NRC Transbus Study: Part 1: Transbus Procurement; Part 2: Mobility Options for the Transportation Handicapped (1979)

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.

Group C Options There are six Group C options; all involve some variant of door-to-door service. These six options are not very different in the number and kind of transportation-handicapped travelers they serve (6, 21, 30, 31), so they are not differentiated in Table 4. These six options do have different cost and operational characteristics as discussed in a later section of this report. The six individual door-to-door options are Option 4—service provided by the transit agency in addition to an accessible fleet; Option 5—service provided by the transit agency in lieu of accessible service; Option 6—service provided through a transit broker involving coordination with social-service agencies; Option 7— service provided through a third-party broker involving transit and other providers; Option 8—service provided entirely through social-service coordination or consolidation; and Option 9-—service provided to individual agency clients when needed. The kind and quality of service provided under all six of the options are important considerations, The degree of convenience and flexibility offered is crucial in determining the number of transportation handicapped who would use any of the Group C options. Most of the door-to-door systems in operation today significantly restrict a user's convenience, Most require 24-hour advance notice for pick-up. Some systems require passengers to be ready to be picked up at either end of the trip at least 1 hour and often longer before scheduled pick-up. Many systems rank trips by priority and give precedence to work or medical trips over shopping or personal trips. Some systems are so saturated, particularly during peak hours, that they will not take new riders during certain times of the 06

of potential users below the level suggested for an "ideal" door-to-door system (18). An ideal door-to-door service would remove many but not all of the multiple barriers that have been reported (18). The ideal option would address problems in getting to the bus, problems in waiting for the bus, and a host of perceptual barriers including the fear of attack, loss of balance, or getting lost. Table 4 shows that only 37 percent of the total transportation-handicapped population want to use this set of options and can indeed use them; of that total number, however, almost two-thirds would not be former bus or taxi riders. A few of the Group C options deserve special mention. Option 4, which provides an accessible fixed-route system as well as supplemental door-to-door service, does not seem to offer any advantages over a door-to-door service alone, except the opportunity for additional mainstreaming of riders (18). However, it is significantly more expensive than the door-to-door service alone. Options 8 and 9 involve the social-service community acting without the transit agency. Such options might provide service to fewer riders than door-to- door efforts that do involve the transit agency because social-service agencies tend to limit their services or restrict ridership. Many social-service transporta- tion providers see themselves only as augmenting conventional transit services or providing transportation to narrowly defined travelers (9, 10, 11, 31). On the other hand, social-service agencies have the capability to coordinate the medical and human service needs of the transportation handicapped with available transportation resources (11, 13). These coordination and outreach services have the potential to increase ridership. Option 9, direct provision of transportation to individual clients, can differ even more from the ridership predicted for an ideal door-to-door service. Many a7

agencies provide only marginal service to their clients in staff or volunteer cars or in agency vans, It was found that this travel mode currently accounts for less than 1 percent of all trips made by the transportation handicapped (18). In most cases the agencies providing the service are doing so on a marginal basis and often as a last resort; they do not have the capacity nor the inclination to provide transportation services to more travelers. In all six options handicapped travelers will not be very integrated or mainstreamed with the general public; the less the option involves the transit agency, the less mainstreaming will occur. In rural areas or even urban areas without transit service, however, Options 8 and 9 might prove very attractive because the only transportation resources available are those provided by community action agencies and nutrition programs for the elderly (17, 20, 29). In this sense these options provide more mainstreaming. Group D Options The two Group D options involve direct subsidy programs for individual travelers. In Option 10, the unrestricted situation, the transportation handicapped are given cash subsidies or vouchers that they may use to obtain any type of required transportation service or to make modifications to existing vehicles or to pay friends, relatives, or others to drive them. In the unrestricted option, most (although not all) of the barriers reported by the transportation handicapped would be overcome; for example, inability to get on a bus or in a taxi could be met by hiring an ambulance, and fear of traveling alone could be overcome by paying someone to drive (18). Up to 60 percent of the total transportation handicapped said they would use this option if it were available. Because it does remove most 08

