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.

147   Literature Review This appendix cites relevant portions of reports, articles, and presentations reviewed for this study effort. Elements of the documents reviewed were incorporated into Chapter 2, An Overview of DRT Service Models. Some of the agencies targeted for the SG-19 survey (Chapter 3) also appeared in some of the research studies and local plans reviewed. National Research Studies The literature search yielded a set of national and local studies that either focused on paratran- sit service models and related contracting strategies or included these topics as part of a more comprehensive report. These national research studies are sorted in reverse chronological order, with the most recent listed first. Each of these studies built upon the research studies that were previously undertaken. K. Blume et al. TCRP Synthesis 154: Innovative Practices for Transit Planning at Small to Mid-Sized Agencies, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2021. This recent synthesis, prepared by Kelly Blume and colleagues at the Texas A&M Trans- portation Institute (TTI), focuses on various aspects of how small and midsized transit agencies have faced challenges that differ from those facing larger transit agencies. An analysis of the responses from a survey of 156 transit agencies revealed that the solutions of some of the respondents focused on their DRT services, and in some of the cases, the DRT’s service model. In this synthesis, these solutions were memorialized in Chapter  5, Innovative Approaches to Addressing Transit Planning Challenges, and, in particular, Theme #4, Service Planning/ Redesign. In this chapter, for example, was a case example of Gaston County, North Carolina, that focused on a service model change of its coordinated dial-a-ride service. As a result of this review, Gaston County was identified as a target for the SG-19, and the case example served as a springboard for the SG-19 case example. In a similar fashion, Monroe County was identified as a survey target. W. Rodman, and W. High. TCRP Synthesis 135: ADA Paratransit Service Models, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018. This synthesis, prepared by Will Rodman and William High of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, is in a way the companion synthesis for the SG-19 study. Synthesis 135 also estab- lished a template for how the study on SG-19 would be conducted and the organization of the SG-19 report. From the literature search and the authors’ own experience, TCRP Synthesis 135 focused first on an overview of various paratransit service models used for ADA paratransit A P P E N D I X A

148 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies services. These were graphically portrayed, noting that some of the concepts behind the graphics were borrowed for SG-19. Also, many of the principles, benefits, and challenges associated with various service models that were detailed in TCRP Synthesis 135 informed the SG-19 practice overview, recognizing that not all the service models that were discussed in TCRP Synthesis 135 apply to small and midsized transit agencies. Based on the literature review, 32 transit agencies were targeted for the TCRP Synthesis 135 survey, noting that these 32 reflected all of the various service models in the overview, as well as geographic diversity. Most of these targeted transit agencies served larger metropolitan areas, however, by virtue of the fact that larger transit agencies tend to have more complex service models. A total of 29 agencies responded, and from their response, mini case examples were developed for each, rather than a handful of in-depth case examples. Each profile includes a summary of the system and highlights its service-delivery models, information on contracting, challenges, outcomes, and lessons learned. The decision to take that approach for TCRP Synthesis 135 was based on the fact that among the 29 respondents, there were 25 different service models, and five case examples alone would not be sufficient to reflect the breadth of the differences. In contrast, given the narrower set of service models for small to midsized transit agencies, it was felt that at least 10 case examples for the SG-19 report would be sufficient. But the fact that most of the TCRP Synthesis 135 case examples did reflect larger agencies was considered in TRB’s funding of this companion report for smaller and midsized paratransit services, and SG-19 includes but goes beyond ADA para- transit to include dial-a-ride services, on-demand alternative services and microtransit services, and flex transit. Also, one of the mini case examples from TCRP Synthesis 135 was Ann Arbor, which was updated for the SG-19 effort. The importance of Ann Arbor to the SG-19 is the series and sequence of old and new service-model changes to the same core set of trips, implemented to adapt to changing conditions. FTA, Accessible Transit Services for All, FTA Report No. 0081 Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2014. This national study, prepared by Marilyn Golden from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund in conjunction with David Chia from The Collaborative, Buffy Ellis from KFH Group, and Russell Thatcher from TranSystems Corporation, discusses paratransit service models and contracting. This project included a nationwide survey (198 or 28 percent of the 674 transit agencies invited to participate in the survey responded) and the development of 12 case examples. Of relevance to the SG-19 synthesis, this report included a section on paratransit service design and a section on procurement and contracting. The Service Design section identified and discussed in-house operations; a single, turnkey contractor design; a multiple turnkey contractor design; an in-house CCC with contracted service providers; and a contracted CCC with contracted service providers. All but the latter have relevance to small and midsized transit agencies. Report No. 0081 also included a discussion on service design decisions, historic trends in service designs, the current state of the practice, factors that impact the applicability of common service designs, the advantages and challenges of common service designs, centralized versus decentralized reservations, scheduling and dispatch, and selecting the right combination of service design. The report’s Procurement and Contracting section details the benefits and challenges of the provision of supporting assets (vehicles, facility, scheduling software), contract payment structures, and service-quality provisions. Many of the observations from this report were incorporated into TCRP Synthesis 135 (discussed earlier) but also in Chapter 3 of the SG-19 synthesis.

