviation, stops can be curb-to-curb, virtual, or physical. DRT Service Models Service models commonly used for the DRT services are described as follows. e functions that dene service models include the four call and control functions (reservations, scheduling, dispatching, and handling riders’ service-day calls), operations, and the provision of support- ing assets such as vehicles and facilities. e following legend includes the symbols for each function that are used in the graphics that accompany each service-model type. RES Reservations DRT Service Model Functions SCH Scheduling DIS Dispatching ETA Service-Day Calls from Riders OPS Operations VEH Vehicle Provision FAC Facility Provision All-in-House In this management structure, all functions and assets are performed and provided by the transit agency. ALL-IN-HOUSE Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC

Overview of DRT Service Models 31   In-House/Overow is is essentially the same as the all-in-house service model, but in this model, the transit agency contracts with one or more overow service providers to transport trips that cannot be scheduled and dispatched to the transit agency’s dedicated eet. IN-HOUSE/OVERFLOW Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Overflow Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Turnkey In this service model, one contractor performs all of the call and control functions, delivers service, and provides all the supporting assets for the entire service. In some cases, a transit agency will retain multiple turnkey contractors, with each assigned to a specic service zone or service type. TURNKEY Contractor RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Turnkey/Overow As with the In-House/Overow service model, some transit agencies allow a turnkey con- tractor to retain one or more overow subcontractors. TURNKEY/OVERFLOW Contractor RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Subcontractor(s) OPS VEH FAC

32 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Turnkey/Agency Assets is is a variation of the Turnkey model, with the transit agency providing all or some of the supporting assets to its service provider contractor(s). TURNKEY/AGENCY ASSETS Contractor(s) RES SCH DIS ETA OPS Transit Agency VEH FAC Operational Contractor(s) In this model, the transit agency (or its broker) performs all of the CCC functions, and one or more service providers are contracted to perform service delivery using their own vehicles. OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S) Transit Agency or Broker RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Operational Contractor(s)/Agency Assets is is a variation of the Operational Contractor model, with the transit agency providing all or some of the supporting assets. OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S)/AGENCY ASSETS Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC

Overview of DRT Service Models 33   Split Call and Control Functions Some small and midsized transit agencies opt to split the call and control functions with its service provider contractor(s). Common split call and control function structures are shown here. SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency RES SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency SCHRES Duplicate Call and Control Functions In addition, there are some service models where the transit agency and its contractor provide the same CCC functions but for dierent types of trips (e.g., advance-reservation versus same- day trips or ambulatory versus nonambulatory trips). DUPLICATE CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) RES DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC In the case of alternative service and microtransit services where trips are predominantly requested via an app or web-based booking, the transit agency, its paratransit contractor, or its microtransit contractor will provide a call-in option for eligible riders without smartphones

34 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies or access to the Internet to address Title VI concerns. Some transit agencies will make this option available to any rider who prefers to call in an on-demand request. DUPLICATE CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) RES DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency RES User-Side Subsidy Programs Alternative services, microtransit, and even ADA paratransit can be provided via a user-side subsidy program. e basic service-delivery model is similar to a turnkey contract(s) in that the service providers are responsible for all of the day-to-day functions. e distinguishing characteristic 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 and Service Mix Another important distinction in any DRT service-delivery model is whether the service is provided by dedicated or nondedicated vehicles. Dedicated Service Dedicated service is where one or more vehicles are used solely for the transit agency’s service or program during service hours; that is, it is dedicated to the program.

Overview of DRT Service Models 35   With dedicated fleets, and, for example, under an all-in-house service or turnkey model, there is typically one dedicated fleet with vehicles scheduled and dispatched throughout the service area. Some transit agencies opt to have multiple dedicated fleets operated by different carriers. In such cases, the service area can be designed with the following: No zones, with each carrier’s vehicles able to go anywhere within the service area; in this case, transit agencies or brokers tend to provide different “packages” to each contractor reflecting a certain percentage of the ridership or vehicle hours, such as 50/50 percent or 50/30/20 percent. For some systems, this represents an initial split; adjustments to the split can be made over time based on service provider performance (which provides a built-in incentive to perform well). Some transit agencies have split up the trips based on vehicle type (with one or more contrac- tors operating inaccessible vehicles such as sedans, while the other contractor or contractors operate WAVs. Hence, a rider would call the contractor operating the type of vehicle the rider needs. This can be appropriate for communities where the supply of local carriers— and their capacity—is limited, and where only one carrier has WAVs. For DRT services other than ADA paratransit, some transit agencies have organized service delivery based on trip purpose or by sponsor. 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. Some transit agencies have divided up the service area into two or more zones, with each contractor assigned to serve all trips originating in the zone (as well as the return leg of such trips). This service design is appropriate for large areas where there are different carriers located in each area. It is also appropriate for multiple turnkey contracts where the service providers are responsible for booking trips from customers residing in their area or zone. For turnkey contracts, the most common payment structure for dedicated service is a per- revenue-vehicle hour (RVH) rate. The next most common rate is per-trip. In either case, there need to be contractual controls to balance cost efficiency and service quality. For example, with a per RVH rate, there needs to be a contractual incentive or disincentive tied to a productivity standard. With a per-trip rate, there needs to be a contractual incentive to meet service-quality standards, such as on-time performance. Nondedicated Service In contrast, a nondedicated 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-sponsored general public trip. • A TNC-microtransit ridesharing option (UberPool or Lyft Shared Rides), where a subsidized transit customer might be comingled with a general public 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, for the transit agency’s TNC-based microtransit service.

