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.

52 Survey Development and Methodology The initial goal of the survey effort was to identify 30 small to midsized transit agencies that do the following: • Provide DRT service through some combination of agency-operated service, contractor- operated service or taxis, or multiple contractors; and • Serve demographically and geographically diverse communities. For the purposes of this study, small and midsized transit agencies were defined as provid- ing DRT services in small, urbanized areas (with populations between 50,000 and 200,000) and possibly to adjacent rural areas (under 50,000) as well. An attempt was also made to identify smaller transit agencies within metropolitan areas served by a larger transit agency. This was accomplished via the literature search and by filtering NTD data from 2019. Specifically, the study team filtered agencies based on the population of the service areas and the different ways in which DRT systems were delivered. Transit agencies that only provided agency-operated service were screened out. Also note that for the 2019 data, the FTA had not yet created a category for TNCs. The goal of 30 agencies was chosen to eventually have at least 10 good candidates for inclusion in this synthesis as case examples. It was anticipated that several of those agencies invited to participate would decline, and that some of the survey respondents might decline to participate as case examples. It was also anticipated that some of the survey respondents, even those that expressed an interest in participating as a case example, would ultimately not be good candidates for various reasons, such as a lack of performance and cost data that would have provided insight as to their decision to implement, continue with, or change their service model. Once the 30 targeted transit agencies were selected, the study team identified the most appropriate contact and their contact information. In some cases, a call was made to the transit agency to confirm that the contact identified was in fact the best contact. And, in most cases, the study team called the contact to confirm key information about their DRT service model. The Survey Instrument Earlier in the study, the study team developed the survey instrument (found in Appendix B). This survey was sent to the SG-19 Panel for its review. Feedback from the panel was used to revise some of the questions and add others. The final version of the proposal was also sent to the panel for approval. C H A P T E R   3 Survey and Survey Results

Survey and Survey Results 53   The approved set of survey questions was then input into a web-based survey application called Qualtrics. This was pre-tested internally by the study team and was then beta-tested by two of the panel members from Battle Creek (Michigan) Transit and from The Comet in Columbia, South Carolina. The beta-testing resulted in some minor adjustments. Finally, the survey invitation was sent out to 30 targeted agencies via e-mail. Follow-up e-mails and phone calls were made with each of the 30 transit agencies contacted. Targeted Agencies and Survey Respondents The initial 30 targeted survey candidate agencies, sorted by region, are shown in Table 3-1. The 20 transit agencies that responded to the survey (for a 67 percent return rate) are identified on the left side of the table. The 10 transit agencies who opted not to participate in the survey are identified on the right side of the table. Survey Findings and Analysis DRT Services per Transit Agency The study team went into the study under the presumption that small to midsized transit agencies generally would have one DRT service. That presumption was summarily refuted by the survey responses, as only five (or 25 percent) of the survey respondents provide only one DRT service. The other 15 survey respondents are providing between two and seven DRT services (Table 3-2). Figure 3-1 displays the transit agencies that participated in the survey and their locations. Service Models and Service Types Altogether, the transit agencies responding to the survey used 10 different service models to provide 55 DRT services. Table 3-3 cross-references these service models by service type. A total of 19 of the 55 services (35 percent) involve ADA paratransit service, while 26 of the 55 (47 percent) involve the provision of services to the general public via DAR services, micro- transit, 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. Table 3-4 presents a breakdown of the 55 services pro- vided by the 20 agencies, and Table 3-5 gives a breakdown of the service designs by service type. Interestingly, none of the 20 survey respondents retained a broker. While small to midsized 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 survey respondents and none of these transit agencies use 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 nondedicated vehicles. • 9 (19 percent) of the 47 services are provided exclusively with NDSPs. 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.

