CHAPTER 11

Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Introduction

This research has:

• Identified and described the regulatory framework for alternative services
• Evaluated models and policies that structure the services
• Assessed to what extent these services provide an effective mobility option for riders, including those who use wheelchairs
• Examined whether they help reduce the cost of the transit agencies’ ADA paratransit service

With these findings, the team addressed the project’s three core questions:

1. To what extent do alternative services for ADA paratransit riders reduce overall paratransit costs?
2. To what extent do the alternative services, particularly those that use the new ridesourcing providers, meet the travel needs of ADA paratransit riders, especially those who use wheelchairs?
3. What are the legal and regulatory issues that frame the planning, implementation, and operation of an alternative service? What should transit agencies address to ensure their alternative service complies with applicable regulation?

Also documented in this chapter are effective practices and strategies for providing an alternative service that come from the lessons learned reported by the transit agencies participating in the research.

Important to recognize at the start is that alternative services for ADA paratransit riders are not commonplace for the transit industry. Every public transit agency in the country that operates fixed-route service is required to provide ADA paratransit but it’s a minority of those agencies that provide an additional alternative service for their ADA paratransit riders.

While a small number of taxi-based alternative services have been around for many years, a new approach to alternative services began when selected transit agencies experimented with TNC partnerships as TNCs entered the for-hire transportation landscape in the mid- to late-2010s. With these transit agencies using TNCs in addition to or instead of taxis to provide on-demand service for their ADA paratransit riders, questions and issues arose about TNCs’ sedan-based services that required a smartphone for access: does Title VI apply? What about accessible service? Is drug and alcohol testing for drivers required? These questions remain relevant as more transit agencies have designed and implemented an alternative service since the late 2010s and more transit agencies are considering such a service.

Key Findings of the Research Project

Key findings of the research are summarized here, after which the three core questions that frame the research project are addressed.

Goals and Goal Achievement

• Reducing costs for transporting ADA paratransit customers and providing a same-day or on-demand option for paratransit riders are primary goals. Safety was a third primary focus.
• All but two transit agencies indicated they met their goals; those two reported partial achievement.

Subsidy Method, Service Models, and Policies

• A provider-side subsidy with multiple providers is the most common service model.
• Reported advantages of a user-side subsidy are less administrative effort for the transit agency and greater transportation flexibility and choices for the riders.
• Alternative services typically begin as pilots, particularly if using TNCs.
• Service policies vary considerably, with a few common approaches:
  • Decentralized reservations
  • Service area beyond the ADA’s required ¾-mile corridors
  • Eligibility for ADA paratransit riders only
  • Riders pay an initial fare that covers a trip up to a defined limit, with riders responsible for any overage costs
  • Trip limits for provider-side subsidy models
• Subsidy amounts are typically capped. The most common provider-side subsidy amounts are relatively modest, $9–$18 of the trip cost, with $15 the most common in this range. Two agencies provide a much higher subsidy per trip ($27 and $38). Two agencies use a mileage-based subsidy and two use a traditional user-side subsidy. Monthly subsidies are provided for user-side subsidy models.

Wheelchair-Accessible Service

• Transit agencies acknowledge that alternative service providers’ ability to provide accessible service is a challenge, particularly equivalent response times for riders needing a WAV.
• Wheelchair-accessible service is provided in differing ways.
• One approach used by one of the providers (UZURV) and being considered by at least one other transit agency that does not use that provider is to require one- to two-hour advance scheduling for all riders. This delays the dispatch of sedans and allows more time for a WAV to respond, giving the transit agency a higher likelihood of achieving service equivalency.
• Based on data reported by seven transit agencies, and recognizing that in a few cases the reported figure was an estimate, WAV trips are a small proportion of total alternative trips, ranging from 3.6% to 8.2% of the total reported alternative service trips, with one exception. That exception: one of the seven transit agencies reported WAV trips at 24.1% of its alternative service trips.

Transit industry experience suggests WAV trips for ADA paratransit are in the range of 15–25% of all trips. It is not clear from the research if the lower proportion of WAV trips for alternative services (recognizing the one exception) is a function of less use by riders who need a WAV because of their individual transportation preferences or if the WAV service is less responsive and available for those riders. The research team did get input from a single rider through the case study research about WAV service: this rider, who needs a WAV, found the on-demand service lacking as she was told to book a trip 24 hours in advance, something that defeated the purpose of the on-demand option.

