Paratransit Fleet Configurations (2024)
Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background
Historically, there have been several reasonable arguments for uniform, accessible paratransit fleets. From a cost perspective, these include discounts from bulk vehicle purchases and lower parts inventory costs. With a uniform fleet, drivers and mechanics can get up to speed more quickly with respect to training and vehicle familiarity. Cross-type fueling contamination is essentially eliminated. Schedulers and dispatchers—and the scheduling/dispatching systems—are not constrained by different vehicle types. There is no hitch when swapping a vehicle in and out at pullout if a safety issue is found during the pre-trip inspection of a vehicle. And for that matter, an operator can probably minimize the size of the backup fleet. Some transit agencies also have wound up with a uniform fleet based on rider preferences. Lastly, most uniform paratransit fleets that provide paratransit service are understandably composed of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs). In terms of compliance, transit agencies can avoid having to prove compliance with certain service equivalency requirements. According to the FTA Circular on ADA Guidance, “Where all the vehicles in a demand responsive vehicle fleet are fully accessible, the equivalent service standard addressed in this chapter does not apply” (FTA, 2015). So, there are many good reasons for a transit agency to consider fleet uniformity.
In addition, an increasing number of transit agencies have implemented service models and programs that have caused significant shifts of predominantly ambulatory trips away from being served with the transit agency’s dedicated ADA paratransit fleet. These include (1) arranging for overflow service with taxis or adaptive transportation network company (TNC) providers, (2) using taxis and TNCs without ADA paratransit certified drivers as a supplemental overflow resource via a customer opt-in program, and (3) implementing a taxi and TNC-based alternative service program. With many ambulatory trips being served with sedans by such providers and no longer being scheduled onto the primary dedicated fleet (and with some overflow providers operating accessible vehicles as well), transit agencies can focus on a more uniform set of accessible vehicles for their dedicated fleet.
In contrast, some transit agencies have found that their needs and their customers’ needs are better suited with a fleet mix of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) of varying sizes and non-accessible sedans, minivans, and SUVs given that wheelchair trips typically reflect between 20%–30% of the trips served, and that the productivity levels of many paratransit services are often at 2.0 trips per revenue vehicle hour or below.
Whether the paratransit fleets include non-WAVs or not, many transit agencies have stratified their WAV fleet to include (1) larger-capacity WAVs—some able to accommodate as many as four to six wheelchairs—to accommodate trips during peak periods or large group trips (e.g., trips to senior citizen centers or human service agencies), and (2) midsize WAVs that can accommodate two to four wheelchairs, and smaller WAVs (e.g., converted minivans with ramps) that
can accommodate one to two wheelchairs. Many of these vehicles have “flip seats,” which can be deployed for ambulatory riders if the wheelchair position is not used, offering great flexibility for schedulers and dispatchers. Moreover, it is common for paratransit operators to use the smaller WAVs as “floaters” or “shooters” to handle will-call returns, re-emerging no-show trips, or upcoming trips on a late-running vehicle to get the vehicle back on schedule.
A stratified WAV fleet, if not a mix of WAVs and non-WAVs, may also be a result of a lack of vehicle availability. Since the mid-2010s, the lead time for procuring cutaways, for example, has steadily increased because of supply-chain issues. Within the last year, many transit agencies, including several responding to this survey, reported delays of 18–24 months, while one respondent (San Diego MTS) reported a lead time of four years. While these longer delay times are just now beginning to shorten thanks to cutaway chassis production levels increasing to 25%–50% of the pre-COVID-19 levels, the delays in procuring over the last few years have forced transit agencies to keep older cutaways afloat—well past their retirement age—to serve their clientele’s trips. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for these vehicles was obviously lower. However, as ridership rebounds—in many cases to 60% to 80% of their pre-pandemic ridership levels—the strain on these older vehicles has escalated, with a higher level of breakdowns and maintenance costs ensuing, not to mention the delays on parts caused by supply-chain issues.
Consequently, transit agencies have purchased midsize and smaller WAVs and sedans because they can be purchased with less lead time and make up for the shortcomings of the older, larger cutaways. Additional justification for replacing the larger cutaways with small and midsize WAVs stemmed from analyses of how the trips were served; in short, the “extra” ambulatory and wheelchair capacity of the larger vehicles was rarely used. Therefore, the acquisition of smaller to midsize vehicles that were more readily available and that cost less to procure, operate, and maintain made sense. However, because of the resulting industry “run” on more available vehicles such as Ford Transits, the lead time to get these vehicles has now lengthened as well.
