SUMMARY

Paratransit Fleet Configurations

This study effort focuses on the different ways that transit agencies have configured their dedicated paratransit fleets.

Types of Fleets

Of the 37 survey respondent agencies, ranging in size from small fleets up to 700 vehicles, these fleets were evenly split with (1) uniform, all-accessible fleets (composed of the same type of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), (2) non-uniform, all-accessible fleet (composed of different types of WAVs), and (3) mixed fleets of WAVs and non-WAVs, each representing about one-third of the responding agencies.

Motivations

The study effort identified common motivations for configuring or reconfiguring a fleet, categorized into considerations related to cost, service efficiency, service quality, and compliance.

Cost

• In favor of uniform fleets, cost considerations included bulk-purchasing discounts for vehicles, parts, and fuel; less room required for parts; the opportunity to focus on vehicles powered by lower-cost fuels; lower driver and mechanic training costs; lower maintenance costs due to increased driver/mechanic vehicle familiarity and a reduced chance of fuel contamination; a smaller fueling infrastructure; and reduced size of the extra board needed.
• In favor of a non-uniform fleet, smaller vehicles are less costly to acquire and operate. In recent years, they have also been more available than larger cutaways. In addition, depending on the vehicle and state, smaller vehicles can be operated by non-CDL (commercial driver licenses) drivers, which can potentially reduce operating costs and recruitment and training costs as well.

Service Efficiency

• In favor of uniform fleets, fewer spare vehicles may be needed; there are fewer scheduling/dispatching errors; scheduling/dispatching has fewer constraints; driver/mechanic familiarity breeds fewer service interruptions; rider familiarity results in reduced dwell time; and group trips are more easily scheduled (assuming that the sole vehicle type can accommodate them).

• In favor of a non-uniform fleet, different vehicle types can be aligned to a variety of ridership needs, with larger vehicles handling group trips and smaller vehicles serving certain locations and trips in lower-demand areas and times. In addition, smaller vehicles can be used as floaters to serve will-call return trips, for re-emerging no-showed trips, or as a way to get a late-running vehicle back on schedule.

Service Quality

• In favor of uniform fleets, focused familiarity with one vehicle type can result in a better riding experience. If required again in the future, social distancing can be practiced throughout the fleet.
• In favor of non-uniform fleets, different vehicle types can be tailored to riders’ needs and even preferences.

Compliance

• Non-uniform fleets can result in an influx of reasonable modification requests based on customer preference rather than on need. Non-uniform fleets can also lead to service equivalence issues. Such issues do not stem from uniform fleets.

In addition to all of these motivations, two factors stand out. First, the national transit/paratransit driver shortage crisis has caused transit agencies to diversify their fleet to include smaller vehicles that do not require CDLs to operate them. Second, the lack of availability of cutaways due to supply-chain issues that have slowed production has caused transit agencies to acquire smaller vehicles to replace cutaways that have aged well past their useful lives.

Considerations of Mixed Fleets

Having an all-accessible fleet provides greater ease and flexibility in scheduling and dispatching; however, there is a trade-off because WAVs are generally more expensive to purchase and operate. In contrast, having a mix of WAVs and non-WAVs presents greater challenges for schedulers and dispatchers while also resulting in having to pay more attention to service equivalency issues.

Many transit agencies have found that their ADA paratransit ridership is composed of 20%–30% WAV trips and 70%–80% ambulatory trips, suggesting that a mix of WAVs and non-WAVs works operationally, and it has for many transit agencies.

Impacts of Overflow and On-Demand Providers on Paratransit Fleet Configuration

While the existence of ADA paratransit overflow providers appears not to have an impact on the accessibility of the dedicated fleet, the emergence and transit agency use of on-demand resources such as transportation network companies (TNCs) for alternative services has had an impact on paratransit ridership and, hence, fleet decisions.

While the ADA’s service equivalence requirements absolutely apply to such on-demand transportation services, most transit agencies with such programs have found that the trips being served are mostly ambulatory. With fewer ambulatory trips being scheduled onto the primary dedicated fleet, the transit agency can transform a mixed paratransit fleet into an all-accessible fleet.

WAV Type Preference and Wheelchair Capacities

Six out of every 10 WAVs in the survey dataset have a maximum capacity of two or three wheelchairs, evenly split between the two. There is a preference for fold-down/flip seats in the wheelchair spaces because of the flexibility it allows for scheduling, dispatching, and operating.