Literature Review 149   Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates et al. TCRP Report 121: Toolkit for Integrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in Paratransit Service, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. This report, prepared by Will Rodman and David Koffman of Nelson\Nygaard, and in conjunction with Dr. Roger Teal of TWJ Consulting, includes a national survey of 31 transit agencies, reflecting a wide geographic representation, that used taxis and other NDSPs in an integrated fashion for the delivery of ADA/coordinated paratransit trips. A total of 11 case examples were also prepared, five of which were relevant to the SG-19 study research effort. One of these was Link Transit, which was updated for SG-19. This study also included an Excel-based tool, developed by Dr. Teal, for determining the optimal service mix of any para- transit system. The importance of this study to the SG-19 synthesis focused on how taxis and other NDSPs were being used as an integrated part of a paratransit service model to reduce cost per trip, and to provide an additional resource for both schedulers and dispatchers. The study identified the primary factors affecting the use of nondedicated service: the temporal characteristics, spatial distribution, and expected fluctuations of daily demand, as well as unexpected increases in demand and unexpected decreases in supply. The study also drew some initial conclusions about how NDSP contractors are paid, and how the use of NDSP subcontractors impacts the payment structure to the primary contractor(s); these conclusions were used in Chapter 3 of this SG-19 report. Rosemary Mathias, Innovative Practices in Paratransit Services. Easter Seals Project ACTION, Washington, D.C., 2002. This study, prepared by Rosemary Mathias of Multisystems for Easter Seals Project ACTION, includes discussions of paratransit system design and management and organizational-structure service models. This project involved a survey of quantitative and qualitative questions in 11 categories sent to 50 transit agencies representing a wide variety of geographic and operat- ing characteristics, with 29 agencies responding, reflecting a variety of different service models. The report is divided into four main sections: Paratransit Service Operations, Paratransit Service Management, Paratransit Service Design, and Supplementary and Associated Programs. The section most pertinent to the SG-19 synthesis is Paratransit Service Design, in which in-house/ direct operation and using a brokerage firm were discussed. The report noted various consid- erations for choosing a particular service model. For in-house service, the motivation was direct control over the service quality at the “expense” of the high cost of in-house driver labor and fringe benefits. For brokerages, the motivations included a desire to outsource paratransit management, to lower costs, and to compensate for a lack of in-house expertise combined with an inability to attract experienced personnel or in-house hiring freezes. The report also added that a brokerage is conducive to a multisponsor coordinated system because of its neutral status and objectivity. The report provided tables identifying the advantages and disadvantages of centralized reservations and centralized scheduling and other design considerations, includ- ing single versus multiple carriers, service mix, and flexible capacity. The report also discusses per-hour versus per-trip rates. These observations, as they apply to small and midsized transit agencies, were incorporated into Chapter 3 of the SG-19 report. R. M. Simon. TCRP Synthesis 31: Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. The study, prepared by Rosalyn Simon, provides insight into the operational practices employed by public transit operators to provide ADA paratransit services, and, in a way, was the forerunner of the studies mentioned earlier. Specifically, the synthesis, which involved a survey

