CHAPTER 5

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

Considerations on Whether to Have a Uniform Fleet Versus Different Types/Sizes of Vehicles

A summary of considerations for uniform versus non-uniform fleets is found in Table 14, which is organized into four sections: cost, service efficiency, service quality, and compliance.

Within the last few years, two of the biggest factors that have been influencing paratransit fleet configurations have been driver recruitment and the lack of availability of larger paratransit vehicles.

• The national transit/paratransit driver shortage crisis has caused transit agencies to diversify their fleets to include smaller vehicles that do not require commercial driver licenses to operate them. In many states, these include vehicles that have a maximum seating capacity of under 16/15 passengers. CDLs require costly training, and once a driver acquires a CDL (often at the expense of a transit agency), drivers can always seek higher-paying jobs elsewhere. To meet the scheduled pull-out each day, with much less staff and a smaller extra board, transit agencies have acquired smaller vehicles in order to broaden the driver applicant pool. An additional benefit for some transit agencies is the wage rate differential between CDL and non-CDL drivers.
• The supply-chain delays on certain parts, compounded by Buy America requirements, have had a significant impact as well. Mass Transit reported in December 2022 that the estimated 20,000 transit/paratransit vehicle backlog was expected to increase in 2023. A CTAA survey in August 2022 reported that 80% of the respondents were concerned about replacing aging vehicles. Keeping vehicles in service well past their retirement age has resulted in additional maintenance costs and service interruptions. For the transit agencies that participated in the SB-38 survey and case examples, the lack of availability of larger cutaways resulted in many agencies getting smaller vehicles while retaining some larger vehicles to handle group trips. But the recent industry run on these midsize vehicles has now caused delays here as well. As a consequence, the lack of availability of traditional paratransit vehicles has resulted in more and more transit agencies reconfiguring their paratransit fleet to include WAVs and non-WAVs, as well as a stratified, all-accessible fleet out of necessity.

At the same time, having a non-uniform fleet and, in particular, one that includes smaller vehicles, can help a transit agency efficiently match different-sized vehicles to demand and trip characteristics. The productivity of most paratransit services is typically around 2.0 trips per vehicle hour in non-congested areas and between 1.5 and 1.8 or lower in urban areas that suffer from significant congestion. Demand also varies in different parts of a service area and fluctuates significantly throughout the day. Thus, having a uniform fleet of larger cutaways, for example, could be overkill in certain low-demand areas and at lower demand times. Hence, if a paratransit

Table 14. Advantages and disadvantages of uniform versus non-uniform paratransit fleets.

Consideration	Description	Uniform Paratransit Fleet	NonUniform Paratransit Fleet
		Advantage/Disadvantage
Cost
Bulk Discounts	Discounts are available on bulk vehicle, parts, and fuel purchase.
Parts Inventory	Uniform parts inventory enables a smaller parts inventory.
Fuel Efficiency	Focus is placed on fuel-efficient vehicles and lower-cost fuels.
Driver Training	Driver training/retraining hours are required for each vehicle type.
Mechanic Training	Mechanic training/retraining hours are required for each vehicle type.
Vehicle Maintenance	Issues could include accuracy of mechanical issue identification, efficient repair time, the chance of mis-fueling/crosscontamination.
Driver Extra Board	Quantity of extra drivers by vehicle type is needed.
Fuel Infrastructure	Different fuel types require different infrastructure investments.
Overall Fleet Mix – Vehicle Cost	Smaller vehicles cost less to acquire and operate.
Schedule Efficiency	Can be obtained through trip assignment of the “right” vehicle. Fleet configuration is aligned to a variety of ridership needs.
CDL/Non-CDL Mix	Smaller vehicles allow for less costly non-CDL drivers, which partially addresses driver recruitment issues.
Vehicle Purchase Lead Times	Smaller vehicles are more readily available to acquire or lease.
Service Efficiency
Spare Vehicle Needs	Number of backup vehicles needed to replace downed vehicles at pullout or for service interruptions is decreased.
Vehicle Capacity Constraints	Ease/flexibility of dispatch to re-assign trips is offered.
In-Service Interruption	Driver vehicle familiarity breeds enhanced recognition of potential issues prior to vehicles being placed in service.
Vehicle Downtime	Number of mis-repairs, repair time, mis-fueling/crosscontamination could increase.