barriers, it was assumed that all of the respondents who said they wanted to use such a service would indeed use it (18). Of the handicapped who were not currently taxi or bus riders, 37 percent could and would use this system. It does not, of course, meet the desires for mainstreaming. Option 11 is a much narrower program of user subsidies that more closely corresponds to existing programs (16, 24). Such an option would limit subsidies to the magnitude necessary to purchase available transportation services. Eligibility for subsidy would vary with funding programs (as would eligible transportation providers), but in the best case all of those with functional handicaps could be given subsidies. Expected ridership would be less than that for the unrestricted situation but the actual number cannot be calculated. Both subsidy options assume that public transportation providers and services are or will be available to the transportation handicapped if they are able to choose the services they seek and to pay for them. They also assume that the operation of such programs will be smooth and without problems of administration and coordination. Proponents of this group of options suggest that they may encourage expansion of the number of transportation providers for the handi- capped in any community. These options may also allow the transportation handicapped a wider range of choice than that offered by other groups of options. Group E Options Both Group E options involve the use of a personal van or car. Option 12 involves enabling transportation-handicapped persons who are drivers or can be trained to drive to obtain specially outfitted automobiles. This option is currently 29

available to U.S. veterans with service-connected disabilities. Selected handi- capped persons are eligible for such support under certain federally funded rehabilitation programs, Option 13 involves training programs for the handicapped who could drive and retraining for those handicapped elderly who are having difficulty with renewal of their driving licenses, Personal vehicle options have some barriers of their own. Many of the elderly, for example, who do drive are afraid to drive in heavy traffic or late at night or in unfamiliar areas. Many elderly are afraid to apply for license renewal because they fear that they will fail necessary tests and have their licenses revoked. Many elderly drivers cannot afford insurance if they are assessed higher rates when they reach a certain age. Many of the nonelderly handicapped may face similar situations, The training programs in Option 13 are designed to address some of these problems. These options are viable, although it is difficult to estimate what percentage of the total handicapped population would have both the physical and emotional resources to deal with them. It is interesting to note that currently one-third of all transportation-handicapped persons drive cars even though they face the problems mentioned here. COSTS AND THE TRADE-OFFS INHERENT IN THEM Each of the 13 mobility options designed to meet the transportation needs of the handicapped involves significant cost. These costs are not always of the same magnitude, nor are they always borne by the same agency or transportation provider. In general, the more the option involves the transit agency, the more 60

the cost is directly incurred by the transit agency (29). The greater the involvement of other providers and agencies, the more they assume a share of the financial costs, although not necessarily in direct proportion to their participation (29). Table 6 characterizes the relative cost patterns of the 13 options examined (18). The estimates refer to those costs that would come from public funds, The table is concerned with the additional or incremental costs incurred in the implementation of each option and relates those incremental costs to increased increments of ridership. For example, labor costs are a large and continuing expense in all options involving the transit property. Table 6, however, is concerned only with the additional labor costs generated by any of the options, and not with labor costs that would have been incurred by the transit provider anyway in its provision of conventional fixed-route service. Therefore Option 1, involving fully accessible fixed-route transit, shows none-to-low additional driver expenses, The cost entries in Table 6 are based on a 5-level scale from "none" to "very high". Each entry is relative only to those in the same column. It is obvious that the entries in the various columns differ from one another by significant orders of magnitude. "Very high" capital costs for accessible fixed-route transit options may involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars nationally or many millions for any one system. "Very high" insurance costs for social-service options may mean the expenditure of $1200-$1500 per year per vehicle for a fleet of 10- 14 vans. Ideally, Table 6 would give real dollar figures calculated in a comparable way for all entries. Unfortunately, these data do not exist, and the few approximations suggested by the literature are not reliable. Determination of a 61

