TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP SYNTHESIS 174
Paratransit Fleet Configurations
A Synthesis of Transit Practice
Will Rodman
Roya Etminani-Ghasrodashti
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Dallas, TX
Kelly Blume
Suzie Edrington
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Austin, TX
Li-Wei Tung
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Denver, CO
Subject Areas
Public Transportation • Passenger Transportation • Vehicles and Equipment
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the American Public Transportation Association
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current 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 problems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative 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 Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit service 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. Proposed 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 organizations: 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 governing 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 identifying 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 proposals), 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 disseminating TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agencies, 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, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented 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.
TCRP SYNTHESIS 174
Project J-07, Topic SB-38
ISSN 1073-4880
ISBN 978-0-309-70942-2
© 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks 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: National Express LLC
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 Transportation 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 specifications. 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
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental 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.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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. The 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.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 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. The 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.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP SYNTHESIS 174
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program
Emily Griswold, Senior Program Officer
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
TCRP PROJECT J-07 PANEL
Elizabeth Presutti, Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), Charlotte, NC (Chair)
Jameson Auten, Lane Transit District, Eugene, OR
Mallory Avis, Battle Creek Transit, Battle Creek, MI
Raymond Chan, Arcadis IBI Group, Kettering, OH
Roderick B. Diaz, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Los Angeles, CA
Mark Donaghy, Petersburg, KY
Rachel Dungca, Metro Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minneapolis, 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-38 PANEL
Christian T. Kent, Christian T. Kent, Transit Management Consulting, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA
Sara Sanford, Austin Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority (CapMetro), Austin, TX
Ross Silvers, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), St Petersburg, FL
Miles Turpin, Austin Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority (CapMetro), Austin, TX
Jay Washburn, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego, CA
Justus Welker, Kansas City, KS
Robert Earl Williams, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor, MI
Marilyn Yokley, WeGo Public Transit, Nashville, TN
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 information 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) Commission 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 Emily Griswold
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
The increase in the population of older adults who are ambulatory but are eligible to use paratransit has increased the demand for paratransit service delivery. This growth has, in turn, led some transit agencies to move away from standard one-vehicle type fleets in favor of a mixed fleet incorporating smaller accessible vehicles and non-accessible vehicles (generally sedans).
The first wave of fleet configuration changes has provided some expected benefits of lower operating costs and greater service delivery flexibility due to incorporating smaller vehicles into the fleet mix. These changes have also brought forward a set of service delivery issues, including increased costs, maintenance concerns, and complications in the reassignment of riders.
This synthesis focuses on the different ways that transit agencies have configured their dedicated paratransit fleets. A literature review and an exploratory survey of 37 transit providers were conducted. The survey respondents range in size from very small fleets to fleets up to 700 vehicles, along with a variety of fleet configurations (uniform, non-uniform, all accessible, etc.). Additionally, five case examples of statewide agencies that collect or aggregate information are highlighted. These case examples provide insights on the changing of fleet configurations over the past five years, the goals and motivations for doing so, lessons learned, and challenges.
Will Rodman, Kelly Blume, Roya Etminani-Ghasrodashti, Li-Wei Tung, and Suzie Edrington of the 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 document 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, Kelly Blume, Suzie Edrington, Roya Etminani-Ghasrodashti, and Li-Wei Tung of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s Transit Mobility Program.
The authors would like to thank APTA, CTAA, and National RTAP for helping with the TCRP Project J-07/Topic SB-38 survey distribution, the individuals from the 37 transit agencies whose surveys were chosen for analysis because of their relevance and pertinence, and the five individuals who were interviewed for and contributed to the case examples (listed in the following table).
Case Example Participants
| Contact | Title | Agency | Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eileen Collins | Director of Accessible Transportation Programs | Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District | Portland, OR |
| Bonnie Epstein | Director of Mobility Services | Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority | Pinellas County, FL |
| Paul Strobis | Director of Paratransit | Broward County Transit | Broward County, FL |
| Robert Williams | Manager of Mobility Services | Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority | Ann Arbor, MI |
| Jay Washburn | Manager of Paratransit and Minibus | San Diego Metropolitan Transit System | San Diego, CA |
Note: The authors received permission from all case example contacts to use the photographs that appear in the case examples.
CONTENTS
Why the Study Was Commissioned
Chapter 2 Literature Review/Industry Scan
Paratransit Fleet Configuration
Empirical and Practical Studies
Broward County Transit – Transportation Options (TOPS)
Portland, OR – Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) – LIFT
Pinellas County, FL – PSTA Access Service
Ann Arbor, MI – AAATA’s A-Ride Service
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Considerations on Whether to Have a Uniform Fleet Versus Different Types/Sizes of Vehicles
Impacts of Using Overflow Providers on Paratransit Fleet Configuration
Vehicle Type Preference and Wheelchair Capacities
Fleet Reconfiguration and the Achievement of Benefits
This page intentionally left blank.