Consideration	Description	Uniform Paratransit Fleet	NonUniform Paratransit Fleet
		Advantage/Disadvantage
Rider Familiarity	Rider experience with the same vehicle results in lower dwell and loading times.
Group Trip Accommodation	Ease/flexibility to schedule larger groups is offered.
Diverse Vehicle Configuration	Dispatch/schedule errors can be attributable to different vehicle types.
Low-Demand Areas and Times	Flexibility of smaller vehicles meets low-demand areas and times.
Floaters	Small vehicles can be used as “floaters” or “shooters.”
Service Quality
Driver Familiarity	Driver familiarity/skillset with the same accessibility equipment breeds higher-quality service.
In-Vehicle Social Distancing	If spacing riders is needed, larger vehicles allow for social/physical distancing.
Customer Needs	Vehicles are tailored to customer needs/preferences.
Compliance
Reasonable Modifications	A variety of vehicle types may lead to an increase in reasonable modification requests.
Service Equivalence	Riders who are unable to be transported in all vehicle types may have longer wait times or inequivalent service.

service area covers a broad area with varying levels of demand density, smaller vehicles might be more appropriate for serving the outer areas. Having larger vehicles to serve high-demand areas and times weighs heavily in favor of the cost efficiency of being able to deploy one larger vehicle versus deploying two smaller vehicles because the most significant contributor to operating costs is the labor/fringe costs associated with vehicle operators. These costs can contribute up to 70% of the operating cost structure.

Transit agencies with at least some smaller vehicles have utilized such vehicles as floaters, also called shooters. In this role, these smaller vehicles are typically operated by extra-board drivers and sometimes road supervisors. They are dispatched to respond to a will-call return trip, to a re-emerging no-show trip, or as a tool for the dispatcher to get a late-running vehicle back on schedule by re-assigning an upcoming trip to a floater vehicle. Because these needs usually involve a one-passenger trip, a smaller vehicle is well-suited to the task.

Considerations on Whether to Have an All-Accessible Fleet Versus a Fleet Mix of Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicles and Non-Accessible Vehicles

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.

There is a correlation between fleet size and fleet uniformity with respect to accessibility: the smaller the paratransit fleet, the more likely it is to be 100% accessible, and as fleets increase in size, there are reasons—mostly involving operating costs and operational flexibility—to have a mixed fleet of WAVs and non-WAVs, especially for paratransit services whose riders are mostly ambulatory.

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 would work operationally. For example, the MBTA’s ADA paratransit service, The RIDE, has for years had a mixed fleet of 70% WAVs and 30% sedans. This fleet mix has been gravitating more recently to a 60%/40% split.

Impacts of Using Overflow Providers on Paratransit Fleet Configuration

While the existence of an ADA paratransit overflow provider appears not to have an impact on the accessibility of the dedicated fleet (the percentage of transit agencies with an overflow provider and with an all-accessible fleet are almost identical), the emergence and transit agency use of on-demand resources such as TNCs has had an impact on paratransit ridership and fleet decisions. Two notable types of transit programs that utilize TNCs include

• Opt-in programs, where an ADA paratransit customer allows the transit agency to schedule or dispatch the trip onto the ADA paratransit service or to “convert” the customer’s ADA paratransit trip request to a non-ADA paratransit trip request and to schedule or dispatch the trip to a TNC or taxi whose drivers are not ADA paratransit–certified drivers.
• Alternative services, where (1) ADA paratransit customers are allowed to request on-demand service directly from among the TNCs or taxi companies participating in the program or (2) an ADA paratransit customer must request such service through the transit agency (or a third-party contractor), indicating the service provider of choice, and the transit agency then forwards the request on to the service provider. Also, in cases in which there is a choice of providers for each trip, the transit agency may involve the Taxi Exception, which exempts the transit agency from having to require drug and alcohol testing for the service providers’ drivers.