Moreover, because many smaller vehicles’ lifts or ramps—while compliant with the ADA [49 CFR §38.23(b) includes specifications for lifts, 49 CFR §38.23(b) includes specifications for ramps, and 49 CFR §38.23(d) includes specifications for wheelchair securement systems]—cannot accommodate oversized electric wheelchairs with widths up to 36 inches. Thus transit agencies have had to retain their aging cutaways with wider lifts to accommodate customers with such wheelchairs (or come up with creative solutions such as retaining a non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) carrier to serve such trips).
ADA requirements for service equivalence also come into play, especially if a transit agency has a mixed fleet of WAVs and non-WAVs. In particular, transit agencies need to ensure that their paratransit fleet mix does not result in persons with wheelchairs experiencing a higher percentage of denials or late trips than ambulatory riders—a particular focus area for FTA Triennial Reviews in recent years.
The national driver shortage issue, not only for paratransit but for the entire transportation industry, adds another justification for smaller vehicles—to open up the driver applicant pool to prospective drivers for whom a commercial driver’s license (CDL) is not required. In most states, CDLs are required for operators of larger vehicles, which are defined by weight; larger passenger vehicles are also defined by the maximum number of passengers they can hold, which, from state to state, can range from 15 to 24. Because of the stringent training, testing, and expense of getting a CDL, the number of potential driver applicants is far smaller than for driving positions that do not require a CDL. In addition, CDL drivers typically command and, in some labor bargaining agreements, set a higher wage rate. Thus, without a CDL requirement, such related additional costs can be avoided.
The downsides of a mixed fleet include a need for the increased training of drivers and mechanics regarding the different vehicle types, a larger parts inventory to support the different vehicles, and more constraints and less flexibility on the scheduling/dispatching function if a vehicle needs to be swapped out at pull-out or in the event of a breakdown while in service.
With these considerations in mind, many transit agencies have diversified their paratransit fleets with WAVs of different sizes and configurations while replacing or augmenting their fleet with sedans and non-accessible vehicles.
Why the Study Was Commissioned
Until this effort was commissioned, there had never been a national effort to identify the various ways that paratransit fleets have been (re)configured and to determine the various benefits accrued and challenges incurred from different paratransit fleet configurations. Moreover, the immediate need for this study was compounded by many factors.
For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, most transit agencies could easily operate with their existing fleet because the reduced ridership meant there were fewer miles put on the fleet. Also, transit agencies did not know what the ridership level would be post-COVID-19 and even when or if ridership levels would recover. Transit agencies’ rebounding ridership levels have put a strain on older post-retirement-age vehicles. At the same time, replacement parts and vehicles are tougher to come by. Paratransit managers are assessing what their ideal vehicle or fleet mix should be. The driver shortage crisis presented another factor. The specialization and expansion of overflow resources and alternative services presented additional factors. This unusual period has been accompanied by significant increases in operating costs per revenue vehicle hour and operating costs per passenger trip, while financial resources for paratransit have dwindled. Diversifying a paratransit fleet configuration seemed to be an often overlooked strategy for addressing financial and operational woes.
This synthesis intends to help transit agencies understand the benefits of alternative fleet configuration strategies implemented and experienced by the paratransit industry.
Target Audience
The audience for the study includes:
- Transit agency general managers, paratransit managers, procurement managers, and maintenance managers who are considering reconfiguring their dedicated paratransit fleet
- Transit agency managers interested in understanding how the use of non-dedicated vehicles for overflow might alter fleet configuration decisions
- Transit operations/management companies responsible for fleet configuration decisions or who provide input to their client transit agency decisions
- Consultants who assist transit agencies with fleet mix decisions
Methodology/Work Plan
Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s (TTI’s) work plan was structured into the following eight tasks, each of which builds on the preceding tasks.
- Task 1: Meet with the panel; develop the draft work plan, report outline, and survey; manage the project
- Task 2: Conduct a literature review and industry scan
- Task 3: Conduct the survey
- Finalize the survey instrument and convert it to Qualtrics
- Enlist the assistance of transit associations in the distribution of the survey
- Bolster with a targeted survey
- Analyze survey responses
- Task 4: Conduct case examples
- Develop and rank a shortlist of case example candidates
- Conduct and write up case studies
- Task 5: Synthesize findings from the survey and case examples
- Task 6: Prepare and present draft final reports
- Prepare/submit/present the first draft final for panel review and input
- Prepare/submit the second draft final
Panel guidance included focusing on U.S. transit agencies and defining “paratransit services” as those transit-provided demand-responsive services that focused on specialized populations and not the general public. With this definition, services fell into three categories: (1) ADA paratransit services, (2) coordinated paratransit services (that by definition included ADA paratransit trips and other specialized populations such as human service agency sponsored trips), and (3) dial-a-ride services focused on specialized populations such as older adults and persons with disabilities.
Report Organization
The synthesis report is organized as follows.
Chapter 2: Literature Review/Industry Scan