36 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Most contract rates with nondedicated providers are based on distance or have a per-trip rate. For example, contracts with taxis can be based on the taxi meter or on a contractual mileage rate, with the direct mileage calculated by the scheduling system. is is especially appropriate for systems where the trip length varies greatly. For services in a smaller service area or where trip lengths are generally the same, a per-trip rate has several administrative advantages. A per-trip rate also works well where transit-sponsored trips are comingled with HSA clients on vehicles operated by the HSA. Service Mix Mixing dedicated and nondedicated service within one program is a common practice. e service mix is the split between (1) the trips scheduled and dispatched onto the dedicated eet versus (2) the trips that are assigned to a nondedicated provider (for subsequent dispatching). Most small and midsized transit agencies with a mixed paratransit service will typically serve between 5 percent and 15 percent of the trips with NDSPs versus some larger transit agencies, such as Access Services, where more than 50 percent of the trips are served with taxis. Alternative services, by denition, are served with nondedicated providers. And microtransit services can be served with a dedicated eet, with NDSPs, or with both. e following section discusses the benets, challenges, and shortcomings of some of the more common DRT service models implemented by small and midsized transit agencies. Benets, Challenges, and Shortcomings All-In-House DRT Services Benets is service model is perhaps the most common among small and midsized transit agencies. Foremost in selecting this model is the perception that they have better control over service quality and over the direct interaction with the riders. In addition, they perceive that the service quality will be better when the sta and drivers are all employed under one roof. ey also perceive that such a service allows the transit agency to be more exible and to adapt more quickly to changing conditions. Other related factors included the perceived objectivity of the transit agency and the support and trust that that transit agency holds with the community, as well as the transit agency’s capabilities, resources, and stability, and the will it has to take on an in-house operation. ALL-IN-HOUSE Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Some small to midsized transit agencies may not have a choice, as there may be a limited number or no local private carriers capable of taking on this role. Also, some smaller transit agencies may feel they do not have the procurement and monitoring expertise needed to retain one or more contractors.

Overview of DRT Service Models 37   In an all-in-house management structure, transit agencies provide their own assets. Not only do they have direct control over the vehicles and other equipment they use, they have direct control over their vehicle replacement and their eet mix (of dierent vehicle types and congura- tions), and they can use capital funding at an 80/20 percent match. In addition, transit agen- cies can make long-term investments in facilities through property acquisition or long-term leases that also help to minimize cost. See also the discussion in the section on asset provisions later in this chapter. Challenges and Shortcomings e major shortcoming of an all-in-house system is higher cost. Public transit agencies tend to have better wage structures and fringe benets than private carriers. is translates into a higher cost for in-house service models, especially with drivers’ wages and fringe benets reecting up to 70 percent of the variable cost of operating dedicated DRT service. Turnkey DRT Services Benets Using a turnkey contractor or contractors tends to reduce operational cost. A turnkey contractor may also have the operational experience and expertise that the transit agency lacks. TURNKEY Contractor(s) RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Another benet is there are additional benets in terms of service quality when all sta work for the same entity. Small to midsized transit agencies tend to use turnkey contracts where they have no interest in performing any of the day-to-day functions, and where there is interest from a local, regional, or national operations or management contractor. In many cases, the ridership level or characteristics may suggest that one turnkey service provider would be appropriate. With one turnkey contractor, there is one point of contact, and the execution of policies and service quality are more consistent than with multicarrier service models. is would also be appropriate to a contract where the transit agency has one operation or facility where the contractor can be based. If there is enough ridership or if the service area is large enough to support more than one contractor, a multicarrier procurement can generally increase competition during and poten- tially aer the procurement, especially if there are zones or packages that have dierent levels of projected ridership. While smaller packages of work can dissuade the large national-operations management companies from participating in a procurement, putting out smaller, more manage- able pieces of work to bid on may attract more local and regional carriers, as well as carriers