While the ADA’s service equivalence requirements absolutely apply to each of these services, most transit agencies with such programs have found that the trips being served are mostly ambulatory. With so many ambulatory trips no longer being scheduled onto the primary dedicated fleet, the transit agency can transform the paratransit fleet to exclude non-accessible vehicles. Note also that this “mode shift” of trips can also have a significant impact on both productivity and on-time performance. With fewer trips on the dedicated fleet, the productivity of the service may decrease. However, at the same time, the on-time performance of the dedicated fleet can soar. When implementing its opt-in pilot program for its ADA paratransit service (Access Link) in two of its six regions, NJ TRANSIT saw an on-time performance increase of more than 10% in one of its regions.

Vehicle 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 options. There is a preference for fold-down/flip seats in the wheelchair spaces because of the flexibility it allows for scheduling, dispatching, and operators.

Cutaways remain the staple of the industry, and they are especially helpful with paratransit services that have a high level of customers going to agencies, day programs, and so forth.

However, more and more transit agencies are acquiring lift-equipped 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 three-plus wheelchair capacities offered by some cutaways are seldom used; (3) the narrowness and shorter turning radius of the Ford Transit can be advantageous for schedulers, dispatchers, and operators. Transit agencies that have Ford Transits view them as “tweener” vehicles—a more flexible cross between accessible cutaways and minivans (especially with the discontinuance of MV-1 production); and (4) transit agencies can avoid CDL requirements for their operators as Ford Transits tend to be lighter and have a lower passenger capacity. While some of the agencies report that the slightly lower capital and operating cost of Ford Transit poses another advantage, other transit agencies viewed these differences as negligible.

The LIFO Scheduling Issue

A related and common scheduling issue with respect to certain paratransit vehicle seating configurations is the last-in, first-out (LIFO) scheduling dilemma. As applied to paratransit service, this issue relates to vehicles that can accommodate more than one wheelchair but that prevent a driver with two (or more) wheelchair riders on board from unloading the first wheelchair rider without first unloading the last wheelchair rider(s) to board.

Not only is it an inconvenience to riders who must be unloaded and then re-loaded back on the vehicle at an intermediate stop, but the additional loading and unloading time can dampen productivity. It may negatively impact on-time performance if the scheduler or scheduling package does not account for this extra time. The realities of the LIFO dilemma can also impact scheduling and a rider’s on-board time. In this case, the scheduler, system, dispatcher, or even the driver may choose instead to re-order the stops to avoid LIFO situations, but this may, in turn, lead to excessively long on-board times, late trips, and frustrated riders because first-in riders may travel right by their drop-off location in order for the driver to first drop-off a wheelchair rider who was last in.

While the wheelchair positions and seats of larger cutaways can typically be configured to avoid LIFO issues, it appears to be more of an issue with smaller cutaways and minivans. It is likely because LIFO is an issue on the smaller vehicles. Respondents reported that 86% of their accessible minivans have only one wheelchair position because carrying two wheelchairs could either cause LIFO issues or limit the number of seats for ambulatory riders.

Fleet Reconfiguration and the Achievement of Benefits

Among the survey respondents, the two most common reasons for changing a fleet configuration were (1) to address operational issues, including being able to handle different types of trips and the logistical constraints of certain origins and destinations with different types of vehicles, and (2) to improve the riders’ experience. Other reasons were to reduce capital and operating costs and to expand the driver pool by utilizing vehicles for which a CDL is not required.

To a lesser extent, the survey respondents indicated that they altered the fleet configuration to respond to the changing ridership that resulted from retaining and utilizing (non-dedicated) providers and improving the driving experience.

Of the 10 respondents who indicated that they did reconfigure their fleet, seven reported that the action led to expected benefits. Five agencies indicated it had a positive impact on reducing capital/operating cost and cost per trip/productivity through streamlined scheduling and dispatching, while none of these respondents indicated that the changes had no impact on day-to-day policies and procedures. Again, five agencies indicated that their agency’s vehicle retirement/procurement plans had been altered as a result of smaller vehicles having a lower retirement age/mileage. One agency noted an impact on hiring as a result of having to hire more drivers or being able to hire non-CDL drivers.

