CHAPTER 1
Background

Demand response transportation (DRT) providers have consistently looked for operational designs and mechanisms to improve service efficiencies and lower operational costs. DRT services, which include ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) complementary paratransit and general public DRT services, such as advance reservation dial-a-ride services and on-demand microtransit services, are inherently less efficient to operate due to circumstances of geography, population locations, program rules, and “points of interest” (relevant transit locations and destinations) for travel. Another key reason why DRT is less efficient than fixed-route service is because most DRT services provide curb-to-curb pick-ups and drop-offs. U.S. transit agencies providing fixed-route transit services are obligated to provide ADA complementary paratransit to persons with disabilities who are unable to use or access the available fixed-route transit service. In many rural areas without fixed-route transit service, dial-a-ride services are typically designed as a coverage option for longer distance trips within a county or spanning multiple counties. For trips of medium distance, smaller demand response service zones in suburban or exurban areas may be implemented to provide a coverage option where fixed-route demand is less viable. Across various service types and models of DRT, the cost-per-passenger trip performance indicator is higher than fixed-route service because of the longer trips, lower demand densities, and lower productivity.

Transit agencies and other transportation-providing organizations have sometimes looked to commingling as a way to serve trip requests from different on-demand programs or rider groups together in the same vehicles. In rural and urban dial-a-ride services, transit agencies might group trips requested by the general public with trips sponsored by ADA paratransit programs or human service agencies [such as Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) trips]. Commingling trips together in vehicles based on different passenger and trip types travelling to nearby or adjacent areas or locations helps increase the efficiency of demand response service. The increase in the number of shared rides drives up productivity, which in turn lowers the cost per trip and thus enables funding to go further. Transportation providers engaging commingling trips that are funded through different sources must be able to track specific passenger miles and hours for each trip while adhering to the service delivery requirements of the respective funding programs.

The advent of on-demand microtransit technology platforms and service models in the DRT space has increased the potential of commingling applications. Transit agencies and local governments engaged in transportation provision (i.e., transit providers) have implemented microtransit service zones in a variety of suburban, exurban, small town, and rural settings. Typically, microtransit services are available to the general public or to a specified eligible customer group and serve trip requests for immediate fulfillment (or within 1 to 2 hours of advanced notice) on the same day of service. Generally, agencies have chosen one or some combination of the following models in providing microtransit service:

1. The transit agency operates a dedicated fleet of vehicles that are scheduled/dispatched by on-demand technology licensed by the transit agency.

2. The service is provided entirely through a turnkey model with a dedicated and/or non-dedicated fleet of vehicles and drivers where the vendor provides the scheduling/dispatching technology and is responsible for most or all aspects of service.
3. The transit agency (or contractor) contracts (or subcontracts) with a non-dedicated service provider or providers to provide an overflow outlet for the dedicated fleet.

For any of these models, the microtransit technology platform is tasked with tracking on-demand and prescheduled trip requests (as applicable), determining whether trip requests can be served under specific parameters, and using continuous dynamic optimization (CDO) processes to create efficient vehicle schedules.

While microtransit services have been operating for nearly a decade, some of the microtransit technology vendors have introduced capabilities or developed entirely new versions of their technology to support ADA and coordinated paratransit services that also use CDO. These new versions can support both microtransit services and ADA or coordinated paratransit services at the same time. Also, in some cases general public microtransit and ADA or coordinated paratransit services have been consolidated, meaning both services use the same set of vehicles and drivers under one software platform.

With technology now able to support multiple types of DRT services, transit agencies have begun to experiment with how they can integrate or even entirely consolidate their paratransit service with general public microtransit to gain further service efficiencies with their available vehicles and drivers. While consolidated services use all of the same resources, integrated services use either different vehicle fleets, sets of drivers, and/or software platforms from each other while commingling together some or all trips. Additionally, these integrations or consolidations can expand options for mobility and making reservations to paratransit customers through new trip booking and management mechanisms; in particular, ADA paratransit customers, who normally can make trip requests only up to the day before travel, may be able to request same-day paratransit trips in some service implementations.

