Continuous Dynamic Optimization: Impacts on ADA Paratransit Services (2023)

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.

2023 Continuous Dynamic Optimization IMPACTS ON ADA PARATRANSIT SERVICES A Synthesis of Transit Practice Will Rodman Kelly Blume Texas A&M Transportation Institute Dallas, TX Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the American Public Transportation Association Subject Areas Public Transportation • Passenger Transportation T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP SYNTHESIS 168

TCRP SYNTHESIS 168 Project J-07, Topic SB-36 ISSN 1073-4880 ISBN 978-0-309-68776-8 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade- marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Cover photo credit: MET Transit NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or speci- fications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob- lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera- tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and APTA. APTA is responsible for forming the independent govern- ing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Commission. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Commission to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Commission defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat- ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen- cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs.

e National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. e National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. e National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. e three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. e National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. e Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. e mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. e Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. e program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP SYNTHESIS 168 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Mariela Garcia-Colberg, Senior Program Officer Emily Griswold, Program Coordinator Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications TCRP PROJECT J-07 PANEL Elizabeth Presutti, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART), Des Moines, IA (Chair) Jameson Auten, Lane Transit District, Eugene, OR Mallory Avis, Battle Creek Transit, Battle Creek, MI Raymond Chan, Greater Dayton RTA, Dayton, OH Roderick B. Diaz, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Los Angeles, CA Mark Donaghy, Petersburg, KY Rachel Dungca, Metro Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Anthony, MN Christian T. Kent, Christian T. Kent, Transit Management Consulting, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA Beverly Neff, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego, CA Edward F. Watt, WattADR, Rockaway Park, NY David C. Wilcock, VHB, Boston, MA Tara Clark, FTA Liaison Arthur L. Guzzetti, APTA Liaison William Terry, National Transit Institute Liaison TOPIC SB-36 PANEL Jameson Auten, Lane Transit District, Eugene, OR Sally Brown, Greater Dayton RTA, Dayton, OH Efon M. Epanty, Prince George’s County Department of Public Works & Transportation, Upper Marlboro, MD Rosemary B. Gerty, Pace Suburban Bus, Berwyn, IL Christian T. Kent, Christian T. Kent, Transit Management Consulting, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA Ryan Larsen, Elk Horn, IA Margaret Schoep, Gold Cold Transit District, Oxnard, CA Patrick Centolanzi, FTA Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

ABOUT THE TCRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Cooperative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-07, “Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD By Mariela Garcia-Colberg Staff Officer Transportation Research Board The development of continuous dynamic optimization (CDO) as part of paratransit scheduling and dispatching systems stemmed from transit operators’ desire to more effectively schedule trips that are left unassigned after the schedulers have left for the day, to address reductions in productivity and on-time performance that occur on the day of service, and to improve the delivery of services to ADA paratransit riders. The objective of this synthesis study is to document the current use of a dynamic optimization function for ADA paratransit where dynamic optimization results in improving the efficiency of the route schedule and the overall productivity of the on-demand service without affecting the customer’s confirmed pickup time window. The study includes a literature review and survey responses on the practices of 11 transit agencies. These 11 transit agencies were also interviewed for the case examples. They provided information on the state of the practice and emphasized their lessons learned and challenges. Will Rodman and his team from Texas A&M Transportation Institute collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report, under the guidance of a panel of experts in the subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful docu- ment that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Will Rodman and Kelly Blume of the Texas A&M Transportation Insti- tute’s Transit Mobility Program. The authors would like to thank the individuals listed in the following table from the 11 transit agencies that responded to and completed the TCRP Project J-07/Topic SB-36 survey, all of whom were also interviewed for the case examples. Location Agency Respondents/Participants Title Abilene, TX CityLink Bobby Sharpe General Manager Austin, TX Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Suzie Edrington Senior Director, Demand Response Billings, MT MET Transit Lindsay Gran Transit Supervisor Bowling Green, KY GO bg Transit Robert Gil Transit Manager Green Bay, WI Green Bay Metro Patty Kiewiz Transit Director Lubbock, TX Citibus Chris Mandrell General Manager Oxnard/Western Ventura County, CA Gold Coast Transit District Margaret Schoep Paratransit Manager Sheboygan, WI Shoreline Metro Derek Muench Director of Transit/Parking St. Petersburg, FL Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Bonnie Epstein Director, Mobility Services Summit County, UT High Valley Transit Caroline Rodriguez Executive Director Wenatchee, WA Link Transit Richard DeRock General Manager Transit agency survey respondents and participants in the case examples.

1 Summary 7 Chapter 1 Overview of the Technology 7 Paratransit Scheduling Technology: A History 11 How Scheduling Parameters and Cost Weighting Work 15 How Continuous Dynamic Optimization Works 17 Technologies from Microtransit Vendors 18 Chapter 2 Survey 18 Purpose 18 Methodology 19 Results 33 Chapter 3 Transit Agency Profiles 34 Abilene, TX—CityLink 37 Austin, TX—Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 40 Billings, MT—MET Transit 42 Bowling Green, KY—GO bg Transit 45 Green Bay, WI—Green Bay Metro 47 Lubbock, TX—Citibus 50 Oxnard/Western Ventura County, CA—Gold Coast Transit District 53 Sheboygan, WI—Shoreline Metro 56 St. Petersburg/Pinellas County, FL—Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 59 Summit County, UT—High Valley Transit 62 Wenatchee, WA—Link Transit 65 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Lessons Learned 65 Considerations About Whether or Not to Obtain/Deploy CDO Technology: Pros and Cons 68 Related Issues in Tailoring, Deploying, and Using CDO 71 Lessons Learned 74 Need for Additional Research 76 References 77 Appendix Survey Instrument: TCRP Synthesis Project J-07/ Topic SB-36 C O N T E N T S