54 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Region Surveys Returned Opted Not to Participate Northeast Bangor, ME City of Bangor Norwalk, CT Norwalk Transit District Burlington, VT Green Mountain Transit Broome Co., NY Broome County Mid-Atlantic Frederick Co., MD Frederick County Altoona, PA AMTRAN Monroe Co., PA Monroe County Fayette Co., PA Fayette Area Coordinated Transportation Williamsport, PA River Valley Transit Mid-West Ann Arbor, MI AAATA/TheRide Decatur, IL Decatur Public Transit System Battle Creek, MI Battle Creek Transit Fond du Lac, WI Fond du Lac Area Transit Champaign- Urbana, IL Champaign-Urbana MTD Southeast Columbia, SC The COMET Charlotte Co., FL Charlotte County Dothan, AL Wiregrass Transit Authority Gaston Co., NC Gaston County Plains Topeka, KS Topeka MTA Lawrence, KS City of Lawrence Rochester, MN Rochester Public Transit Northwest Bellingham, WA Whatcom Transportation Authority Bend, OR Cascades East Transit Wenatchee, WA Mountain West Fort Collins, CO Transfort Southwest Abilene, TX CityLink Galveston, TX Harris County Transit Tyler, TX City of Tyler California Downey, CA City of Downey Ventura Co., CA Gold Coast Transit District Table 3-1. Targeted survey candidates.

Survey and Survey Results 55   Number of DRT Services Number of Survey Responses 1 5 2 4 3 6 4 3 5 1 7 1 Table 3-2. Number of DRT services and responses. Figure 3-1. Transit agencies that participated in the survey and locations.

56 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Service Types Number of Services ADA paratransit services 12 Coordinated services 7 Alternative services (for ADA paratransit customers) 3 Dial-a-ride for seniors and persons with disabilities 2 Dial-a-ride for general public 7 Dial-a-ride for general public and NEMT program 1 Non-emergency medical transport (NEMT program) 3 Microtransit 11 Flex transit 6 Flex transit and dial-a-ride 1 Human service agency transportation programs 2 Total 55 Table 3-4. Number of services by service type. ADA Para- transit Coordinated Paratransit Alter. 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 Table 3-3. Service models and service types.

Survey and Survey Results 57   Service Type Dedicated Fleet(s) Only Dedicated and Non- dedicated Fleets Nondedicated Service Providers Total ADA paratransit services 5 6 1 12 Coordinated paratransit 4 2 1 7 Alternative services (for ADA paratransit customers) — — 3 3 Dial-a-ride for seniors and 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 3-5. Service designs by service type. Use of Service Contractors As shown in Table 3-6, transit agencies operated the 18 (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 (51 percent) of the 55 services were operated solely with contractors. Only two of responding transit agencies did not use contractors at all. This was not surpris- ing because investigators 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 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 As reflected in Table 3-7, there were 10 (of the responding 20 transit agencies) that provided some or all of the supporting assets to their contractors. In total, this practice involved 22 DRT services. Of these 22 services: • The transit agency provides all of the supporting assets for seven (32  percent) of the 22 services.

58 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies 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 3-7. Supporting assets provided by transit agencies to contractors. Service Type Transit Agency Operated Services Transit Agency and Contractor Operated Services Contractor Operated Services Total ADA paratransit services 4 3 5 12 Coordinated services 2 1 4 7 Alternative services (for ADA paratransit customers) — — 3 3 Dial-a-ride for seniors and persons with disabilities — — 2 2 Dial-a-ride for general public 3 3 1 7 Dial-a-ride and non-emergency medical — 1 — 1 Non-emergency 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 3-6. Service types and operators.

Survey and Survey Results 59   • 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. Of the 13 services that were provided by taxi companies or HSAs, the contractors provide the vehicles used for the service. Also, in some cases, the transit agency provides the parti- cipating, trained, and certified drivers with tablets for data collection, trip dispatching, and driver-dispatcher communication. Contractor Payment Structures Of the 20 survey respondents, 17 transit agencies identified types of contractor rates (the three other transit agencies did not use contractors). These 17 agencies used contractors for 37 of their services. Of the 37 services, there were 44 different payment types; some of the services used different payment types for different types of contractors (Table 3-8). For example, one particular DRT service might be served with two contractors, one being paid by the revenue hour for dedicated service and the other (a taxi company) being paid based on the meter. As shown in Table  3-8, the three most prominent payment structures are per RVH (30 percent of the 44 services), per trip (27 percent), and per passenger mile or some distance- based surrogate (23 percent). Hourly and trip-based payments reflected different means of paying for dedicated service. Per-revenue-mile payment is used by two transit agencies for specific services provided in a dedicated fashion. Distance-based payment structures and subsidy-based payments (sometimes based on distance-based fares) are used for nondedicated services, such as those used to supplement paratransit services, alternative services, and microtransit. Perhaps the most unique payment structure is a time and materials structure, much like that which transit agencies use with consultants. TheRide in Ann Arbor used this for their combined ARide (ADA paratransit) and GoldRide (senior) service for 5 years. For payment rates based on a per-trip structure, some transit agencies have a different payment rate for trips requiring WAVs versus those trips that do not. Contract Payment Structures Number of Services Per passenger trip 12 Per passenger mile, taxi meter/zone 10 Fixed/max/half subsidies 3 Per revenue vehicle hour 13 Per revenue vehicle mile 2 Time and materials 1 Funding pass-through 3 Total 44 Table 3-8. Contract payment structures.