(81) Apnag Guisnueapy Asin :e2un0s "UUINIOD BWWES BY) U! B 0 4 ) 03 A O BAIIB{8s 8! AJ1U® 498Z “BUOU © Ay ‘S1EsOPOW! = Wy / MO] = 7 ‘UBIY AeA & H A ‘UBIY @ } ‘ p e o d e O u = H N :S@I0N a BS W - T W - T "I-N T Zz H - W W - T N Zz W - T W - T (a2 1Aras j e y a d s 410}) W -(ui9}8s a T a i s s a z o u 410}) T - N H A - H H A - H (a0taras Tejaads 103) H A - H :(ma4shs atqissaoor 103) W - T W - T W - T W - T H - W W - T W - T H - W N T Ww H - W H A HA HA N WwW a W - T (@2}A.2a8 Tejaads 103) W :(majshs atqissaoor 410}) I - N ‘I-N ‘I-N N Ww W - T HA UN UN Le 93 dn U N Le w e i s o i d Zuyuyesjzet pus Suyuyes) JaAjip— uy aouERS|sse— SaToOTYaA pasuadt| reuostag sarptsqns paywyy SaTPISqns TeNprAtpul p a p s e u su SWot]O TENpPTArpul 0} satouaae A q — auoTe sayouase aodjAlas-Tejsos A q — s z a p r a o i d 1 9 4 , pue JJsuvt} Yjta adesrayo1q aodtAras-Teyoos A q — Sa}ouase G I J A I I S - T e y I O S Y I M adesayolrg }{suel)— adjAlas SIQIssaz0~V jo Nal] uy Ayuaoe yysuvsz) A q — JaaTJ aIqissaooe 0} U O T I P p e uy A d u a g e ytsuws A q — adyAlas 1 0 0 p - 0 } - 1 0 0 q JSUCI} B N O I - p a x t j atatssaooe A l m 0} ddTAlas J a p e a g 81a)1ays Y I M a N o I - p a x t y atqissaooe A i m y SULIT} 9INOI-paxtys atqissaoow A l m a eT 4 § IT OT s a s u s d x g Suqze -123do 4 1 a 0 81890) aoueinsu] $190) S u y y o y e d s i g puw Sujuaai39S 8180) JaAjig S)80) aduBUa UIE s}80) dATICI) ~SsjuyuIpy $1809 dn - W S SyUaUI}SaAU] Teydap SutnuywoD quaulj}saauy Teydup j e r ] Ar03azeD yYDe_ ul sainjypuadky” oTTqng SIoply M e N ary 0WM U079dO sTUL 28) P o m put pmod oum paddestpuey u o T y e J o d s u e l | u o T d y j i 9 s e q J a q u i n n uoy7dO dnoi5y ‘ p o d d e o t p u e y ay) jo spoau uoyyezzodsuel) ay) JaaUr 0) SUO]}dO JOf[eU 10} S a I N } } p u a d x a J}Iqnd wiajsfs feuoTYIPpy °9 a q e L

more quantitative base for Table 6 was beyond the scope and time frame of this report. Options 1-5 The two options involving only modifications to the existing fixed-route transit system (Options 1 and 2) tend to have very high initial capital costs but smaller continuing capital costs. A number of individual operating features of the accessible system may be high. However, most of these operating costs (e.g., labor, insurance, administrative) are marginal in the sense that they would have been incurred by the system anyway and they can be spread over a greater number of units (i.e., passengers). All of the options that imply the purchase and operation of a fleet of small accessible vehicles operating in a demand-responsive or at least flexibly routed mode (Options 3-5) have both high initial capital costs and high operating costs. Because these options directly involve the transit property, a certain number of costs might be lower than those incurred by other providers; maintenance and insurance might be lower because the property had existing maintenance facilities and was either self-insured or carried sufficient coverage (8). Certain costs, notably driver and dispatch labor, would be significantly higher than those that might be incurred by other providers. Options 6-8 Options 6 and 7, the two major coordination options, have a number of cost features in common. Option 8, involving social-service coordination, is also 63