While cutaways remain the staple of the industry (and are especially helpful in serving a high level of customers going to agencies, day programs, and so forth), more and more transit agencies are acquiring accessible Ford Transits to replace their aging cutaways for four primary reasons: (1) the purchasing cycle is currently shorter than for cutaways, (2) the additional seating and wheelchair capacities offered by some cutaways are used only seldomly, (3) the narrowness and shorter turning radius of the Ford Transit can be advantageous for serving some trips, and (4) CDL requirements can be avoided.

Fleet Reconfiguration and the Achievement of Benefits

Of 10 respondents who indicated that they reconfigured their fleet mix in the past five years, half indicated that the action led to expected benefits. Half of those respondents indicated that it had a positive impact on reducing capital/operating costs and cost per trip/productivity through streamlined scheduling and dispatching. Interestingly, none of these respondents indicated that the changes had had an impact on day-to-day policies and procedures. Half of the respondents indicated that their agency’s vehicle retirement/procurement plans have been altered as a result of smaller vehicles having a lower retirement age/mileage.

Key Lessons Learned

The Applicability of Vehicle Types

• Having larger vehicles to serve group trips must be weighed against the incidence of having to deploy two smaller vehicles alternatively.
• Having smaller, non-accessible vehicles as part of the dedicated fleet may not be as strategic if there is a significant transference of ambulatory riders to non-dedicated overflow providers or a significant mode shift of ambulatory riders to on-demand programs.
• Sedans are better suited to serve certain locations and low-demand times and are less expensive to purchase and operate. Sedans are helpful in serving congregate meal sites.

Mixed Fleets and the Customer Needs

• Future fleet decisions need to accommodate the needs of the riders.
• The customer information and scheduling system should be able to track and accommodate nuances in individual mobility because not all customers can use smaller sedans. This accommodation may require changes to customer profiles.

Mixed Fleets and CDLs

• In most states, smaller vehicles can be operated by drivers who are not required to have special (CDL) licenses, and this, in turn, opens up the pool of prospective operators.
• With wage rates typically lower than those of CDL drivers, non-CDL drivers can potentially reduce operating and training costs.

The Impact of Fleet Configurations on Scheduling/Dispatching

• The more uniform the accessible fleet, the fewer constraints are put on the scheduling and dispatching staff as they consider changes that need to be made. A lack of such constraints significantly eases the “mop-up” scheduling process as well as day-of-service dispatching.
• With a mixed fleet, scheduling/dispatching software must consider whether a specific vehicle type (and seating configuration) can physically serve a trip.

The Impact of Fleet Configurations on Vehicle Maintenance

• Uniform fleets streamline and improve maintenance because of the focused familiarity with one vehicle type. Uniformity can lead to quicker and better repairs, which in turn increase vehicle availability, result in fewer breakdowns, and reduce cost.
• Mixed fleets require a different set of parts for each vehicle type, and hence, more space is needed for the parts inventory in the maintenance facility, more complex part ordering, and possibly a higher parts cost if discounts are otherwise available for bulk purchasing.

The Impact of Using Vehicles Powered by Different Fuel Types

• Diversifying fuels for revenue vehicles can be a useful tool—for example, in the case of fuel shortages, power outages, extreme cold, and so forth that might affect certain types of vehicles but not others.
• However, the flip side is that it can also potentially lead to cross-contamination of fuels such as diesel in a gasoline-powered vehicle or vice versa, especially when the two vehicles are used similarly and are of similar design.

Mixed Fleets and State Grant Constraints

• Transit agencies using grant funding from their state to purchase vehicles should be cognizant of the possible obstacles caused by right-sizing their fleets, especially if the transit agency purchases smaller vehicles to replace larger vehicles. Purchasing smaller vehicles may result in hurdles in justifying the subsequent purchase of larger vehicles.

Suggestions for Additional Research Needs

Additional research that might stem from this project includes (1) identifying the differences in states’ CDL requirements and their impact on transit agencies and riders, (2) identifying the differences in states’ paratransit vehicle retirement ages/mileages and their impact on transit agencies and riders, (3) identifying the factors that impact the preventable accident frequency ratios of different paratransit vehicle types, and (4) identifying the innovative and better ways that transit agencies have implemented alternatives to serving home- and community-based service waiver trips on ADA paratransit.