Lessons Learned

The Applicability of Vehicle Types

• Examine the applicability of the paratransit vehicles; for example, larger vehicles may be a waste if they are never filled as a result of scheduling practices and policies and the lack of group trip demands. The additional capital and operating costs of larger vehicles must be weighed against the incidence of having to deploy two smaller vehicles where one (larger vehicle) would have sufficed.
• Examine the strategic relationship between service mix and fleet mix; having smaller non-accessible vehicles as part of the dedicated fleet may not be as strategic and provides some constraints to scheduling flexibility 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 particularly helpful to transport ambulatory customers experiencing long wait times or re-emerging no-show customers, or serving a trip on a later-running vehicle to get that vehicle back on schedule.
• Sedans are helpful in serving congregate meal sites.
• WAVs that are able to hold four to six wheelchairs can be a very efficient way to handle larger groups of agency-sponsored trips. However, such a configuration, and larger vehicles in general, may not be necessary if such group trips are rarely scheduled.

Mixed Fleets and Customer Needs

• Future fleet decisions need to accommodate the needs of the riders.
• Make sure your customer information and scheduling system can track and accommodate nuances in individual mobility, as not all customers can use smaller sedans.
• Acquiring new vehicle types may require wholesale changes to the profiles of many ambulatory customers; that is, scheduling programs need to differentiate between ambulatory customers who can and can’t use sedans via separate ambulatory codes or, more simply, with a field specifying vehicle type exclusions.
• The process of changing customer profiles once the new smaller vehicles are added to the system needs to immediately become part of the eligibility certification/customer registration process and re-certification process.
• Vehicle exclusions can also be made for a trip being booked with some paratransit scheduling/dispatching systems. If this is used, most transit agencies would recommend not making the

• change to the customer profile “on the fly” at the time of the booking because the extra time to do this would likely have a negative impact on the call time and hence hold time.
• Getting smaller (and more comfortable) vehicles may result in a flood of reasonable modification requests. Processes may need to be developed to differentiate between preference and medical need.

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 CDL drivers, non-CDL drivers can potentially reduce operating and training costs.
• Some transit agencies chose to pay CDL drivers a higher wage. For such transit agencies, Introducing non-CDL drivers can lead to cost savings.
• With a set of large cutaways operated by a contractor, transit agencies can require their contractors to maintain a minimum percentage of drivers with CDLs to ensure that a lack of CDL drivers does not inhibit any need for cutaways on any particular day.
• Some states, such as California, require a special CDL to operate vehicles for developmentally disabled persons (VDDP). This requirement would apply to transit agencies using their ADA paratransit service (or a separate service) in transporting individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD) as part of home- and community-based services waiver programs. A CDL may be required.
• Some transit agencies not only choose to pay all drivers based on the same wage structure but also pay the fixed route drivers and paratransit drivers the same. When drivers are trained on and used to operate both kinds of services (and all vehicle types used), transit agencies can reduce the size of the extra board needed for both services.

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. This familiarity can lead to quicker and better repairs, which in turn increases vehicle availability, results in fewer breakdowns, and reduces cost.
• Mixed fleets often require a different parts inventory for each vehicle type, which in turn can result in more space being 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 really useful tool—for example, in 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. The use of a wet hose fueler, which accommodates different sizes of vehicles that require different fuel nozzles, can help mitigate this possibility.

Mixed Fleets and State Grant Constraints

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

Suggestions for Additional Study Needs

1. Differences in State DOTs’ CDL Requirements for Paratransit Vehicles. The SB-38 research confirms how important the requirements for CDLs are in shaping fleet configurations; to combat the driver shortage crisis, more transit agencies—and other entities such as adult day programs—are opting to acquire smaller vehicles to open up the pool of prospective driver applicants. State requirements for passenger vehicle CDLs, which typically state a minimum weight and seating capacity, vary from state to state. While many states identify minimum capacities of 15–16 passengers (noting some inconsistencies/confusion about whether or not the driver is included), other states have minimum seating capacities ranging from eight passengers to 24 passengers.

   In New Jersey, for example, one statute states that the minimum capacity for any passenger vehicle is 16, while another statute states that a CDL is also required for any vehicles-for-hire that can hold 8–15 passengers. Moreover, the definition of vehicles-for-hire is not clear. For instance, New Jersey Transit Corporation has been told by the state that smaller vehicles used for Access Link, NJ TRANSIT’s ADA paratransit service, are considered to be vehicles for hire because passengers pay a fare.