38 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies who qualify as SMEs and DBEs. This translates into more competitive rates. In contrast, larger single contracts tend to screen out such carriers. Having multiple carriers can also enhance the resilience of a service in the event that a con- tractor defaults or suspends service for whatever reason. In such an event, a transit agency could temporarily expand the service area or scope of the other contractor(s) until a replacement contractor can be secured. It is therefore important that contracts include the possibility of such an event. For small and midsized transit agencies, multiple turnkey contracts are appropriate pri- marily for multizone delivery networks covering larger 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. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies With turnkey contracts, transit agencies give up direct control over service quality as well as the balance between service quality and cost efficiency. One way to compensate for this is to have contractual incentives and penalties (or liquidated damages) that are tied to service- quality performance metrics such as number or percentage of denials, on-time performance (OTP) percentage, percentage of missed trips, percentage of excessively long trips, average and longest hold times, and complaint frequency ratio. With a single turnkey contractor, the transit agency needs to take great care in procuring the right partner, as the transit agency does not wish to be stuck with a “lemon” for the duration of the contract. This is why clear standards and expectations need to be identified in the contract, and why a transit agency also needs to have a contractual “exit clause” in case there is continued substandard performance. Exit clauses can be tied to continued substandard contractor perfor- mance or can be exercised for convenience, but this must be detailed in the contract. Continued liquidated damages that could further contribute to a downward spiral at a certain point are counterproductive and signal the need for a re-procurement or service model change. In a multiple-carrier environment, the 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, will likely offset any cost benefits associated with using contractors versus an all-in- house model. When a transit agency has more than one contractor and a “no-zone” service-delivery design, another contractual tactic that can help with service quality is to adjust the amount of work awarded to a contractor based on its ongoing service-quality performance. For example, a tran- sit agency initially might provide its two contractors with two service “packages,” respectively, reflecting 60 percent and the other 40 percent of the work based on the proposed rates. If the larger contractor struggles to meet expectations, and the smaller contractor exceeds expecta- tions, a shift to 50/50 percent would reward the smaller contractor for performing well. This strategy works well where the transit agency provides the vehicle, which can be transferred between contractors. Based on the literature search and the author’s experience, there are many small and mid- sized transit agencies that include functions in the contract such as eligibility determination and complaint management. Other such transit agencies retain these functions under the premise that service providers tend to be less restrictive on eligibility determination—the more eligible the customer, the higher the demand, and the more the contractor will be paid—and less accurate with complaint reporting, especially if there are associated performance incentives or penalties in the contract.

Overview of DRT Service Models 39   Using an Overow Contractor or Subcontractor for DRT Services IN-HOUSE/OVERFLOW Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Overflow Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC TURNKEY/OVERFLOW Contractor RES SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Subcontractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Benets In either case, whether the primary service provider is the transit agency itself or a turnkey contractor, there are several benets to using an overow service provider. is can be a local taxi provider or even a local HSA operator operating in a nondedicated fashion, but it could also be a contractor operating dedicated vehicles. e primary benet of an overow provider is to serve trips that cannot be accommodated by the transit agency’s or turnkey contractor’s dedicated eet. is usually happens when the demand is growing faster than the capacity of the service; indeed, using an overow provider oen can serve as a solution to a temporary shortage of resources; that is, vehicles and drivers. Using a nondedicated overow provider can also be a strategic way to reduce overall cost by serving trips that would otherwise negatively impact the productivity of the dedicated eet, as discussed previously in the Nondedicated Service section. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies One of the major challenges of using an overow provider is understanding—and abiding by—the provider’s capacity to take on trips. e maximum volume of trips could be identied in the contract. Sometimes, an overow provider may negotiate a minimum number of daily trips as well. e literature review unveiled a transit agency where the rate paid to the overow service provider was based on volume. e major challenge in using an overow provider is to provide good communications between the main dispatchers and the overow contractor’s drivers. Knowing the location and status of the contractor vehicles is critical to dispatching in general but also to responding to

40 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies customer service-day “where’s my ride” calls. Historically, this has been problematic and cumbersome. A number of systems have solved this with new technology by providing—or requiring the overow contractor to provide—the drivers with the same driver tablet used by the dedicated eet drivers; dispatchers can view the vehicle location and status, as well as assign trips and pull them back if a hole opens up on the dedicated eet as a result of a cancel- lation. Moreover, data collection is handled the same way. A turnkey contractor in general is less inclined to assign trips to a nondedicated provider if it also accompanied by loss of revenue. Such an inherent inclination can be countered by contractual incentives and penalties tied to the productivity of the dedicated eet that the turnkey contractor operates. Providing Assets to DRT Contractors Supporting assets typically include the following: • e facilities that house the management, administrative, and support team; the CCC; the operations and maintenance functions; the heavy maintenance equipment; and, of course, the vehicles themselves (revenue and nonrevenue) • e scheduling and dispatching soware and customer-facing technologies and related hardware • e telephone system and all hardware used in the CCC • e vehicle communication system and related equipment TURNKEY/AGENCY ASSETS Contractor(s) RES SCH DIS ETA OPS Transit Agency VEH FAC Benets Transit agencies that provide vehicles, soware, and other equipment to their contractor(s) and allow their contractor(s) to operate service out of transit agency facilities can use FTA capital funding at an 80/20 percent match versus operating funding at a 50/50 percent match. By providing these assets, the transit agency also creates a more level playing eld for the pro- curement of service providers as compared to where proposers are required to provide these assets. For example, a local provider may have fully amortized a facility long ago or via a long- term lease. Conversely, requiring contractors to provide their own facility may drive up the cost because of the cost of short-term lease (matching the contract term) will likely be more expensive. Moreover, the options for locations available to proposers may be suboptimal, whereas a transit agency can take its time to nd the optimal location and facility. Transit agencies that provide their own vehicles to the service providers under contract generally (1) want direct control over the type of vehicle and the replacement and retirement schedule; (2) can transfer vehicles to a new contractor when a contract is not renewed; and (3) can shi vehicles between or among multiple contractors if the amount of work each

