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.

137   The last chapter presents a synthesis of the findings, drawing from the practice overview, the survey findings, and the compendium of lessons learned from the case examples. This chapter also discusses the needs for future research. Adopting a Family-of-Service Approach to DRT Services Is a Key Component of Mobility Management, with the Customer Benefits of Tailored Services Outweighing Uniform Service Models A total of 15 of the 20 survey respondents—and all 11 of the case example participants— have embraced the family-of-service approach to providing DRT services. In addition to ADA paratransit services, many of the transit agencies also provide the following: • General public dial-a-ride service in less-dense areas; • On-demand alternative services to expand the mobility options for their ADA paratransit riders (and sometimes others); • On-demand microtransit services to expand access to and from their fixed-route service, to replace underperforming routes, and to serve areas or times ill-suited for fixed-route service; and • Flex transit in corridors with demand beyond a reasonable walkshed. Cascades East Transit (CET) in Bend, for example, provides an ADA paratransit service in the urban portion of their service area, a general public dial-a-ride service in some of the rural portions, and a flex route that connects a tribal reservation with needed services in a nearby community. As another example, the Champaign-Urbana MTD provides an ADA paratransit service; a taxi-based alternative service for ADA paratransit riders and other persons with disabilities and seniors; two microtransit services (one of which provides late-night service for a university); and a combination flex route/dial-a-ride service. For the latter combined service, the MTD uses the same vehicles to provide two different kinds of service at different times of the day. In addition, the MTD passes along funding to two HSA transportation programs. In addition to its ADA/coordinated service, AAATA in Ann Arbor provides two different types of microtransit services, one providing public transit access to a previously unserved area in Ypsilanti and the other providing late-night and holiday service throughout Ann Arbor. Both services have made considerable contributions to the mobility of specific areas as well as evening and holiday travel. With different needs and conditions spread through a transit agency’s regions, transit agencies are now deploying different types of DRT rather than trying to serve all the needs with one C H A P T E R   5 Key Findings and Conclusions

138 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies system. These transit agencies perceive that the cost benefits derived from economies of scale are outweighed by the customer benefits that stem from a more pinpointed approach to serving a particular need. Moreover, an important lesson learned is that many of these agencies are fitting the right service model to each service, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Two case examples stand out in this respect. In Gaston County, North Carolina, the county carved out its Medicaid trips, typically long and not particularly ride-sharable, from its coordinated dial-a-ride service. These are now served with nondedicated providers, a perfect match. At the same time, the county can serve its dial-a-ride program with its own dedicated fleet in a productive manner. In Wenatchee, Washington, Link Transit serves its core ADA paratransit service in-house; serves an evening ADA paratransit service in a remote area with a contractor; and serves two of its dial-a-ride services in-house but with two different overflow contractors, respectively. Comingling ADA Paratransit Trips and Other Compatible Trips on the Same Service Increases Productivity and Cost Efficiency A total of seven of the 20 transit survey respondents, including the four case example partici- pants in Abilene, Ann Arbor, Frederick County, and western Ventura County, indicated that their paratransit services were coordinated. All seven of these small to midsized transit agencies noted that serving seniors or persons with disabilities on the same service platform as their ADA paratransit trips results in more ridesharing opportunities and increased productivity, and ultimately contributes to cost efficiencies. In Frederick County, Maryland, where ADA paratransit trips are regularly shared with other trips on the TransIT-plus vehicles, blending the ADA paratransit service with the TransIT-plus dial-a-ride service resulted in service-provision flexibility and cost efficiencies that would not have been possible had the two programs been served with two dedicated fleets. According to the Frederick County Transit director, the challenge with blending the services is data reporting, as ADA paratransit data needs to be reported separately. Interestingly though, AAATA in Ann Arbor is “deconstructing” its ADA and senior para- transit service and is embarking on a new service model where these two sets of trips are served on different platforms. Here, the need to segregate AAATA’s ADA paratransit obligations was viewed as more of a priority than achieving cost efficiencies. Gaston County also deconstructed its ACCESS program, splitting out the service delivery of its Medicaid NEMT trips and its overflow providers, matching the two with each other. By doing this, the Medicaid trips no longer negatively impact the system’s productivity. With these trips no longer absorbing a significant portion of the dedicated fleet’s capacity, the county was able to accommodate significant increases in rural general and E&D trips without increasing its budget. At the same time, additional significant savings resulted from the county no longer having to bill the state Medicaid program. The lesson learned, for other coordinated services, is to be open to giving up revenue streams if they adversely impact the larger community needs. Directly Operating Paratransit, Dial-a-Ride, and Microtransit Service Provides Transit Agencies with More Control over Service Quality Of the 55 DRT services reflected in the survey, 25 were operated solely or partially in-house. These 25 include 17 services discussed in the case examples.