The new technology platforms have been designed to track the specific parameters of service for different customer types (e.g., ADA paratransit and general public) to handle any differences in zone boundaries, service days, service hours, pick-up time windows, seating accommodations, fares, scheduling priorities (e.g., prioritizing ADA paratransit trips over other trips), and other factors. Concurrently, the platform must be able to track accurate data for compliance with funding programs as applicable for any trips that are not general public.

To date, integrations or consolidations in microtransit service with commingled trips have typically been implemented at transit agencies in small urban and rural settings or in small-town municipalities. In smaller service operations, the scale of staff and other resources needed to integrate or consolidate an ADA paratransit service with a microtransit service is much different compared to paratransit service at a large metropolitan transportation authority. Most integrations or consolidations have prioritized ADA paratransit trips (or reserve capacity for such trips) in order to avoid any capacity constraints to ADA paratransit service. Some of these integrations or consolidations commingle all trips together regardless of circumstances, while other models may separate longer trips or customers with specific accommodation needs into their own vehicle groupings. In making these decisions, transit agencies also need to be cognizant of achieving service equivalence (a requirement under the ADA for all DRT services).

As discussed earlier, many agencies choosing to commingle trips together use a single software technology platform that can accommodate both ADA (and coordinated) paratransit and general public microtransit trips and are able to commingle different types of trips on the same vehicle. Such transit agencies have often started with only ADA paratransit service during an initial implementation period and have then added microtransit service for the general public.

Alternatively, a few agencies have integrated their separate microtransit technology with their existing paratransit software platforms.

Approaches to defining microtransit zone sizes tend to vary widely, some agencies using smaller targeted microtransit zones (e.g., 3–7 square miles) and others implementing city- or countywide zone areas; these zone footprints and other service policy decisions then impact the microtransit serviceʼs ability to accommodate same-day trip requests from all sets of riders.

As transit agencies and municipalities gain more experience in integrating or consolidating paratransit and general public DRT services in microtransit (and as other peer agencies observe these integrations or consolidations), the manner in which existing models and new implementations occur will continue to evolve to meet service efficiency and compliance concerns.

Objective and Scope

The objective of this synthesis report is to provide information, analysis, and examples of the current state of the practice in integrating or consolidating ADA paratransit and other types of paratransit service with on-demand microtransit for the general public, including documented findings and results from the agencies, municipalities, and other local government entities providing these commingled trips. In this context, the term paratransit service includes ADA complementary paratransit but can also include other types of coordinated or sponsored paratransit trips, depending on the services offered by the agency.

The scope of this synthesis is primarily concerned with ADA or coordinated trips that are commingled together with other general public trips in the same vehicles used by on-demand microtransit services. By commingling, two trip types may be served in one vehicle rather than separate vehicles. The integration of these services can include the commingling of paratransit trips and general public trips in the same vehicle either using the same software or with different software systems for different trip types. Figure 1 shows a simplified illustration of how scheduled

Long Description.

The illustration consists of two types of paratransit services, connected by two sets of arrows to two vehicles. The first type of service, Scheduled Paratransit Requests, shows two customers (blue and orange) assigned to different vehicles. The second type of service, On-Demand General Public Requests shows two customers (green and violet) assigned to different vehicles. The connections between customers for Scheduled Paratransit Requests and the two vehicles are marked 'Continuous dynamic optimization.' Bus 1 consists of two customers represented in blue and green. Bus 2 consists of two customers represented in violet and orange.

trip requests and on-demand trip requests are commingled together into microtransit vehicles based on scheduling efficiencies and available seating capacity.

This synthesis report is not concerned with other types of commingling activities or related topics in on-demand mobility, including alternative services, interchangeable assets between services, or emergency-only commingling. Alternative service is an on-demand service in which ADA paratransit customers choose to take their trip using a for-hire ride service (such as taxi or transportation network company) instead of using paratransit, typically with the transit agency subsidizing a portion of the trip cost on the customerʼs behalf. TCRP Research Report 239: Provision of Alternative Services by Transit Agencies: The Intersection of Regulation and Program, published in 2023, thoroughly covers this topic. Interchangeable vehicles and drivers, sometimes called commingled fleets and shifts, between paratransit and microtransit services in which the services are operated separately (i.e., trips among these types of customers are not grouped together) likewise does not count as commingling of trips. Some of the information in the literature touches on the consolidation of vehicle fleets and driver pools, but these topics are not explored further in the subsequent survey and case example work of this synthesis. Commingling customer trips together only in emergency situations (such as an evacuation or extreme weather event) is also outside the scope of this publication.