Overview of DRT Service Models 41   contractor performs changes. Transit agencies requiring the contractors to provide their own vehicles are generally disinterested in the administrative chores associated with fleet procure- ment and maintenance. In some cases, transit agencies contracting with national operation and management contractors have taken advantage of these contractors’ volume discounts and available vehicles from other areas as a stopgap strategy to meeting increasing demand. Similar to vehicle provision, a transit agency may wish to directly license DRT scheduling software because it wants to have direct control over how the software works, including the control of scheduling algorithmic parameters and desired modifications, and can take advan- tage of the 80/20 percent split of capital funding used to license the software. It can also continue to license the software and provide it to an incoming turnkey contractor while not having to endure the transfer of data from one system to another, if the incoming contractor wishes to use another system. In addition to providing vehicles, the software scheduling system also provides some con- sistency as a new contractor is retained and there is no need to convert data from one system to another. Equally important is the fact that the transit agency directly controls which assets are obtained. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies If transit agencies do wish to require their contractors to provide their own facility, there are two tactics to help minimize the cost of such facilities’ leases, noting that these tactics are not mutually exclusive: • Transit agencies can elongate the contract base term and number of option years, thereby enabling service providers to enter into longer, and hence less expensive, leases. • Transit agencies can require their contractor to place the transit agency in the first position to assume a facility lease in the event that the contractor’s contract ends prematurely or the lease period exceeds the term of the contract. This allows the service provider to “take a chance” on a longer, less-expensive lease because the provider has an out if the transit agency decides not to exercise the option years because of poor performance. Moreover, in this event and with such a provision, the transit agency has the right of first refusal to assume the lease and can then sublease the facility to the incoming contractor. A challenge a transit agency may face in providing vehicles to its contractor is backlash if the vehicles turn out to be lemons or if the seating configurations dampen productivity and scheduling flexibility. This can be partially addressed by involving the contractor in the vehicle procurement decisions, as well as the decision on fleet mix (i.e., using different types of vehicles in the dedicated fleet). A second challenge for providing vehicles to a provider comes when the provider’s contract comes to an end. During the lame-duck period, proactive maintenance may subside. Moreover, the transition of the vehicles to the new contractor can be fraught with disagreement about the maintenance required as deemed necessary by the incoming contractor and which entity covers the cost of that needed maintenance. To avoid these conflicts, clear standards and financial obligations need to be included in the transition section of each contract. Providing the scheduling software sometimes can result in a case of finger-pointing; for example, the contractor attributing its poor performance to the scheduling software or the scheduling parameters as controlled by the transit agency. Transit agencies need to be careful about allowing a turnkey contractor access to the scheduling parameters without any over- sight, as contractors have been known to alter these parameters to maximize their financial position. On the other hand, transit agencies could involve the turnkey contractor in all proposed modifications and the analysis of the results.

42 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Using Operational Contractor(s) for DRT Services OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S) Transit Agency or Broker RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC OPERATIONAL CONTRACTOR(S)/AGENCY ASSETS Transit Agency RES SCH DIS ETA Contractor(s) OPS VEH FAC Benets is service model is typically applied to multicarrier settings where direct control over— and consistency within—the call and control functions is desired. Here, the direct control is on the customer-facing functions but also on the key function of scheduling and dis- patching that together inuences the balance between cost eciency and servicer quality. And in a no-zone setting, the transit agency schedulers and dispatchers control the particular contractor that will serve a trip. us, compared to a turnkey contract, there is more direct control. An additional benet of using this model, compared to an all-in-house model, is lower cost, as the majority of the operational cost structure lies with the driver wage and related benets. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies e major shortcoming of this model is in the nature of two dierent teams—one the CCC team and the other the service-delivery team. If these two teams develop a “we versus they” stance, service will suer. It is inherently challenging for the drivers, who on one hand are employees of the contractor(s) and are taking direction from the contractor’s road supervisors and on the other hand are taking direction from the transit agency or broker’s dispatchers. Under this service model, it is critical that the two teams act as one. Frequent communication among the transit agency, the broker (if there is one), and the contractor management is key. Also important is to establish forums where schedulers and dispatchers and drivers and driver supervisors can meet to discuss service issues.

Overview of DRT Service Models 43   Split Call and Control Functions for DRT Services SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) SCH DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency RES Contractor(s) SCH DIS OPS VEH FAC SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Transit Agency RES ETA SPLIT CALL & CONTROL FUNCTIONS Contractor(s) DIS ETA OPS VEH FAC Transit Agency SCHRES Benets A transit agency wishing to exert direct control over customer-facing functions might choose to directly perform reservations, if not also handle service-day calls, and assign the remaining call-center functions (scheduling and dispatching) to the operations contractor(s). But because scheduling and dispatching each have a signicant impact on OTP, transit agencies may also wish to perform scheduling, especially if it has or can acquire the expertise. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies As mentioned previously, there is typically additional cost associated with a transit agency stang any function, whether it be one or more of the CCC functions or a portion of service delivery.