Key Findings and Conclusions 139   For small and midsized transit agencies, the primary motivating factor for directly operating service in-house is that they feel they have better control over service quality. The Champaign- Urban MTD noted that managing and operating service in-house enhances MTD’s ability to control the balance of service quality and cost efficiency. The trade-off here is cost, as in-house services tend to cost more, largely because of the higher driver wage rates and fringe benefits. Almost all of the case example contacts acknowledged this trade-off. The one exception was the general manager of Link Transit, who stated that the rates of turnkey contracts from neigh- boring systems were indistinguishable from his own in-house costs. But generally, the balance between service quality and cost tips toward the former for transit agencies that operate an all-in-house service. Small to midsized transit agencies perceive that day-to-day decisions can be rendered in a more objective fashion versus private contractors whose decisions are often financially motivated. With an in-house system, small to midsized transit agencies can be more flexible and can react more quickly to conditions that suggest a change versus issuing a contract amendment. In small urban settings, there is often a dearth of local private carriers with the capability to operate the entire service. It can also happen that a transit agency has no choice but to bring a service in-house if its local contractor does not fulfill its contractual obligations and there is no alternative. Transit agencies can take advantage of the 80/20  percent match associated with capital purchases. Other related factors included the support and trust that the transit agency holds with the community; its operational capabilities in regard to experience, resources, and stability versus procurement expertise and capabilities; and the will it has to operate service in-house. Using a Turnkey Contractor Is a Cost-Effective Service Model and Provides Focused Accountability; Service Quality Can Be Controlled with Incentives or Penalties Tied to Performance Many small to midsized transit agencies have a volume of DRT that can be accommodated with one turnkey provider. Of the 55 paratransit services and DRT services reflected in the survey, 37 were solely or partially operated by contracted service providers. However, only 13 of these services involved a turnkey contract, noting that this may have been more of a function of the study team’s screening process used to target survey participants than a reflection of the industry. From the case examples, Gold Coast Transit (GCT) District, serving western Ventura County, California, is a good example, where GCT uses its turnkey contractor to operate a variety of paratransit services, including its ADA/coordinated paratransit service (and three embedded programs) and its microtransit services. Small to midsized transit agencies tend to use turnkey contracts for their paratransit services where they have no interest or lack experience in performing any of the day-to-day functions, or where, in some states (e.g., The COMET in South Carolina), they are prohibited by state law from operating service in-house. Of the other respondents with turnkey contractors, all mentioned using a turnkey contractor as a more cost-efficient approach to an in-house model for their DRT services, also noting a desire to keep all of the day-to-day functions under one roof (to facilitate communication among staff and drivers). Some of these transit agencies also noted that turnkey contracts were

140 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies appropriate to their alternative services and some of their microtransit services, where taxis or TNCs under agreement perform all of the day-to-day functions. While the tipping point is cost, all 13 of these agencies also noted that the lack of direct control can be counteracted with contractual incentives and penalties (or liquidated damages) that are tied to service-quality performance metrics. A few of these transit agencies also mentioned that they have taken great care to procure the “right” partner, as they did not wish to be stuck with a “lemon” for the duration of the contractual term. This is why they have included clear performance standards and expectations in their contract, and why they have included a contractual “exit” clause in case of continued substandard performance. Some of the transit agencies also noted that continued liquidated damages can create a downward spiral of performance and at a certain point are counter- productive, further signaling the need for a re-procurement or service-model change. GCT’s paratransit and special projects director notes that longer-term contracts provide (1) a better opportunity to forge a partnership than shorter terms and (2) stability and con- sistency for the agency, the drivers, and the riders. With a long-term contract, GCT is able to react more quickly to emerging and sometimes unique demands using existing capacity and add new DRT services via amendments, as long as that opportunity is identified in the base contract. Payment for most DRT turnkey contracts involving the operation of a dedicated fleet is typically based on a per-revenue-vehicle rate, noting that nearly 70 percent of such services in the survey used this payment structure. Many of these contracts use this cost structure, but only for variable costs, and use a monthly fixed fee to cover the contractor’s fixed costs, thereby reducing the contractor risk, which hopefully translates