60 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies The survey also asked transit agencies whether fuel was paid separately—as a pass-through— or whether fuel was incorporated into the payment rate. By a ratio of about 2 to 1, the small to midsized transit agencies surveyed opted to treat contractor fuel costs as a pass-through, but in contracts that did include fuel costs as part of the rate, almost all included a fuel-price- adjustment clause providing for increases or decreases in the rate, depending on changes to fuel prices. Supporting Technology All of the survey respondents use agency- or contractor-provided technologies to support their DRT services’ call and control functions. Interestingly, by a ratio of 3 to 1, DRT provided solely or partially with dedicated-use tech- nology with (continuous) dynamic optimization capabilities. Almost all of the respondents’ services use both radio and digital communications between dispatchers and drivers. For in-vehicle digital communication, real-time status, and service data collection, mobile data tablets (MDTs) are used for 26 of the services while e-tablets are used for 24 of the services, and 20 of these services actually use both. In the case of taxi-based services that serve as overflow providers, all but a few transit agencies provide tablets to the taxi companies. The few exceptions rely on the taxi companies’ dispatching systems; in these systems, lists of trips are emailed as attachments—or sent via a scheduling system’s brokerage function—to taxi companies for subsequent dispatching. One of the respondents reported they had a direct link to the taxi company’s dispatch system. The TNCs providing microtransit service use their own technology for booking and dis- patching trips, as well as collecting service data, with drivers using the TNC driver apps on their own mobile devices. Customer-Facing Technology Of the 20 small to midsized agencies responding to the survey, six have implemented apps or web-based booking capabilities for some or all of their DRT services. These same apps also provide for imminent arrival notices to be sent to customers. In some of the subsequent inter- views, the transit agencies reported that these apps have reduced the demand on the call center and resulted in fewer no-shows. In two cases, the app or web-based booking capability also provides customers with the ability to pay fares. Including these two respondents, there were a total of seven transit agencies that use either a reloadable fare card or a centralized fare account for customers of their DRT services. For the one respondent with TNC-based microtransit services, a phone-in option is avail- able to riders where call-takers are able to forward call-in requests to the TNC app through a TNC system portal. Media options are available to unbanked customers of virtually all these services as well. Performance Standards The first five performance metrics (late trips, denials, missed trips, excessively long trips, and average call hold times) are often used as service-quality measures in general, but if they are exceeded can also suggest capacity constraints, an issue that is especially important with ADA paratransit service, and perhaps less so with other DRT services.

Survey and Survey Results 61   On-Time Performance All 20 of the respondents have adopted on-time performance (OTP) standards for pickups and/or drop-offs. In all cases where an OTP standard was reported for both, the standards are the same. And with one exception, there was no variation of OTP standards between DRT services provided by the same agency. A breakdown of the OTP standards is shown in Table 3-9. Denials Few of the transit agency respondents specified a standard other than zero. One transit agency has a standard of no more than 1 percent denials for its ADA paratransit and DAR services (recognizing that the ADA paratransit guidelines prohibit patterns of denials that as a pattern constitutes a capacity constraint). Another countywide DAR has a standard of no more than 10 percent denials. Missed Trips Only three of the responding agencies have adopted standards for missed trips. Two agencies, for their ADA and coordinated guidelines, have adopted a standard of no more than 1 percent and 5 percent, respectively, while the third agency has adopted a standard of no more than 5 percent for its DAR and flex-route services. Excessively Long Trips Interestingly, only seven of the 17 responding transit agencies that provide ADA para- transit services have adopted a standard for excessively long trips. A total of five of the seven have adopted a standard of 0 percent, while the other two agencies have adopted a standard of no more than 1 percent. On-Time Performance Standard Number of Agencies None reported 7 85% 2 90% 2 92% 1 93% 1 94% 2 95% 1 97% 1 98% 2 100% (drop-off) 1 Table 3-9. On-time performance standards.