44 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies There is also a loss of direct control over service quality that comes with a contractor or contractors performing any of the CCC functions. This loss of direct control can be mitigated with pointed contractual provisions (incentives, penalties, adjustments) tied to the achieve- ment of service performance standards. Brokerage Structure Some small and midsized transit agencies, mostly in multiple carrier settings, retain brokers to contract with the service providers. In such designs, the broker typically also performs some or all of the CCC functions. Thus, the general benefits, challenges, shortcomings, and strategies are identical to the Operational Contractor(s) and Split Call and Control Function models described earlier. Additional considerations specific to brokerages are discussed in the following sections. Benefits Transit agencies retain brokers generally when (1) they do not wish to directly perform— or do not have the expertise to perform—the CCC functions and to manage and monitor multiple service providers and (2) the transit agency wishes to exert centralized control over the scheduling and possibly the dispatching functions. This requires a broker contract with performance-based standards and associated incentives or penalties tied to those standards that reflect the transit agency’s desired balance between service quality and cost efficiency. Transit agencies that implement brokerages are interested in simplifying administration (one contract versus many contracts) and diffusing the associated risk by removal from the day-to-day functions. A broker (versus a call and control manager) is also an appropriate management structure for a coordinated system where the transit agency vests all contracting functions with the broker, including sponsorship agreements. In a few rare cases, a transit agency has asked its broker to get involved in delivering a portion of the trips. This has been the case, for example, where (1) one of the broker’s service providers has been underperforming to the point of contractual default; (2) there is no suitable or obvious replacement provider available; and (3) the other service providers under contract do not have the willingness or the capacity to fill the service supply void, even with a transfer of resources from the defaulting provider. This could be a temporary arrangement until an emergency pro- curement or the next scheduled procurement can be undertaken, or it could be a more perma- nent solution, in which case this management structure morphs from a brokerage to a turnkey model with one or more subcontractors to which the prime contractor assigns trips. Note also that the transit agency itself can function as a broker (e.g., for Medicaid NEMT trips) while using an entirely different model for its other DRT services. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies With either management structure, the main shortcoming is that an extra layer of manage- ment usually costs more than if these CCC functions were assigned to the service providers, not to mention the additional cost of monitoring the performance of the third-party entity. That said, transit agencies with such models might argue that the objectivity that comes with these management structures ends up making up for that additional cost by way of reduced operational costs. With either management structure, it is important that the transit agency be able to hold all parties accountable for service and cost performance. With the extra layer of management, finger-pointing can ensue if performance is substandard. There needs to be a way to pinpoint

Overview of DRT Service Models 45   whether that substandard performance is resulting from the poor performance of the broker or CCC manager or one or more of the service providers, or both. Therefore, all contracts must have provisions that specify each party’s contractual obligations in attaining perfor- mance standards. Because that can be difficult to delineate, some transit agencies have used shared incentives and penalties to emphasize that all concerned are working as a team. Transit agencies must also be on guard to thwart broker practices that maximize the profit of third-party entities at the expense of service quality; for example, by hiring low-cost service providers that provide marginal if not substandard service quality. Transit agencies can combat this by having brokerage contracts that have pass-through service-provider costs, rather than building service-provider costs into an overall rate per trip, for example, or by retaining the right of approval for all service providers retained by the broker. Transit agencies can avoid these issues altogether by retaining a CCC manager instead and directly entering into contracts with service providers. Lastly, with either management structure, it is imperative that the third-party entity have a collaborative working relationship with the service providers. At the same time, both a broker and a CCC manager need to be prescriptive about each service provider’s obligations to supply the required service levels (e.g., by abiding by the agreed-upon daily run structure and maintaining a sufficient number of vehicles and spare vehicles by type and a sufficient extra board of backup drivers) and closely monitor each contractor’s execution of those obligations. Dedicated Versus Nondedicated Service for DRT Services Benefits Dedicated service makes sense when a transit agency wants to have more control and consis- tency over the service quality delivered, whether operating the service or through a turnkey contractor. Dedicated service also makes sense where the demand density is known and where the productivity produces a cost per trip that is acceptable to the transit agency. Nondedicated service has several different applications for paratransit services, but the primary reason is to be more efficient. The industry is filled with examples of transit agencies, brokers, and prime contractors using NDSPs as a way to accommodate overflow trips that cannot be scheduled or dispatched onto the dedicated fleet(s). Nondedicated service provides an efficient solution to service longer, out-of-the-way trips, trips that are not ride-sharable, trips in low-demand areas or at low-demand times, re-emerging no-show riders, trips that have not been completed because of an accident or breakdown, and any other trips that adversely impact the productivity of the dedicated fleet. Transferring trips to a nondedicated service provider on the day of service is also an effective way to get a late-running dedicated vehicle back on schedule. Nondedicated service can also serve to test the demand in a new area or time; if sufficient demand materializes, dedicated service can be accordingly introduced; if sufficient demand does not materialize, the service can remain nondedicated. As previously noted, transit agencies also can partner with HSA transportation operators to serve “odd” trips that can be comingled with the trips of HSA clients. A mixture of dedicated and nondedicated service provides a cost-efficient approach to DRT service; that is, by providing dedicated service where that service can be productive and supplementing that service with NDSPs where the demand is lower or sparser. The availabil- ity of nondedicated service also allows the scheduler and dispatchers to use the nondedicated service provider(s) to serve other trips that cannot be handled in a productive fashion. By using NDSPs in this fashion, the cost per trip of the dedicated service, if not the entire service, can be optimized. In addition, for microtransit services that are provided with taxis or TNCs, some transit agencies operate a WAV to serve trips that require one.