to a more competitive rate. With this in mind, most of the survey respondents indicated that fuel was paid for separately as a pass-through cost to further reduce the contractor risk. In cases where the fuel cost is embedded in the rate, most transit agencies have fuel adjustment clauses that increase or reduce the base rate depending on whether fuel prices increase or decrease beyond a certain margin. If the turnkey contract is truly a turnkey with the contractor responsible for the provision of all supporting assets and the contractor leases these assets, industry practitioners recom- mended (1) elongating the contract term, thereby enabling service providers to enter into longer (and hence less-expensive) leases; and (2) contractually requiring that the transit agency be in the first position to assume any leases (facility or vehicles), at the option of the transit agency, if the contract ends prematurely. Lastly, and as pointed out by AAATA staff, it is important that functions such as eligibility determination and complaint management that can have a material impact on a contractor’s revenue not be assigned to a turnkey contractor. Providing Vehicles and Other Assets to a Turnkey Contractor Reduces Need for Local Capital Funding While Ensuring Vehicle Type, Software Preferences, and Facility Location, to Level the Playing Field Several of the survey respondents and case-example participants provide vehicles, software, and other equipment to their turnkey (and operational) contractor(s), allowing their contrac- tors to operate service out of transit agency facilities and use transit-agency-provided vehicles and technology. By doing so, transit agencies 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 field for procuring service providers as compared to where proposers are required to provide these assets.

Key Findings and Conclusions 141   Additional benefits of a transit agency procuring its own vehicles include direct control over the type and capacity of vehicles, the fleet mix, the seating configuration, and the replacement and retirement schedule. In Topeka, for example, Metro’s management partially attributes the high productivity of its in-house dedicated paratransit service to the three-wheelchair configuration of Metro’s vehicles. The wheelchairs do not have to be secured or removed in any particular order, removing the negative impacts of last-in, first-out trip ordering. Metro will also soon be adding some new floor paratransit buses to its fleet as it retires some of its current fleet. Similar to vehicle provision, a transit agency may want to directly license DRT scheduling software if it wishes to have direct control over the scheduling parameters and other configu- rable aspects of the technology. Providing vehicles and the software scheduling system also ensures some consistency as a new contractor is retained and there is no need to convert data from one system to another. Involving the turnkey contractor in asset procurement decisions, as well as the decision on fleet mix, is generally a good idea, according to the survey respondents who provide assets to their turnkey (and operational) contractors. This eliminates the possibility of a contractor blaming the transit agency for the contractor’s poor performance. GCT District adds that by providing the software and vehicles, it is much easier to switch out a contractor if desired. By providing the fuel, GCT also eliminates the risk of escalating fuel prices from the contractor. By eliminating a potentially volatile pricing risk factor, GCT believes that proposers reduce the risk factor proposed in their rates, especially for longer contracts. GCT also said that in its turnkey contract, the transit agency includes details of the transfer of vehicles from the outgoing to the incoming contractor, adding that it is especially important that these details cover incidences where substandard maintenance has occurred prior to the transfer and states who is financially responsible. Using Multiple Turnkey Paratransit Contractors Makes Sense for Taxi and TNC-Based On-Demand Services, and for Paratransit in Large Areas or Where Trip Types Are Served by Different Contractors With the exception of some of the alternative services, some microtransit services, and one user-side subsidy program, there were no survey respondents with multiple turnkey con- tractors. For small and midsized transit agencies, multiple turnkey contracts are appropriate primarily to multizone delivery networks covering large areas, where riders would then know who to call for service based on the service provider that is assigned to their zone. They also work where the customer base can be easily divided by trip type or trip purpose. In a multiple-carrier environment, agencies must weigh the additional cost of having two or more sets of staff performing CCC functions, two or more sets of road supervisors, two or more sets of facilities, and the like, against the cost benefits associated with using contractors versus in-house operations and lower rates resulting from competition. Using Nondedicated Service Providers for Overflow Is a Proven Cost-Reduction Strategy and a Solution to Driver Shortage Issues From the survey responses, there were 25 (of the total 55) services that were operated solely or partially in-house. Of these 25, there were seven that used NDSPs for overflow. Similarly, of the 14 services provided by a single turnkey contractor, only one also used a nondedicated