Safety and Insurance

• Ensuring safe service is reported as a primary goal for transit agencies’ alternative services.
• Driver training requirements varied
  • For some transit agencies, driver training requirements were included in contracts with providers.
  • Others reported no special training was required other than what is required by the entity that regulates the providers.
• Drug and alcohol testing
  • Half the transit agencies reported the alternative service drivers meet federal drug and alcohol testing requirements. All but two of these use taxis, and in some cases only one taxi company. The other two use UZURV, known to administer driver drug and alcohol testing.
• Insurance requirements varied
  • Somewhat commonly, transit agencies set insurance requirements above the state or local regulatory entity’s and also required to be named as an additional insured.
  • Other variations:
    • One agency set insurance requirements above the regulatory entity’s but allowed exceptions for providers that showed such requirements were a burden.
    • Some transit agencies accepted the regulatory entity’s insurance requirements.
    • Some transit agencies set insurance requirements at the same level as for the contracted ADA paratransit service.

Data and Data Sharing

• Data sharing remains an issue. About half of the transit agencies reported receiving data they requested, but the rest reported they did not.
• The interviewed providers reported they do provide all requested data.
• Some of the transit agencies reported including data on their alternative services with their annual NTD reports, even though such data is to be reported only if the service meets the federal definition of public transportation and in particular if the service is shared-ride.

Regulatory Environment

• Transit agencies reported that providing equivalent service for riders who need accessible service, particularly equivalent response times, was a challenge.
• Transit agencies understand the need to provide options for trip reservations, specifically for riders without a smartphone or computer/tablet with Internet access. This is commonly done either with call center staff employed by the transit agency, a paratransit call center/operations contractor, or the alternative service provider, who enter the trip reservation information into the alternative service provider’s system.
• There is uncertainty about the FTA’s taxicab exception.

Service Equivalency

• The alternative services include wheelchair-accessible service but not all transit agencies seem to report data for WAV trips.
• No data was reported in the survey regarding on-time performance (OTP) for WAV trips, though three transit agencies reported that they do track OTP data by sedan trips versus WAV trips. Without these data, service equivalency for response time cannot be measured.
• One case study transit agency, however, reported that it periodically gets response time data for WAV trips, and the response times have averaged between 10 and 15 minutes, compared to the anecdotal average of 5 minutes for non-WAV trips.

Evaluation of Service

• Evaluation of alternative services is focused on overall costs for providing transportation for ADA paratransit riders with data collected on:
  • Costs of the alternative service
  • Passenger trips provided by the alternative service
• Data relevant for evaluating service equivalency for response time is not commonly collected.

Method to Estimate Cost Savings for ADA Paratransit

• About half of the surveyed transit agencies reported a method to estimate cost savings with their alternative service though details on the method was lacking in most cases.
• Limited data was provided to substantiate the method for cost savings. In most cases, this was a straightforward comparison between the cost per trip on the alternative service versus the cost per trip on the ADA paratransit service, with a calculation of the savings if the alternative service trips had been provided as ADA paratransit trips. This, however, accounts for just the one for one mode-shift trips and does not account for the subsidies associated with new trips induced on the alternative service.
• Of the five alternative services researched as case studies, only one has a documented method to estimate the savings provided by the alternative service that takes into account new, induced demand generated by the alternative service that potentially offsets any savings in transporting ADA paratransit customers.

Input from Riders

Rider input was limited to very small numbers of ADA paratransit riders at four of the five case study transit agencies, with an overbalance of riders who use the alternative service versus those who do not and a dearth of alternative service riders who require WAVs. Despite the limited numbers, the input offers some insights on the riders’ experiences and perspectives.