62 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Average Call Hold Times A total of seven of the 20 respondents reported standards for average hold time of between 10 seconds and 3.5 minutes. Complaint Frequency Ratio and Response Time Complaint frequency ratios for DRT services are commonly reported in connection with the number of complaints per 10,000 passenger trips. The breakdown of standards reported is shown in Table 3-10. In addition, one transit agency reported having a standard of one complaint for every 1,000 revenue vehicle hours. A total of eight of the 20 respondents had standards for complaint response times, measured in number of business days. Of the eight, the standards ranged from 24 hours to 10 days. Half of these eight respondents have a standard of 1 business day. Productivity A productivity standard (in passenger or registrant trips per RVHs) is an especially impor- tant metric for service efficiency, especially with respect to dedicated service, which is often paid for based on a rate per RVH. Hence, the higher the productivity, the lower the cost per trip. A total of seven of the respondents indicated having a productivity standard; these ranged from 1.0 to 3.2, and all but 2 were between 2.0 and 3.0. Contractual Performance Standards Of the 20 survey respondents, 17 transit agencies used contractors to perform all or part of their DRT services. Of these 17 respondents, nine incorporated performance standards into their contracts, as shown in Table 3-11. Actual Performance Versus Performance Standards Table 3-12 shows the incidence of the number of DRT services for which both performance metrics and actual performance data—in each category—were reported by the survey respon- dents. When these statistics are traced back to the particular service model, there are no particular correlations. Of particular note, though, is the higher-than-expected incidence of CFR Standard Number of Agencies 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 None reported 0 0.5 1 5 6 10 Other 1 NOTE: CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. Table 3-10. Complaint frequency ratio standards.

Survey and Survey Results 63   actual drop-off performance, as well as productivity standards not met. Otherwise, the services reflected in this table are doing a good job meeting other performance metrics. Respondent Perceptions 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 3-2 provides the responses. Given that 19 of the 20 agencies had multiple services, it can be concluded that these agencies have embraced the concept of a “family of services” approach to providing additional mobility for their riders (12 responses). Performance Standard Number of Agencies None reported 8 Percentage of on-time (or late) trips 6 Percentage of denials 5 Missed trip percentage 3 Percentage of trips with excessively long onboard times 2 Average call hold time 1 Complaint frequency ratio 2 Productivity 2 Performance Standard Met or Exceeded Standard Total Services OTP percentage – pickup OTP percentage – drop-off Percentage of denials Missed trip percentage Percentage of trips with excessively long onboard Times Average call hold time Complaint frequency ratio Productivity 9 5 18 5 10 5 7 4 Did Not Meet Standard 7 7 3 2 1 2 0 8 16 12 21 7 11 7 7 12 Table 3-11. Incidence of contractual performance standards—transit agencies. Table 3-12. Actual performance versus performance standards for services.

64 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies The other most common benefit cited (12 responses) was the perception that the transit agencies’ service models enhanced the agencies’ flexibility to respond to service-quality issues. Over half of the 55 services catalogued in the survey responses had a complex service model (other than an all-in-house or completely turnkey contract). These include services that had one or more overflow providers, used multiple contractors, had a mixed call center and service- delivery structure, or used a user-side subsidy program. Moreover, many of these systems use a mixture of dedicated fleets supplemented by NDSPs. The agencies also felt that their service models provided flexibility but also control over the balance between service quality (67 percent of the responses) and productivity and cost (75 percent of the responses). Transit Agencies’ Reasons for Maintaining or Changing Their DRT Service Model 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 3-3). 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 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 3-2. Service model benefits. Figure 3-3. Reasons why respondents maintained or changed service model.