The Balancing Act of Paratransit Service

Image via Wikipedia
I have commented many times on the difficulties presented to transit agencies with the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the biggest difficulties is the bill created an unfunded mandate that transit agencies need to provide services to those with disabilities but provided no money to actually provide the service.

Notice, I am NOT saying that people with disabilities should not have transportation however, what we have to recognize the the service is costly and the funding has to come out of a transit agencies operating budget which means that route service has to be cut to provide paratransit service.

Depending on the transit agency, the average cost to provide service is anywhere from $25.00 to $35.00 per rider which is several times higher than providing regular bus service or even more times higher per passenger for most light rail services.

However, the ADA did not just require transit agencies to provide a totally separate transit system. It also required transit agencies to make their regular bus service accessible. At first this included adding wheel chair lifts. For some agencies such as RTD in Los Angeles this was not a big deal since they started ordering buses with wheelchair lifts back in 1977 with the 200 buses they received from American Motors General.

Gradually transit bus manufacturers and transit agencies transitioned from high floor buses with wheelchair lifts to low floor buses. While the wheelchair lifts were expensive to maintain the low floor buses have their own disadvantages including lower passenger capacity and other design issues.

To reduce the cost of Paratransit service transit service has a couple of alternatives to make it more efficient.

Once solution that many transit agencies have done is contracting out Paratransit service to private operators. Of course transit agencies are ripped to shreds over the service provided by the contractors and how they do not care about the disabled. The question has to be asked, since the service is essentially a glorified taxi service and not true transit service, are transit agencies doing the right thing by contracting out the service.

Another way to reduce the price of Paratransit service is for agencies to limit those who ride paratransit service to those most in need. Those who do not meet the standards for Paratransit service then have to ride regular bus service. While that reduces cost it is also fodder for activist and also slows down regular transit service since it takes longer to get those people on and off the bus service.

A third way that transit agencies are reducing the cost of Paratransit service is to only provide service to the 3/4 of a mile limit from a regular bus routes that is mandated federally. Once again this is extremely controversial and is blasted by those located outside that service area.

Finally you have the Flex and Call N Ride routes that Denver and Salt Lake have implemented that provides both regular route and off route service with small vans that substitute for regular paratransit service.

Whichever route a transit agency decides to take to reduce the cost of Paratransit service, they will be criticized for the decisions they will make. However, transit systems have a fine balancing act of providing transit service to the maximum number of people possible with limited funds (that are even more limited during these economic times).

Of course the ultimate solution would be to build livable cities that someone with limited mobility can get the services they need without long trips. One of the often overlooked aspects of livable development is that if people with disabilities are able to live with easy reach of businesses and services they use frequently, they fewer trips they will need on Paratransit service.

Until then transit agencies will have to continue to do the balancing act will continue between cost and needs.

UTA testing CNG Buses

Image by Anthony Ramos via Flickr
For the next two weeks UTA will be testing two CNG buses, one from Metro in Los Angeles and the other from the Phoenix area. The Salt Lake Tribune has a suprisingly well done article about the test (and just to note, I am not putting down the writers at the Trib, but the fact that the newspaper industry has cut to the bone in its attempt to survive so they know longer have people dedicated to subject and thus well informed about what everything they write about):

UTA tests natural gas buses

As the article pointed out UTA had 5 CNG Orion V buses purchased in 1992 and retired a couple of years ago. Also pointed out in the article is the buses were essentially failures in our market but those were early generation CNG buses and a lot has a changed in the last 18 years so it will be interesting how today's CNG buses will perform.

UTA also should be congratulated in looking at alternatives for the current fleet of diesel buses considering the continued high cost of diesel (of course that situation could reverse and has in the past).

The question is will the cost be examined. They do mention that the price of a CNG bus is more than a diesel bus but could be made up over the length of ownership (approximately 12 years). However, not just UTA but we as Americans are horrible at looking at the actual cost of a product.