similar, All three options assume that a number of private providers (e.g., taxis) and public providers (e.g., social-service agency transportation systems) exist. These providers have the ability to meet a number of the transportation needs of the handicapped, if the agencies are properly coordinated. These options can coordinate the needs of individual handicapped travelers or the handicapped clients of participating agencies with the transportation resources and providers available in a community. Such approaches are often called "brokerages" because the lead agency functions in much the same way as an insurance broker serves individual clients needing various types of insurance. In its most elaborate configuration a brokerage could help participating agencies with existing fleets use their vehicles to capacity, arrange charter bus service for large groups of handicapped travelers, and coordinate taxi contracts or individual trips for particular travelers. Initial capital costs are generally low to moderate for all three options because most of the fleet is already in existence. In Options 6 and 7 the agency acting as broker might have to initially purchase some vehicles as back-up for existing providers or to operate supplemental service. A common initial capital expense in all three options is the installation of two-way radios in all providers’ vehicles; sometimes the purchase of a base station is also required. Operating costs can range widely for these three options because the characteristics of each provider involved may differ significantly. Operating costs, however, tend to be high. The transit agency (Option 6) generally operates service with full-time union drivers; some cooperating agencies in all three options use Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) or part-time drivers, pay relatively low wages, or even use volunteers. Most social-service agencies incur very high insurance costs, particularly when they enter into a coordinated 64

effort (34); other systems, however, are covered under the blanket policy of their funding source or parent organization and have relatively small insurance costs (29). The quality of small accessible vehicles available to both transit properties and social-service agencies is poor, and social-service agency maintenance programs are often inadequate (26, 32, 37). Therefore, vehicle maintenance costs tend to be high. In addition, it is often necessary to provide back-up vehicles and even back-up drivers because many systems have found that their vehicles are frequently out of operation for maintenance (19, 37). Most systems using their vehicles extensively will soon experience the need for new vehicles, thus creating moderate but continuing capital expenditures. Both administrative and dispatching costs can be very high in coordinated or brokered systems, Again, various systems and even the identified options have different cost characteristics. Many agencies involved in Options 6-8 are able to assign personnel--already salaried under other programs—to perform administra- tive, organizational, screening, and dispatching functions (14, 18). Many of the social-service coordination systems have a number of programs cross-subsidizing one another; this tends not to lower their costs but at least to lower the costs they charge to the transportation function (13, 29). While this hidden cross- subsidization can lead to lower transportation costs for any agency, it can also create problems. If the responsibilities of any position increase significantly, people may have to be salaried under the coordinated project; they may go from requiring no contribution from the project to charging all their salary and benefits. Administrative costs may be high in coordinated projects, often far higher than expected by cooperating agencies (13, 14). Experience shows that it requires 65

a great deal of organizational effort and staff time to implement any type of brokerage and to keep the cooperating agencies fully informed and satisfied (13). This effort involves both an initial start-up cost and a continuing operating cost. In addition, the record-keeping and accounting procedures used by a brokered or coordinated system may have to be far more detailed than previous record- keeping efforts, and this too requires considerable staff time (13, 14, 15, 29). Although many social-service agencies perceive their capital costs to be high, operating costs are in general far higher; recent study has found that between 80 and 85 percent of the full costs of any social-service transportation effort are incurred in salaries, overhead, insurance, and maintenance (29). Of course, many agencies may find it easier to hide, or cross-subsidize, deliberately or otherwise, some or all of their overhead and administrative expenses and occasionally even driver salaries. Option 9 In many ways Option 9, direct client transportation by individual social- service agencies, is similar to the options discussed earlier. However, because the scale of delivery is often marginal, transportation costs for such systems either are or are often perceived as marginal or non-existent. For those agencies that run rather substantial fleets, notably for programs for the elderly, many operating expenses are lumped together with other agency and administrative expenses (13, 29). Options 10-11 Options 10 and 11 involve the unrestricted individual subsidy program and a 66