142 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies service provider for overflow trips. These instances were represented in the case examples as well. Virtually all of these case-example participants indicated use of nondedicated overflow providers for two reasons: as a cost-reduction strategy and as a strategy to supplement an at-capacity dedicated fleet (whether operated by the transit agency or its turnkey contractor). In Abilene and Ann Arbor, for example, the cost per trip on trips provided by NDSPs was more than half the cost of serving trips with their in-house fleet. But the cost reduction was not the most important factor in Abilene, where CityLink was faced with a driver shortage that jeopardized its ability to provide ADA paratransit service. Here, putting enough service out on the road was paramount, and this was accomplished by supplementing the in-house fleet with two overflow providers. One of the other lessons learned from Abilene was ensuring that the overflow solution has a sufficient number of WAV resources, as the capacity of the in-house fleet alone was insufficient to accommodate the overflow WAV trips. This led to there being two overflow providers. And in Ann Arbor, using local carriers in general has been consistent with its long-term commitment to contributing to the local economy. The general manager of Link Transit in Wenatchee, Washington, also views the use of non- dedicated service for overflow as a way to boost the productivity of the dedicated vehicles and to reduce the overall cost per trip. Interestingly, with the local taxi industry dissolving for a variety of reasons, Link Transit has turned to other types of service providers, such as a local hospital, to be on call to provide trips to provide localized ADA paratransit services during weekday evenings. At the same time, Link Transit is looking for ways to help restore the taxi industry to the community. In Columbia, South Carolina, The COMET’s use of a dedicated fleet for DART, its ADA paratransit service, supplemented by an integrated nondedicated service provider (through the subcontract with the overflow taxi provider) was specifically designed to keep the DART dedicated fleet productive and to avoid denials. A zero trip-denial rate was also seen as the biggest benefit of using an overflow provider in Topeka. The transit agencies in both Abilene and Topeka also stated that another major benefit of this service model was that it provided a solution for the challenges the transit agencies were encountering in recruiting and retaining drivers for their in-house dedicated services. While overflow solutions among small and midsized transit agencies typically serve between 5 and 15 percent of the trips, there is nothing that limits this. For example, in Topeka, 56 percent of the paratransit trips are served by the overflow provider. Moreover, Topeka Metro is currently in the midst of establishing a second overflow provider, as its first is at capacity for WAV trips. Where NDSPs do not have WAV vehicles, the transit agency can actively be a part of solv- ing that deficiency. Topeka Metro, for example, provides a WAV vehicle to its nondedicated service provider for a lease fee of $1.00. Use of NDSPs also requires a contract that establishes detailed standards for performance to institute transit agency expectations and a robust monitoring mechanism to ensure that those standards are achieved. The consensus among the transit agencies involved in the study effort is that providing or requiring the contractor to provide tablets in the nondedicated vehicles is a labor-saving solution to dispatching and collecting trip data and contributes to improved service quality and data accuracy. Without this, indirect dispatching and driver communications can be cumber- some and problematic (often at the expense of the rider); in addition, manual entry of data and trip verification can be labor-intensive and lead to data inaccuracies. A good example of this is in Topeka, where all of the overflow provider’s drivers are equipped with tablets. Assuming that both the dedicated fleet and the nondedicated provider(s) both have WAV capability, the trips best assigned to the nondedicated providers are the trips that would

Key Findings and Conclusions 143   otherwise reduce the productivity of the dedicated fleet. Assigning shorter trips to an overflow provider to minimize out-of-pocket costs may backfire if it drives down the productivity of the dedicate fleet and results in an increase in the overall cost per trip. Distance-based rates for NDSPs make sense where the length of trips assigned to the pro- viders varies significantly. In contrast, where trip lengths are homogeneous or fairly limited based on a small service area, per-trip rates provide administrative simplicity and reduce labor required for monitoring. Some transit agencies also pay service providers higher rates for trips that require WAV vehicles, as the cost to operate (and purchase or lease) WAV vehicles is higher than the cost for non-WAV vehicles. Using Nondedicated Service Providers for Microtransit Services Is a Proven Model for Large Areas and Where Demand Is Sparse or Unknown By definition, all alternative services use NDSPs, while some microtransit services, such as the two in Columbia, South Carolina, are being served with taxis or TNCs in whole or in part. For microtransit, NDSPs are chosen to augment a dedicated fleet or vice versa, where the dedicated fleet is providing WAV service. Small to midsized transit agencies are also choosing to use NDSPs to solely provide microtransit in “new” areas where the demand for microtransit is unclear and in large areas where demand is spread