Now if you asked the average person on the street what the difference between the price of a product and the cost of the product they would think there is no difference and maybe that is why we are so willing to buy so much cheaply made crap at stores like Wal-Mart.

However, the when we discuss cost we are talking about how much it will cost for the lifetime of the product. I having studied it recently but a few years ago the cost to maintain CNG buses was higher than the cost of diesel buses. However, as CNG buses have become more common the cost difference may be getting closer together.

Also for anyone who complains about the seats in UTA buses (I know there has to be some out there), I hope they get to ride the lovely anti-vandal seats in the LA Metro bus (its been several years since I been to Phoenix so I am not sure about the seats in those buses). I think the seats in the ex-San Jose UTDC cars are better than the ones Metro orders. I found them to be the most uncomfortable transit seat I have ever rode on and considering how many different transit systems and buses I have rode on over the years that is saying something.

Another annoying thing about LA Metro buses that will hopefully be deativated when the bus is here is the television monitors in the bus. Several of the buses I rode on in Los Angeles most recently had monitors that would broadcast commercials and general information about the transit system. Sorry, when I get on a transit bus or train I do not want to look at a stupid television monitor. Albertson's (the original Albertson's company) installed a ton of lcd's throughout their 5600 South and 900 East store at the checkouts and in the produce department. My response was to stop shopping at the location except in extreme emergencies.

Heck, I don't even watch the television at home for the most part. I have not had cable in 6 years (so long comcrap) and its been at least two months or more since I even bothered to sit down and watch something on television. I guess if your addicted to have the stupid television on then having the monitors on the buses are no big deal but to me I rather have peace on my transit ride.

The buses will only be here for two weeks and in service only one week so get a ride on them while you have the chance.

700 East Loses Service

Well it looks like the December service changes will have little effect on most riders. The Ski Bus service starts up again with some realignments but otherwise there is little change.

The biggest change will the the lost of bus stops along 700 East.

For many years during rush hours, buses traveling in the rush hour direction would run as limiteds from 900 South to 4500 South making stops only at signalized intersections. However the bus stops where never properly marked as which stops would be served and which ones where not which created confusion amoung riders and created a lost opportunity to create new riders.

Now instead of fixing the problems with the existing service, the UTA has made the unilateral decision just to cut all the non signalized bus stops along this route. So instead of making a bad situation better they decided to make it worst.

What would have been a better solution to the problem was to make one of the 3 routes that service 700 East a local route and make the others limiteds. The 27 would have been the ideal candidate to make a local route while the 21, 32, and 44 should have all been made full time limited stop routes.

Once again UTA is looking at numbers and not considering their riders. They need to make the transit system friendly in order to capture the choice customers. The people making the decisions do not ride the bus enough to understand the needs of the riders. Too often they look at charts made by computers and do not understand why things are they way they are. There needs to be a change of thinking to improve the UTA.

No Surcharge Until June

Image via WikipediaWell it looks like the riders of the UTA are getting a reprieve from the fuel surcharge that the UTA proposed putting into effect on December 1. It turns out that the agreements for some of the special passes that UTA has would not allow them to put on a fuel charge.

But rest assured the UTA does plane to put the fuel charge in effect in June when the existing agreements end and new agreements can be worked out.

At the UTA board meeting on Wednesday 10 advocates for the poor protested the surcharge but that had little bearing on the decision by the UTA.

It was interesting that one of the board members pointed out that the surcharge will not be charged on paratransit service. This is despite the fact that paratransit service is the mostly costly of all bus services and truly is not a transit service but instead a taxi service.

Also some have complained that the surcharge will also be on TRAX despite the fact that TRAX does not use electricity.

It looks like 2006 still will not be a good year for the riders of the UTA. January 1st brings in the already approved fare increase (wasn't the fare increase to offset higher fuel prices?), then in April they will cut bus routes which they haven't announced what will be cut, then in June the fuel surcharge takes effect.

Its just enough to make choice customers make a choice back to their cars.