more limited version. In many ways they are the antithesis of the first two options; they entail no capital expenditures, initial or continuing, and their labor component is small, limited to people who determine eligibility and distribute subsidies. However, these options can have operating expenditures of a magnitude unmatched by any of the other options, Total expenditures for either Option 10 or 11 are currently unknown. Exactly who would receive subsidies and the dollar amount of those subsidies would depend on major policy decisions. Options 12-13 Option 12 involves assisting the handicapped to obtain specially outfitted automobiles or vans. Although some information about the costs involved in outfitting conventional vehicles for use by certain classes of the handicapped is available, substantive data on the number of those people who would use such an option (who are not now doing so) are not. Because the cost of modifying an individual vehicle can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars, it is difficult to know what this option would cost without knowing the number of vehicles that would need to be purchased and modified. However, initial and capital expenditures would be high for this option, although general operating expenses would be low and possibly not borne by the public sector—that is, in some or all cases maintenance and insurance could be the responsibility of the recipient. Option 13, which involves training and retraining programs, has no capital costs and fairly low operating costs. Existing programs corresponding to this option have even been run by using volunteer teachers. 67

Summary of Costs and Trade-Offs It is difficult to compare the costs of different options without dollar figures. The trade-offs between the options identified are clearer. The options that involve physical modifications to existing transit systems involve the highest initial capital costs but marginal operating expenses. The options that involve coordination among different existing transportation providers generally involve small initial capital investments with high operating costs and a continuous need for additional vehicle purchases. The "real" dollar figures for the unrestricted option of providing individual user-side subsidies and providing outfitted and modified vehicles are largely unknown. In essence the trade-off implied by these evaluations is between extremely high initial costs with low continuing costs, or moderate initial expenditures with high operating costs. It is conceivable that over time the costs incurred by the initially less costly options would outreach those incurred by the options with high start-up costs. However, it should be noted that not all the options are equally effective in serving and meeting the needs of the transportation handicapped. Besides examining the total costs of any given option, it is also necessary to consider the effective cost per passenger served. For example, the average known cost per handicapped passenger for a one-way, 3-mile trip currently being provided by fixed-route accessible service in St. Louis (4) is approximately $390. (High start- up, maintenance, and operating costs contributed to the extraordinary expenses in St. Louis that may not be applicable in other cities.) Such a service may possibly correspond to Options 1, 2, and 3. In Dade County, Florida, the costs range from $4 to $30 for private services such as those provided by taxi and ambulance operators. These services may correspond to Options 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and11. These 68

dollar figures reflect current actual costs in large metropolitan areas. However, they are not to be considered as representative or comprehensive costs. They are used here only to illustrate the wide range in costs per passenger that various options are likely to generate. The options involving design changes in conventional transit fleets have high costs and low effectiveness in meeting the needs of the handicapped. Options involving a number of different providers working together to provide variants of door-to-door service have high continuing costs but appear to offer services to far more handicapped travelers. The unrestricted options of specially equipped personal, licensed vehicles and user-side subsidies might be very expensive both initially and over time, but it is possible that these options coupled with the training programs would meet the needs of the largest percentage of the transportation handicapped. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES Previous sections of this report raised substantive concerns that may be broadly categorized as either policy-related or technical and administrative in nature. Because policy issues involve decisions about competing values and judgments, they must be resolved in the political arena and are beyond the scope of this report. Six primarily administrative or technical issues, however, have been identified as requiring resolution as transportation options are developed. They are discussed here. Market Definition There is a need to identify who the transportation handicapped are, what 69

their specific problems have been, and what benefit they would derive from any or all of the transportation options designed to meet their needs, Different segments of the handicapped have different problems, but no single option has been identified that can meet the needs of all the transportation handicapped. No simple method to classify the transportation handicapped into distinct groups with distinct and different needs is available. Many communities do not know who are handicapped, where they live, and what their specific difficulties are. Because local conditions vary significantly, some of the major options examined here would not be appropriate, practical, or effective for some of the handicapped in certain areas. For example, a fully accessible fixed-route transit policy would not be effective in a rural community without publie or private transportation providers. Even those options that might be appropriate will vary in effectiveness because of community characteristics, combinations of local conditions, and the response of individual handicapped people to the local situation. Service Coordination Coordination of the transportation resources of the multitude of social- service and transportation agencies that serve the needs of the handicapped (and others) has been proposed as a major option (13). This approach is seen as a way to lower costs, fill gaps in existing services, and reduce duplication and overlap of transportation services provided to the handicapped. However, coordination efforts may be able to achieve these benefits only in special situations and circumstances (14, 15). Moreover, the process of coordinating a number of agencies and providers is much more costly and time-consuming than initially anticipated (14, 29). 70