out. In such areas, dedicated service could, respectively, be a gamble from a cost-efficiency perspective or not particularly cost efficient. Similarly, small to midsized transit agencies are using taxis and TNCs for a first-mile/ last-mile microtransit service (with trips allowed only to and from transit connections) as a cost-efficient solution to serving a highly peaked demand. Using Operational Contractors While Performing Call Center Functions In-House Provides Both Cost Savings and Service Quality Of the 55 services reflected in the SG-19 survey, five use operational contractor-service models, where the transit agency performs all the call center functions and retains one or more contractors for service delivery. A total of four of these five use multiple contractors, which is more typical with such models. An additional four services are provided with mixed call and control functions (discussed later), noting that these models also use one or more contractors for service delivery. By and large, use of operational contractors for service delivery while the transit agency performs all or some of the call center functions is adopted by small to midsized transit agencies for some of the reasons previously discussed, mainly (1) to reduce operational costs (see Using a Turnkey Paratransit Contractor Is a Cost-Effective Service Model and Provides Focused Accountability; Service Quality Can Be Controlled with Incentives or Penalties Tied to Performance) and (2) to have direct control over (a) service quality (See Directly Operat- ing Paratransit, Dial-a-Ride, and Microtransit Service Provides Transit Agencies with More Control over Service Quality) and (b) in the case of multiple contractors, the distribution of trips, which can have an impact on both service quality and cost. For Cascades East Transit in Bend, Oregon, using a service-delivery operator while providing the CCC functions and providing the facilities and vehicles was a major financial strategy, but also a way to directly control the balance of service quality and cost. As a “best of both worlds” service model, it is

144 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies a bit surprising that more small and midsized transit agencies don’t use this model in view of scarce resources, although many such agencies may not have suitable local operational carriers to draw upon. A multicarrier procurement can generally increase competition, as there may be smaller local carriers who would not be able to serve the systemwide demand, and increased competition often results in competitive rates. This also presents a way for the transit agency to meet SME and DBE goals. Moreover, in unzoned service designs, transit agencies are freer to re-allocate the volume work between and among the carriers during the contract period, based on service perfor- mance. This strategy is facilitated where the transit agency owns the vehicles and therefore can re-allocate its vehicles among the contractors to mirror the re-allocation of service. Using multiple carriers also provides a transit agency with a built-in backup in case one of the con- tractors defaults. In such an event, a transit agency can temporarily expand the service area or scope of the other contractor(s) until a replacement contractor can be secured, noting that the possibility of such an expansion as a stopgap measure could be included in the contract. Splitting Up the Call and Control Functions Provides Transit Agencies with More Control over Direct Customer Interaction, While Taking Advantage of Contractor Expertise As mentioned earlier, four of the 55 services (three of which are case examples) reflected in the survey use one or more operational contractors for service delivery, with the transit agency providing some of the call and control functions and the contractor(s) performing the others. For example: • In Ann Arbor from 2015 to 2020, AAATA employed a split call-and-control function model, with AAATA performing reservations and scheduling for all advance reservation trips and its operations contractor responsible for same-day reservations and all dispatching and ETA call functions. • Gaston County’s three contractors, which are now solely providing NEMT trips allocated to them by the county, are responsible for handling the ETA calls and other service-day-issue calls from those riders. • In Harris County, Texas, the transit agency handles reservations from its ADA paratransit riders, with an operational contractor responsible for the other three call and control functions. • For its ADA paratransit service, Tyler (Texas) Transit and its overflow contractor split the dispatching call functions for the trips that have been scheduled and assigned to each by the transit agency. In general, though, a transit agency takes on the reservations and ETA functions when it wishes to have more direct control of these customer-facing functions and takes on the schedul- ing of the function when it wishes to control the “tightness” of the schedule. In the first case, it boils down to the perceived need to improve service quality. In the second case, controlling the scheduling function directly impacts the balance between service quality and cost. Using a Broker Is a Proven Model for Multisponsor Coordinated Services and Where Expertise Is Needed for a Multicarrier Design While none of the 20 survey respondents used a broker for their services, both Cascades East Transit in Bend, Oregon, and Gaston County provide brokerage functions for NEMT trips, noting that these are captured herein as an “operational contractors” model.