46 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies Faced with a dedicated eet operational cost per trip that is suboptimal, a transit agency could review whether a 100 percent dedicated service makes sense, aer rst determining whether or not there are ineciencies in the run structure. Despite contractual controls over service quality, there can be dierences in service quality as delivered by some nondedicated providers versus the service quality as delivered by in-house employees or DRT operation and management contractors. Still, contractual controls (e.g., service standards and related incentives and penalties, training regimens, drug and alcohol testing requirements) are the best way to close any dierences in service. Volume is a tactic available to the transit agency to induce higher service quality from NDSPs. For many such providers, the volume of business is the key to inducing high-quality service. Hence, if their goal is to grow their business, and if the amount of business that the transit agency provides to them is in part based on the quality of service rendered, it follows that the provider will strive to perform well, and this will be communicated to the drivers. is dynamic is appropriate whether or not there is a single provider or multiple providers. at said, in developing partnerships, transit agencies and their partners could negotiate a range of trips that a nondedicated service provider can handle and that is advantageous to the needs of the transit agency. Overburdening a partner is not benecial to either party. Requiring extra eort from a partner and its independent contractor drivers for a smattering of trips may result in a disinterest to continue with the partnership. Note also that the way productivity is measured for NTD reporting diers between dedi- cated and nondedicated service. With dedicated service, the productivity denominator is measured in RVH, dened as the hours operated by a vehicle from the rst pickup to the last drop-o less signicant breaks. In contrast, RVH for nondedicated service is measured based on live passenger time (while there is a passenger onboard) and does not include the hours when the vehicle is operating when there is not a passenger onboard. Hence, a service that uses both dedicated and nondedicated service is therefore likely to have a systemwide pro- ductivity that is higher than a service that uses dedicated service only, all else being equal. In short, the productivity metrics of these two types of service are not comparable. User-Side Subsidy Programs As mentioned previously, a user-side subsidy is commonly used by small and midsized transit agencies to perform DAR services, microtransit services, and alternative services. In most cases, the transit agencies use existing taxis already serving the community. USER-SIDE SUBSIDY PROGRAM Transit Agency Taxi and/or Other Contractor VEHOPS RES DIS ETA FAC Rider Sub- sidy Fare Card Acct $

Overview of DRT Service Models 47   A transit agency can also utilize a user-side subsidy program to provide ADA paratransit service, although this requires the taxi company to ensure that drivers are trained to profi- ciency and partake in drug and alcohol testing programs. Benefits The primary benefit of this service model is cost. Using an existing taxi company minimizes any initial capital outlay, unless the transit agency is providing the taxi company with one or more WAVs. Moreover, a transit agency can limit its financial exposure by capping the subsidy paid per trip, or by limiting the number of monthly trips or the monthly subsidy match. User-side subsidy program agreements can also be as simple as a participation agreement if there are no financial transactions between the transit agency and the taxi companies. Challenges, Shortcomings, and Strategies Service equivalency is required under the ADA. Therefore, it is up to the transit agency to ensure that WAV service is not only available to riders who require a WAV but that response time (for on-demand trips) and on-time performance for advance-reservation trips (if allowed) be equivalent to ambulatory trips. As mentioned previously, a partial solution for infusing WAV vehicles into the fleet mix (for all but alternative services) is for the transit agency to provide one or more WAVs to the service providers. This is often accomplished by the transit agency leasing a WAV to a partici- pating taxi company for $1.00. An additional benefit for the community is that this WAV then becomes available to the community at large for nontransit-agency-sponsored trips requested by the general public. Critical to user-side subsidy programs is gaining the participation of service providers such as taxi companies and TNCs. Some taxi companies and TNCs have found drug and alcohol testing requirements, as a condition to participating, to be an impediment, noting that taxi and TNC drivers, for the most part, are independent contractors who can individually refuse to participate. Other taxi companies and TNC companies do require their drivers to participate in drug and alcohol testing or pose it as a voluntary condition: if a driver participates in a drug and alcohol testing program (and otherwise abides by other requirements as stated by the transit agency), the driver will be eligible to get more trips sponsored by the transit agency). As it pertains to the taxi industry and in some locations, this obstacle may be moot if drug and alcohol testing for taxi drivers is already required as a provision of the municipal code regulating the taxi industry. This impediment can also be addressed by a transit agency, ensuring that all riders have a choice of service providers (see the discussion of the FTA’s taxi exception, as described under Alternative Services earlier). Multicarrier Designs: Service Area Zones Versus Service Packages Dividing a service area into zones or regions is one way to split up the work between or among multiple carriers. In most such designs, each contractor is assigned to serving trips emanating from a particular zone or set of zones as well as the return trips. Zonal assignments could also overlap, such as in a high-demand area. This is an appropriate design for where a transit agency has turnkey contractors serving different areas of a county or region; in this way, riders know who to call based on where they live. Zones can also be used for the strategic deployment of vehicles and fleets. In this case, the zone design typically mirrors trip patterns; the design thus is used to keep dedicated fleets