Coordination attempts raise important structural, organizational, and administrative questions. A serious conflict exists over which agency should serve as the coordinator or broker. Some people argue that the transit agency should serve in this capacity because it already has many of the resources and skills necessary to develop an effective transportation system, including experienced drivers, dispatchers, and administrative and accounting staff. Other groups argue that an existing social-service provider should serve as the broker because it would have the necessary contacts in the social-service community. Moreover, it has been suggested that the interests of the transit agency may not always be consistent with those of other participating agencies; the transit operator may wish to provide some services that are more costly than those available from other participating providers, A third alternative that has been advanced is for a third-party that is not a provider itself, such as a Metropolitan Planning Organization, to serve as the broker or lead agency. Such an approach would remove some of the interest conflicts that agencies with existing fleets would have. However, such a third- party might have neither the necessary technical expertise nor the needed contacts in the social-service community. Another serious problem is presented by the current accounting and reporting techniques used by potential participants in coordination efforts (14, 29). Most social-service agencies providing service to the elderly or handicapped have systems that report noncomparable categories of costs and ridership. A more uniform costing and billing system may be needed to allow agencies to buy and sell transportation services among themselves, to compare the costs of alternative services, to assess their available resources accurately, and to evaluate the services they actually provide to their clients (9, 14, 29). Many transit agencies 71

do not keep records that allow them to enter into coordinated efforts (38). A specific serious problem is the handling of vehicle depreciation, especially if the vehicles were purchased in whole or in part with federal aid (14, 29). Resolution of these accounting problems would be extremely helpful to the development of several of the coordination options. Technological Issues Primary technological questions relate to vehicles used to provide service to the handicapped and the accessories associated with those vehicles (e.g., lifts). Although buses are available for a variety of uses, improvements in smaller vehicles as well as large urban transit buses are necessary to overcome continuing problems. Among these problems are physical accessibility to and within the vehicle, durability, and maintainability (2, 32). It would be useful to have performance criteria for the equipment required for all classes of service. Such criteria could be developed through the joint efforts of interested parties, such as finding and operating agencies, manufac- turers, and potential riders. Both research and operational experiences with different classes of vehicles and equipment need to be evaluated and widely disseminated to potential users, Regulatory Barriers Many transportation options will require consideration of and in some cases changes in regulations to begin operation. Regulations influence virtually every phase of public transportation service (34). Such regulations may govern entry by 72

new service providers, the establishment of rates and fares, vehicle characteris- tics, driver certification, and insurance requirements and limitations (24, 33, 34). The type of service delivery permitted any individual transportation provider is influenced by how the term "common carrier" is defined or interpreted in each state. Social-service agencies or other small-scale operators may confront special regulatory problems when they participate in a coordinated system and/or charge fares instead of continuing to provide limited services on their own (14). Safety and Medical Factors Safety and medical considerations arise in both ordinary operation and in the emergency procedures of transportation providers serving the handicapped. Physical limitations make the handicapped more prone to injury and more likely to suffer serious consequences when injured, Injuries in an accident that would not seriously endanger others may become life threatening to the handicapped (2). Ordinary operating issues in this area involve both the equipment and the procedures of the provider. The potential for injury is greatest for the handicapped when boarding or alighting and while the vehicle is in motion (2). Some of these problems have been addressed through the use of low-entry-level vehicles or by direct assistance by the driver or other persons. The restraint system used within the vehicle is also important. However, wheelchairs, for example, as currently constructed may not be able to withstand the g-force generated by acceleration or deceleration if adequate restraint systems are in place (25). Some restraint systems require significant driver or escort assistance. The handicapped also have a high potential for injury in the event of an accident (2). Advanced communications systems and additional medical training 73