Key Terms

The following key terms regarding commingling trips, consolidating or integrating services together, and service provision were developed by the study team for the survey instrument (see Appendix A) and for this report to help provide clarity about the scope of the project and level-set meanings for the terminology used. Subsequent adjustments to the descriptions of terms used in the survey were made for this report. These terms are highlighted here in the report overview chapter to help provide context to the reader about key differences in service design and provision aspects before diving into further information in the report on state of the practice and findings. The descriptions for each term were adapted from previous research reports and experience of the study team; they are not intended to be used as standard definitions.

• Commingled trips (also referred to in the literature as comingled, co-mingled, or co-mingling) occur when two different trip types (e.g., ADA or coordinated paratransit and general public) are served at the same time and in the same vehicle, rather than separate vehicles.
• Consolidated service uses one uniform (same vehicle) fleet, one set of ADA paratransit–certified drivers, and the same scheduling software to provide ADA paratransit and microtransit service.
• Integrated service uses different vehicle fleets, different sets of drivers, and/or different software platforms to provide ADA paratransit and microtransit service.
• Paratransit in the context of this research includes ADA complementary paratransit and coordinated paratransit services; these coordinated services could include sponsored human service agency (HSA) trips or other sponsored trip types.
• ADA paratransit service, also called ADA complementary paratransit service, is a demand response service required by the ADA; transit agencies with fixed-route transit services must provide transportation to persons whose disabilities leave them unable to use or access the fixed-route service for all or some of their trips. At a minimum, this obligation extends to wherever and whenever the fixed-route transit service is operated. ADA paratransit is a shared-ride service, and ADA paratransit–eligible customers should be able to request service the day before the trip date; most transit agencies also allow earlier advance reservations as well as subscriptions for recurring trips.

• On-demand means that customers can request trips on the same day of service either for immediate fulfillment (a vehicle will be dispatched to them for pick-up once the request is confirmed) or for near-immediate fulfillment (the customer will be picked up within 1 to 2 hours of the confirmed request).
• Microtransit is a technology-enabled DRT service, typically using shuttles or vans operating with dynamic, real-time routing and scheduling, and typically provided on demand for immediate or near-immediate fulfillment. In most cases, microtransit is provided as a shared-ride service pooling passenger trips together, often using pick-up and drop-off points at common destinations generated in real time for efficient routing, or sometimes at the direct curb point the passenger is travelling to or from.
• WAV stands for wheelchair-accessible vehicle. These vehicles allow a passenger using a wheelchair, motorized scooter, or other mobility device to board and alight from the vehicle using a lift or foldable ramp. WAVs also have securement spots within the vehicle where the wheelchair or scooter can be secured by the driver for transport.
• Software platform in this context refers to the software system technology that is used by the DRT service for scheduling and dispatching functions, matching confirmed trip requests to available vehicles and their operators based on given service and customer parameter settings. Some software platforms for microtransit services have associated smartphone apps and/or web portals that enable customers to make trip requests and other reservation options. Brokerage is an administrative system in DRT to coordinate service provision of different trip types (such as general public, ADA paratransit, NEMT, and other specialized types) between a network of dedicated and non-dedicated service providers. A designated entity serves as the “broker” to manage the system, subcontracting with involved providers and brokering trips to those providers either with or without the aid of a software platform (Gerty et al. 2011).
• Dedicated service means that the vehicles are dedicated exclusively to a service and the customers of the given service type (or to the integrated or consolidated services); vehicles are not used to service other non-transit riders. Dedicated service can be operated in-house by the transit agency and/or by a contractor(s) providing the service.
• Non-dedicated service means that the vehicles may also provide transportation for non-transit or non-program riders while being available for transit service. Typical non-dedicated service providers that are used for paratransit trips include taxicab and transportation network companies (e.g., ride-sharing or ride-sourcing).
• Contractor is a public or private entity in a contracted agreement with the transit agency (or local governmental organization) to provide a portion or entirety of a service, aspects of which may include software platforms, drivers/operators, vehicles, call and control center staff, and maintenance or other operations staff.
• Turnkey service is a type of contracted service where the contractor provides all aspects of day-to-day operations; these include the software platform, drivers/operators, vehicles, vehicle maintenance, and other management aspects of operations. Sometimes the turnkey service model is referred to as “transportation-as-a-service” (TaaS) (National Center for Applied Transit Technology, 2023).