   While the majority of states do specify a maximum seating capacity as one threshold for CDLs, some state statutes qualify the maximum seating capacity as the capacity that was “designed for” by the manufacturer versus an actual seating configuration of the vehicle as configured by the transit agency.

   The primary audience for this would be state DOTs so that they can understand how such differences result in benefits or obstacles for transit agencies and riders. At the same, it is imperative that the local transit agencies that are operating under different ground rules also be able to contribute.

2. Difference in State DOT/Transit Association Paratransit Vehicle Retirement Ages. Based on FTA guidelines, transit agencies purchasing transit buses and vans with federal capital funds are required to keep these vehicles in service for a minimum period of years or a number of miles prior to that vehicle’s retirement to ensure effective use of federally funded assets. This minimum service-life requirement differs based on bus and van size and other characteristics, as shown here.

   – Heavy-Duty Large Bus	12 years	500,000 miles
   – Heavy-Duty Small Bus	10 years	350,000 miles
   – Medium-Duty and Purpose-Built Bus	7 years	200,000 miles
   – Light-Duty Midsized Bus	5 years	150,000 miles
   – Light-Duty Small Bus, Cutaways, Modified Van	4 years	100,000 miles

   The operative descriptor, though, is minimum, as some state DOTs (and some transit associations in large states through which vehicles can be acquired with federal funds) use

2. much higher numbers for their programs. According to Broward County Transit, for example, Florida DOT’s retirement age is seven years or 300,000 miles for both the Ford Transits and cutaways versus the FTA’s four-year 100,000-mile minimum standard for cutaways. The actual mileage that some paratransit services drive on an annual basis far exceeds these minimums. For example, for NJ TRANSIT’s Access Link, sedans drive an average of 30,000 miles per year; midsized cutaways, 40,000 miles per year; and larger cutaways, 35,000 miles per year. Therefore, the cutaways in four years are putting on between 140,000 and 160,000 miles versus the FTA’s 100,000-mile minimum standard.

   As mentioned in some of the case examples, the variance in retirement age and mileage has had some profound impacts on paratransit capital operating and purchasing costs, which suggests a synthesis of the impacts of different state practices would be a helpful line of inquiry. The primary audience for this study would also be state DOTs so that they understand how such differences challenge or benefit transit agencies and their riders.

3. Accident Frequency Ratio of Different Paratransit Vehicle Types. Some transit agencies have experienced higher preventable accident frequency ratios (AFR) with smaller vehicles. Research could help confirm whether this is true, and if so, it would be helpful to identify the contributing factors. For instance, is the preventable AFR for larger vehicles lower because a CDL may be required (noting that the same vehicle in one state may require a CDL, whereas, in other states, it does not)? (See #1.)
4. The Impact of Waiver Transportation on Paratransit. Many ADA paratransit services are serving a large percentage of Medicaid-funded home- and community-based services (HCBS) trips taken by persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/D). Based on TTI’s initial research for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and in connection with the SB-38 project, transit agencies have indicated that this percentage ranges from 16% to 22% but can also be as high as 75%, as is the case with the UTA in Salt Lake City. In the case of the UTA, this influenced its vehicle purchase decision. While the use of Medicaid NEMT brokers by public transit agencies was explored in TCRP Research Report 202: Handbook for Examining the Effects of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Brokerages on Transportation Coordination (Cherrington et al., 2018), Medicaid-funded waiver transportation on ADA paratransit services was not considered. The reason for not considering these services was that trips taken were mostly non-medical, involving HCBS enrollees going to or from day programs and competitive work opportunities, meaning that these trips were provided outside the brokerage structure.

   Many ADA paratransit services are struggling with getting ID/D individuals to their day programs or to work on time. Consequently, some transit agencies have implemented different approaches to better meet the needs of the HCBS enrollees. In the Chicago region, Pace’s long-standing Advantage program involves leasing accessible vehicles to day program providers at a reasonable price, as long as the day program drivers are certified by Pace. Metro Mobility in Minneapolis-St. Paul, after piloting and discontinuing a similar program, recently bid for a separate contracted service that would focus solely on waiver transportation. With many transit agencies facing similar challenges, research on transit agency approaches to serving HCBS waiver program trips is needed.