• Riders who use the alternative service:
  • Are a mix of riders who have switched all trips to the alternative service and those who still use ADA paratransit for some trips
  • Like the direct, no-shared-ride trip and the reliability of the service
  • Like the ability to schedule a trip same-day
  • Report that the opportunity for advance scheduling is good because on-demand trips cannot always be fulfilled due to driver shortages (this appears to be a result of the pandemic)
  • Like the comfort of the sedans/vehicles used by the alternative service providers
  • Often choose the alternative for their return trips, especially for medical appointments, instead of booking the return trip on ADA paratransit because the wait time is shorter than booking a conservative return pickup time or a will-call return trip on ADA paratransit
• Riders who do not use the alternative service:
  • Do not know about the alternative service
  • Do not want to pay the higher fare for the alternative service

Core Questions for the Research Project

The research findings help address the three core research questions, recognizing that the team reviewed a small sample of alternative services from a relatively small universe of transit agencies that provide such a service.

1. To what extent do alternative services for ADA paratransit riders reduce overall paratransit costs?

   The research suggests that alternative services provide at least some cost savings based on cost per subsidized trip versus cost per ADA paratransit trip. But significantly, data that document the cost savings are thin. Such analysis needs to account for induced trips caused by the on-demand nature of the alternative service. This requires a method to differentiate between mode-shift trips and induced trips. Costs for induced trips, depending on the subsidy level and possible trip limits, may be more than any savings associated with mode-shift trips.

2. To what extent do the alternative services, particularly those that use the new ridesourcing providers, meet the travel needs of ADA paratransit riders, especially those who use wheelchairs?

   With same-day on-demand trips, the alternative services meet more spontaneous travel needs of ADA paratransit riders than next-day ADA paratransit. For at least three of the case study transit agencies, the alternative service responds to specific requests by the disability community for a same-day service.

   For riders who use wheelchairs, the alternative services include an accessible component, with WAVs operated directly by taxi companies, NEMT providers, or with TNCs providing WAVs through subcontracts or leasing WAVs to drivers.

   However, research findings estimate that trips in WAVs are a small proportion of total alternative services trips compared to ADA paratransit: 3.6% to 8.2% (with one exception at 24.1%) of the total reported alternative service trips, versus the 15–25% typically seen for ADA paratransit. Lacking adequate data on service equivalency for riders who use wheelchairs and robust rider feedback (and recognizing the small data set), the research does not provide answers as to whether riders needing a WAV use the alternative service at lower rates than ADA paratransit because of personal preferences or whether the WAV service is less timely or available, so service quality is deterring use.

3. What are the legal and regulatory issues that frame the planning, implementation, and operation of an alternative service? What should transit agencies address to ensure their alternative service complies with applicable regulatory matters?

   The research project has identified and documented legal and regulatory matters transit agencies should address for their alternative services. Research findings show that certain legal and regulatory matters are more of an issue than others and deserve more attention given transit agencies’ practices. These include the taxicab exception, NTD data reporting, and service equivalency for riders who use wheelchairs. These and the other regulatory issues important for an alternative service are introduced and discussed in Chapters 3 and 8.

Lessons Learned: Effective Practices and Strategies

Reported lessons learned (from the transit agency’s perspective) through this project’s survey and case studies suggest a number of effective practices and strategies for planning, designing, and operating alternative services.

Planning and Design

• Define specific objectives for the transit agency’s alternative service.
• Involve the advisory committee early and often when planning an alternative service.
• Recognize that an on-demand program using for-hire providers will not work for all ADA paratransit riders—some need more specialized service than is available with an alternative service.

• Design the subsidy structure with the overall budget in mind, understanding that the service will create new demand for trips, especially if cost reduction is a goal.
• Plan and include procedures that ensure the service is used by the intended riders.
• Develop relationships with local transportation providers such as taxi companies, and demonstrate the benefits to them being involved as providers.
• Spell out the data needed to evaluate the service, include the data requirements in the agreements with providers, and hold providers to the submittal of data.
• Involve multiple providers to give riders a choice.
• Start the service as a pilot and monitor trends in use.

Implementation

• If using TNCs or any providers with surge pricing, ensure marketing and informational materials carefully explain what this is and how it works.
• Implement service with at least three providers so if one is not able to continue, the program remains rider’s choice.
• Using a fare payment card rather than paper vouchers benefits riders who have vision disabilities.
• Start the service slowly so the provider(s) is(are) not overwhelmed.
• Explain how the service works and help customers register for the program and use the service.
• Monitor the service for new demand and increasing numbers of trips.