Technical Approach to Project Research

This study of the current state of the practice was conducted in three main phases: (1) a literature review and industry scan of existing research, reports, and available online resources on commingling paratransit and general public trips in DRT services; (2) a targeted online survey to transit agencies and local governments identified as either confirmed or potentially having commingled paratransit trips within on-demand microtransit service; and (3) in-depth case examples of selected transit agencies and municipalities that responded to the survey.

Literature Review

First, the study team reviewed relevant literature along with transit industry reports and online information about commingling paratransit trips with other trips in demand response service, both in traditional service models and newer on-demand microtransit models. Concurrently, the team also reached out to contacts at several microtransit technology companies and scheduled calls for informal conversations on how their software platforms approach commingling. The review focused on topics related to service designs and parameters, trip reservations and fare payment methods, commingling considerations and priorities in policy and scheduling, accommodations and assistance for customers, ADA compliance/reporting needs, and measured benefits of commingling. This review also functioned as an industry scan to identify examples of paratransit integrations or consolidations with microtransit. The results of the literature review are discussed in chapter 2 of this report.

Survey of North American Transit Agencies

Second, the study team developed a list of U.S. and Canadian transit agencies and local government entities with either confirmed commingled paratransit trips in on-demand microtransit service or a current microtransit service with possible commingling occurring. The team assembled this list and appropriate agency contacts based on findings during the literature review as well as previous research experience. Figure 2 provides a map of the city/town locations for the transit agencies and local governments that completed the survey; the list of the 24 survey respondents is included in Appendix B of this report.

The study team developed a survey questionnaire to learn more about each agency/cityʼs integration or consolidation of paratransit and on-demand microtransit services beyond information already identified in the literature review work. The survey instrument was structured into sections about service design, policies, and parameters; booking, scheduling, and communication; customer considerations and accommodations; fleet mixture and dispatching; benefits and impacts; lessons learned and challenges; and further participant information. Agencies on the targeted list were recruited to participate in the online survey, and the study team conducted follow-ups on project or survey question clarifications with the responding contacts as needed.

The survey results and analysis are discussed in chapter 3 of this report, while the survey instrument is included in Appendix A. The study team is appreciative of the agency staff members who helped provide responses to the survey on behalf of their organization or helped connect the study team to the appropriate contact person(s).

Case Examples

Third, the study team identified priority candidates of agencies and cities/towns for case examples based on an analysis of the survey results. The priority selections were made based on any unique or distinct practices in the service design and types of trips commingled together. The study team and project panel also looked at representation of different geographic regions, agency sizes, and microtransit technology partners to have a variety of circumstances represented in the case examples.

The organizations that agreed to be case examples for this report represent one metropolitan transit authority, one large urban transit district, and three municipal governments. The study team conducted guided semi-structured interviews with agency staff members to gather further details about their demand response services beyond the survey responses previously

provided. The following organizations participated in the case examples for this state-of-the-practice synthesis:

• Airdrie Transit by City of Airdrie (Airdrie, AB)
• Town of Great Barrington (Great Barrington, MA)
• Butler County Regional Transit Authority (Hamilton, OH)
• Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, aka TriMet (Portland, OR)
• Citibus by City of Lubbock (Lubbock, TX)

The case example write-ups are included in chapter 4 of this report. The study team is appreciative of the agency staff members who took additional time beyond participating in the survey to provide additional information about their transit services and organizational experiences for the synthesis project.