150 ADA Paratransit and Other Demand-Responsive Transportation Services in Small to Midsized Transit Agencies of 554 agencies, found that paratransit service delivery could be classified by direct (in-house) operation, private-sector contracts (single and multiple), and brokerage systems and user-side subsidy programs. The study found that the underlying reasons for keeping or changing their service-delivery method included cost, responsiveness, experience with paratransit service delivery, and control, and that the use of private-sector paratransit providers has increased, largely as the result of financial constraints, and the private sector being able to provide service at a lower cost. The study also found that 48 percent of the respondents paid contractors based on hourly rates, while 38 percent paid contractors based on a per-trip rate, some with different rates for different categories of service (accessible versus inaccessible vehicles, taxis), or zones, and 14 percent had a combination of rates. Local Studies and Peer Reviews The study team’s efforts also included a review of DRT services and related lessons learned from various studies performed for small and midsized transit agencies. These included the following: Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Technical Memorandum– Microtransit Peer Agency Practices, Prepared for Harris County Transit, April 2021. This technical memorandum, prepared for Harris County (Texas) Transit by Todd Hansen and colleagues at TTI for its Harris County Microtransit Study, provides examples of peer agency practices of microtransit services from around the United States. One of the sections of this report focused on service models. This section informed (1) the discussion in SG-19’s Chapter 3 of microtransit, (2) the reasons that small to midsized transit agencies implement microtransit services, and (3) the process of matching different microtransit service models to community characteristics. Also, in the course of this effort, TTI identified the other DRT services Harris County Transit was already providing and identified Harris County as a target for the SG-19 survey. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Technical Memorandum– Provisions for Fixed Route and DRT Contracts, Prepared for Harris County Transit, 2020. This technical memorandum, prepared for Harris County (Texas) Transit by Will Rodman and Zach Elgart at the TTI, involved collecting RFPs and contracts from several peer agencies, cataloguing contractual provisions and service standards specific to fixed-route transit services and DRT services, and discussing the underlying reasons—and likely outcomes—of their inclu- sion. The contracting experience of peers and motivations behind adopting specific contractual provisions related to service performance informed SG-19, Chapter 3. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, El Paso County Regional Transit Study, Prepared for El Paso Transit, 2017–2020. This report, prepared for El Paso County by TTI, explores different fixed-route and demand- responsive solutions for different areas and corridors of the county beyond the urban area of Sun Metro’s system. The analysis and evaluation of the appropriateness of paratransit, general public dial-a-ride, and route-deviation and checkpoint-deviation services informed the dis- cussion of flex routes in the Chapter 2 overview. The Chapter 2 graphics illustrating the flex transit options were also developed for and borrowed from this study.

Literature Review 151   Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Green Mountain Transit (GMT) NextGen Transit Plan, Prepared for Green Mountain Transit, 2017. This report, prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates for Green Mountain Transit (GMT) in Burlington, VT, included a Paratransit Review, conducted by the SG-19 principal investigator. The review documented two of the three DRT services GMT now provides. The service models for each of these services are very different, illustrating the need to match para- transit and DRT service models to the particular conditions. Knowledge of GMT’s DRT services led to the inclusion of GMT in the SG-19 survey. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Paratransit Service Analysis Study, Final Report, Prepared for Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA), 2014. This report was prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates for the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) in December 2014. This report included an analysis of PVTA’s paratransit service model, which informed SG-19’s Chapter 3. Also, the report included long- term recommendations for a procurement strategy and included the possibility of a multi- contractor scenario.