programs for drivers are among the potential solutions to improve the availability of medical attention in emergency situations. In such situations, prompt medical care is crucial; this may require that the driver know how to apply life-sustaining measures, Obviously a number of safety features could be used for personal protection by the nonhandicapped as well as the handicapped. In addition, safety systems that restrain movement (e.g., seat belts, wheelchair tie-downs) protect not only the secured individual but also other persons who might be struck by an unsecured handicapped individual in the event of an accident or sudden vehicle motion. Community Support Effective mobility for many of the transportation handicapped may require more than accessible transportation services. Many disabled persons face hindrances not readily visible. Routine acts often require a great deal of time and energy. Reliance on others adds to this burden—for example, needing a neighbor to shovel a walk so that the handicapped person may get to a vehicle, or maintaining a wheelchair, orthopedic appliance, or other aid. The disabled person must rely on local or community help in order to live and work within a community and this is equally true with regard to the use of available transportation services, Handicapped travelers (whatever their particular handicap) may require assistance in boarding a vehicle, in securing themselves or their wheelchair inside the vehicle, and in obtaining route and station or stop information. If the vehicle driver does not or cannot perform these functions, an able-bodied person must accompany the vehicle or the handicapped person. The costs of both alternatives 74

are high; it would be far better if the handicapped traveler could count on his or her fellow travelers to assist in these ways. Such community support may be voluntary, but it does require some organization and some training of volunteers. Aides must understand the special problems of the handicapped and the way wheelchairs and other restraints work; information on obstacles or even routes must be presented to the blind in useful ways. In addition, there must be a clear understanding of the liability of such volunteers if there is an accident or the handicapped traveler has a medical problem. It would be imprudent to invest large sums in public transportation services without also considering the necessary auxiliary support systems that could and should be provided by the community. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS AND ISSUES Estimates of the number of urban transportation-handicapped persons, based on available data, range from 5 percent of the urban population to 6.2 percent of the total U.S. population. Transportation-handicapped people face a variety of different functional problems in their use of conventional transportation services. Overcoming these problems requires careful attention to the specific and often different needs of members of the heterogeneous transportation-handicapped population. There is an immediate need for policymakers to identify unequivocably their target group (e.g., all elderly or only the handicapped elderly), to delineate carefully their policy objectives (e.g., to make available accessible services to all the handicapped or to meet unfulfilled needs), and to define program requirements 7

and legislative mandates clearly (e.g., "program accessibility" on transit systems). A number of options are available to serve the needs of the transportation handicapped, ranging from fully accessible fixed-route transit to specially equipped conventional automobiles and vans. These options vary greatly in their total cost and effectiveness in responding to the needs of the transportation handicapped. Alterations to existing transit systems seem to have the highest cost and serve the smallest number of handicapped travelers. Door-to-door services have lower initial costs but higher operating costs. They appear, however, to meet the needs of far more of the transportation handicapped. Individual subsidies to the handicapped and the provision of specially equipped automobiles may have high and continuing costs, but these two options together may serve the largest number of the handicapped population. Before any option is implemented it should be evaluated in terms of costs and benefits received per passenger served and not just total costs. Furthermore, each option must be considered in terms of local needs, conditions, and available resources, There is a need to address forthrightly the crucial political questions raised by these findings. There may be a conflict between a policy that supports accessibility for the transportation handicapped and one that supports mobility for those travelers, There is conflict over what set of conditions satisfies the desire of the transportation handicapped to be "mainstreamed." Most significantly, a choice of any one option implies a commitment of public resources that must come from somewhere. If the budgets of transit agencies are not increased to compensate for the costs incurred in implementing any option, these resources will be withdrawn from the transit services being provided to the general traveling public and in some cases to handicapped 76