48 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies productive by not allowing vehicles to stray too far away from the area of demand to which they are assigned. This strategy also relates to the use of transfers or higher interzonal fares, or both, as tactics to improve productivity and cost efficiency. With fewer longer, discretionary trips, the average trip length is shortened, and this often leads to service efficiencies. More- over, higher interzonal fares result in recovering more of the cost to serve longer trips. This is not the only way to split the work among multiple carriers. Transit agencies also can simply assign packages of work (roughly equaling a certain percentage of the entire ridership or based on a certain type of trip) in an unzoned service area with every contractor being able to serve any trip. There are several benefits of this design approach as compared to using zones. First, any provider can pick up riders anywhere in the service area. This provides great flexibility for the scheduling and dispatching functions. At the same time, it can induce demand that would otherwise be dampened by interzone transfers. Yet another benefit of service area zones is to counteract contractor complacency. With zones, a carrier has no worries about losing business, at least until the next procurement. With packages, adjustments to the percentage of work that is assigned to each carrier can be adjusted during the contract term. A common practice among small and midsized transit agencies (and their brokers) is to establish beginning percentages based on the proposed rate (with the lowest qualified bidder getting a higher share of the work) and then adjusting over time the percentage of work distributed to each service provider based on performance. Fleet Mix: Uniform Fleets Versus Mixed Fleets The positives associated with a uniform fleet are as follows: • Ultimate flexibility in scheduling and dispatching, noting that seating arrangements of some vehicle types can be configured differently, and one in particular can easily be changed on the day of services; • Control over the cost—and size—of a parts inventory, as it needs to support just one vehicle type; and • Discounts on volume purchases. The shortcomings of a uniform fleet are also cost-related: larger vehicles are typically costlier to purchase and operate. The benefits of a mixed fleet also relate to minimizing capital and operational cost: Why purchase a larger WAV when a sedan might be fine, especially when approximately 25 percent of the trips require a WAV? The negatives focus on the limitations to scheduling and dis- patching if the fleet mix is not configured well, and this in turn may negatively impact service equivalency. Reservation Policies DRT service models can also be described based on the particular reservation policies. These include the following: • On-demand service. This is a DRT service where a rider can request immediate fulfillment. Examples include microtransit services that are available for the general public and alter- native services that are on-demand services for paratransit customers. Many DRT services also have a “will-call” and “no-strand” policy ensuring that return trips for riders who are delayed is provided. While often called in as an on-demand, immediate-fulfillment trip, the response times can be up to 45 to 60 minutes in some systems. On-demand service is not a requirement for ADA paratransit service.

Overview of DRT Service Models 49   • Same-day service. This is a DRT service that honors requests placed on the service day, but with a minimum number of hours (typically 1 to 2 hours) in advance. Some systems have a “same-day—space-available” policy, meaning that riders can try to book requests on the day of service but there are no guarantees, and acceptance of such requests is based on there being space available on the service. Same-day service is not a requirement for ADA paratransit service. • Next-day service. This is a DRT service where riders can request service only for the following operational day. ADA paratransit services are required to offer next-day service at a mini- mum, often including an advance reservation period and subscription requests, noting that neither of these are required by the ADA. • Advance reservation service. This is a DRT service where riders can request service in advance. Many DRT services fall into this category. Advance reservation periods from 1 day to up to 7 to 14 days and even 30 days (for DAR services) are common. • Subscription service. These are paratransit services that allow for standing orders, where a rider makes one request for the same trip at the same time of day for a certain number of days each week. This is appropriate for work, school, or dialysis trips, for example. Typically, there is a start date, and there may be an end date. Some services allow for a temporary suspension to occur; for example, for a vacation. Some microtransit services permit walk-ons at scheduled anchor points without the rider having to make a request (although the driver is the one who inputs the request into the system upon the rider’s boarding). Finally, most DRT provided by small and midsized transit agencies provide for multiple types of requests. Traditional DRT scheduling and dispatching systems were designed for next-day, advance- reservation, and subscription trips. With the advent of continuous dynamic optimization and on-demand technologies, small to midsized transit agencies are revisiting their same-day request policies for some of their DRT services. The advancement of on-demand technology has also provided an additional impetus to provide on-demand DRT services such as microtransit and alternative services, where many of the trips requested are for immediate fulfillment. And, while many of these technologies also provide for other same-day and advance requests (and in some cases, even subscription trips), many of the transit agencies with such services have limited service to on-demand requests only. Interestingly, some microtransit technology vendors have taken on the role of microtransit contractors, where these vendors are also responsible for operations, either through the employee drivers of the vendor, through a subcontract (e.g., with a taxi company), or through drivers who are independent drivers. Types of Driver Assistance and Stops The two most common types of driver assistance are (1) door-to-door, where a driver is available to assist a rider between the front entryway of a house or building and the vehicle, and (2) curb-to-curb, where riders meet the driver at the curb of a pickup location, and where the driver assists a rider in alighting from the vehicle but only to the curb. Sometimes, a driver providing door-to-door service may go as far as through the main entrance to a lobby, depend- ing on the weather. In the case of ADA paratransit, where “origin to destination” service is prescribed, some transit agencies have standardized the type of driver assistance as door-to-door for all riders. Other systems have continued to provide curb-to-curb service but do offer assistance beyond the curb if a request for such is made by the rider.