Key Findings and Conclusions 145   From the literature review, most small to midsized transit agencies retain a broker for their DRT services to support coordinated systems, where the broker also enters into sponsorship agreements with other entities, such as HSAs. Brokerages are also appropriate for multicarrier service designs where the transit agency believes a broker is better suited to establish the service- delivery network, procure service providers, and allocate trips among the service providers. Lastly, some transit agencies choose a brokerage service model to diffuse risk, as the transit agency is no longer in a direct contractual relationship with the service providers. Using a User-Side Subsidy Program Is a Cost-Effective Approach, with Newer Technologies Controlling Fraud and Improving Data Collection Harris County (Texas) has mastered using nondedicated providers via user-side subsidy programs for its dial-a-ride program (for seniors and persons with disabilities), its NEMT program, its ADA paratransit service, and, under contract to the City of Galveston, its Island Transit’s ADA paratransit service. For all four services, Harris County Transit (HCT) uses a fare card system, where a rider directly loads money into the rider’s fare card account and HCT loads a matching or higher subsidy (depending on the service or program) into that account, with the amount of HCT’s subsidy capped per month. From there, all service and financial transactions are between riders and the participating service provider(s), with two exceptions: (1) HCT provides the reservation functions for its ADA paratransit service; and (2) HCT pays a nominal fee to its contractors for no-shows and late cancellations. A signifi- cant benefit of the fare card system used by HCT is that it provides all the service data required for reporting and monitoring. While TNCs are also used to support paratransit services and provide alternative and microtransit services, they generally do not reflect user-side subsidy programs; that is, where all (or the primary) financial transactions are between the rider and the service provider. With the TNC-based services, the rider pays a fare, the TNC invoices the transit agency up to the maximum subsidy allowed, and the overage (if any) is paid by the rider. Some taxi-based services, such as the Half-Fare Cab program in Champaign-Urbana, are similarly designed. The major benefit of user-side programs is cost. For example, in Galveston, Island Transit was able to reduce its per-trip cost by 70 percent by using Harris County Transit’s user-side subsidy program through an interlocal agreement. To a large extent, the cost reduction was the result of switching from a service model served with in-house dedicated vehicles. With such programs, a transit agency can take advantage of existing resources in the community (taxis) and provide little if any capital resources, unless a transit agency elects to infuse one or more WAVs into the contractor’s fleet. In years past, the most significant cost incurred by transit agencies was the cost of printing and distributing vouchers and the labor devoted to fraud control and collecting data from the service providers. For many small and midsized transit agencies, this has all been superseded by fare card systems (such as that used by HCT), centralized fare accounts, and e-vouchers. With most user-side subsidy programs, a transit agency’s financial exposure can be further controlled by the amount of the matching subsidy and by a maximum subsidy per month, as well as by the service area. With a user-side subsidy program, it is the rider who decides how best to use the funds in their account. For example, for HCT’s dial-a-ride, a rider (with the combined funds from the rider and the transit agency and in HCT’s large service area) can choose to take a few long trips or many shorter trips. In the two cases where user-side subsidy programs are used for ADA paratransit, HCT and Island Transit make sure that a sufficient match is made that otherwise does not limit the number of trips made by a rider.

146 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies Lastly, transit agencies wishing to avoid drug and alcohol testing requirements for their DRT services (other than ADA paratransit) must ensure that all riders have a choice of service providers. At the same time, transit agencies need to ensure that all of their DRT services provide equivalent service to persons who require a WAV vehicle. Using DRT Resources for Food Delivery and Vaccination Shots During the Pandemic Has Been a Community Benefit A number of the transit agencies reflected in the case examples used DRT resources during the pandemic, when ridership was down, and there were drivers and vehicles available. For example, in Abilene, Texas, the OnCall Service was used to provide 125 trips to vacci- nation clinics. CityLink was also exploring the idea of transporting health professionals to residences (bringing vaccination shots to homes) when the pandemic began to subside. And in Columbia, South Carolina, The COMET used DART resources, as well as the TNCs par- ticipating in COMET On The Go!, to provide food delivery services and vaccination trips to seniors and persons with disabilities. Need for Future Research This study effort represents a companion report to TCRP Synthesis 135: ADA Paratransit Service Models, which focused more on larger transit agencies. Together they provide a compen- dium of DRT service models. The findings of the study suggest that small to midsized transit agencies do have service model options for their DRT beyond the more traditional approaches of an all-in-house and a single turnkey contractor. Moreover, the transit agencies surveyed perceive that the benefits of using a family-of-service approach or more complex service models have a direct impact on controlling cost, meeting service-quality standards, and helping to address the varying mobility needs of DRT customers. Microtransit and alternative services are currently being explored by other TCRP efforts. The SG-19 study confirms that these have a broader spectrum of applicability than may have been generally realized by small and midsized transit agencies. Moving forward, it is important to ensure that small to midsized transit agencies are included within the scopes of these current (and future) efforts.