50 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies [Note: Door-to-door service is also a type of driver assistance in some DRT services but is usually particular to NEMT.] Either approach is appropriate, as the riders who require door-to-door service receive it. There has been no definitive analysis about which is more productive. Proponents of curb- to-curb service as the standard argue that going the extra mile (to the door) for all riders who do not require such assistance diminishes productivity. Proponents of door-to-door service as the standard argue that meeting all riders at the door actually reduces wait time, and therefore contributes to productivity. The type of stops can also describe a service model. In most DRT systems, a vehicle will arrive at the requested address and will take the rider to any requested address within the service area. This is commonly referred to as “many-to-many” service, noting that some transit agencies refer to many-to-many microtransit service as “curb-to-curb” (not to be confused with the same term that describes the type of driver assistance described earlier). Some DRT services, including some microtransit services, are designed with designated stops spread throughout the community, much like bus stops but not on a route. These are typically located at intersections. Other microtransit services are more limited, with trips only allowed to go to and from agency-designated major trip attractors such as transit centers, hospitals, large employers, colleges, Walmart, and the like. These are referred to as “many-to-few” or “many-to-one” services. The concept behind limiting service to certain locations is to increase the number of shared rides, which increases productivity, which in turn decreases cost per trip. Where a transit agency wishes to use microtransit, for example, to expand access to its public transit system from an unserved or underserved area, the transit agency might consider limiting the microtransit service to providing first-mile/last-mile trips. At the same time, other transit agencies have opened up their microtransit services to many-to-many realized trips on the premise that such service provides more general access and mobility, especially if this can be done in an efficient manner. Stops can be made at physical stands. These are especially useful at transit connections; within educational, medical, or employer campuses; at multi-entrance buildings like malls (that have no separate addresses); and within areas where it is unsafe for the driver to park at the requested address. Physical stands also work well for many-to-few and many-to-one DRT services and for flex transit services. As discussed earlier under Reservation Policies, physical stands often present opportunities for walk-on service for microtransit services, if supported by the technology. Stops on microtransit and flex transit can also be “virtual stops,” a newer concept intro- duced with the advent of on-demand technologies. Virtual stops are generated and identified by the on-demand system depending on the location of the rider’s trip origin. It is usually at an intersection nearby where the rider wishes to be picked up or dropped off, up to a certain configurable distance. The primary benefit of virtual stops is that they tend to increase pro- ductivity by having the rider meet the vehicle at a stop that streamlines the vehicle routing, much as bus stops on a fixed route are first located. The downside of virtual stops is that it is not as convenient for the rider as having a vehicle arrive in front of the rider’s residence or current location. Many transit agencies do make exceptions to this policy, however. For example, the technology can be configured to automatically waive a rider having to get to a virtual stop if the rider uses a mobility device or if the rider makes a specific request for such a waiver for all trips or a specific trip.

Overview of DRT Service Models 51   Using Microtransit Resources for ADA Paratransit Trips The industry is beginning to see instances where microtransit resources are being used to provide ADA paratransit trips, as follows: • In Green Bay, Wisconsin, an on-demand technology and operations company is providing the Green Bay Metro’s ADA paratransit service as its turnkey contractor while also serving as the transit agency’s sole turnkey contractor for the transit agency’s microtransit service. Hence, the same technology is being used for both services. Moreover, the two dedicated fleets are able to back up each other in the event of an emergency. • In Denver, Colorado, another microtransit technology vendor helped create an interface between its system and the transit agency’s ADA paratransit scheduling and dispatching system so that ADA paratransit dispatchers (employees of the Regional Transportation District’s CCC manager) can identify and assign ADA paratransit trips to microtransit vehicles with available capacity. Note that in both cases, the drivers involved with providing microtransit, whether employees or independent contractors, are all ADA paratransit–certified. For the purposes of this report, this phrase is used to connote that drivers are trained to proficiency and participate in drug and alcohol testing programs, under the auspices and monitoring of the transit agency. And in Nashville, Tennessee, a TNC with its own proprietary on-demand technology is now being used to provide overflow service for WeGo’s ADA paratransit service, Access, with drivers who are ADA paratransit–certified.