RTC FIVE-YEAR PARATRANSIT PLAN. Executive Summary

Transcription

1 RTC FIVE-YEAR PARATRANSIT PLAN Executive Summary September 2013

2 Transit was the most frequently identified transportation need during the RTC s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan community outreach effort. It is recognized as an essential part of the local economy that helps thousands of Washoe County residents get to work and access essential services each day. The community expressed a clear message and support of the need to plan, build and operate transit services in the urban core as well as focus on seniors in outlying areas. Although strong public support was expressed to expand transit services, financial projections indicate that RTC will struggle to maintain existing service as fuel and other operating costs continue to rise. In addition, the aging of the population will generate a significant increase in demand for RTC ACCESS service over the next 20 years. Current financial projections call for RTC to reduce RTC RIDE and ACCESS transit services in 2016 if no additional funding sources are available. RTC recognizes that ACCESS clients are seniors and people with disabilities, many of whom are entirely dependent on the service for their mobility needs. Measures can be taken to delay service reductions and enable clients to make other mobility arrangements. RTC has been working with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates to look at possible strategies to address the mobility needs of this population in the context of budget shortfalls and increased demand. This summary consists of: An overview of ACCESS Trends in ADA and non-ada ACCESS trips How ACCESS service compares to ADA requirements A review of ACCESS performance standards A review of the ACCESS eligibility process Analysis of ten policy and service options to help address financial challenges OVERVIEW OF RTC ACCESS ACCESS is RTC s paratransit service for people with disabilities intended to comply with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA requires operators of fixedroute transit service like RTC to provide a demand-responsive service, called complementary paratransit, for people who are prevented by a disability from riding the fixed-route service for some or all of their desired trips. Complementary means that it is intended to complete the transit system, by making it usable by people with disabilities who still cannot use it even with fixed-route accessibility features such as lifts, ramps, and stop call-outs. ADA sets out certain minimum requirements for complementary paratransit, including: Eligibility screening based on ability to use fixed-route transit Operation to and from all points within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed route whenever the fixed-route service is operating No prioritization of trips based on trip purpose Reservations taken at least any time during normal business hours the day before the trip is to be taken No capacity constraints such as trip limits, wait lists, excessive lateness, excessively long trips, or long hold times when calling to make reservations Fares no more than twice the basic adult fixed-route fare

3 ACCESS is currently provided by First Transit and Reno-Sparks Cab under contract to RTC. Service is provided by First Transit from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day. From 8 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., trips are provided by Reno-Sparks Cab. Eligibility screening is provided by The Continuum under another contract with RTC. The service is operated out of an RTC-owned facility with a fleet of 50 RTC-owned, body-onchassis, lift-equipped, CNG-powered vehicles that can carry ten seated passengers or four passengers in wheelchairs or various combinations of those. The taxi company operates a mixed fleet of sedans and minivans, five of which are wheelchair accessible, all of which provide general taxi service as well as ACCESS service. ACCESS provides 24-hour service in all areas within three-quarters of a mile of RTC RIDE routes. This service is considered ADA service and is available without limitations to eligible riders. ACCESS also provides non-ada service in a much larger area covering 153 square miles. This non-ada service is available on a space-available basis. It is largely funded by the non-profit Citicare Foundation. TRENDS RTC ACCESS ridership declined during the recession, but has been growing since late RTC is obligated by ADA to serve all qualifying trips within the ADA service area. However, due to budget constraints, it has been necessary to limit the number of non-ada trips. As a result, the number of non-ada trips has been continuously falling, while the number of ADA trips, after the recession-period decline, has been growing at about 6.5% per year (Figure 1). At current trends, by early 2014, ADA trips will consume all ACCESS service, with no room for non-ada trips. Looking beyond early 2014, unless steps are taken to reduce cost or increase revenue, ACCESS ADA service will outstrip currently available funding, requiring cuts to fixed-route service to pay for it. Figure 1 ACCESS ADA and Non-ADA Trips 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ADA Trips = Total Trips 0 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2

4 RTC ACCESS SERVICE AND ADA REQUIREMENTS In addition to providing trips in a service area that exceeds ADA requirements, RTC ACCESS s ADA service goes beyond ADA requirements in several ways. The following table summarizes how ACCESS service compares to ADA requirements. Briefly ACCESS service goes beyond ADA requirements in the following areas: Eligibility: Riders are not screened for ability to use fixed-route transit for individual trips. Service area and hours: The service area exceeds ADA requirements at night and on weekends. Reservations: Reservations are taken further in advance than required and for longer hours each day. Fares: Fares are $1.00 lower than allowed. ADA Requirement Eligibility: Unable to use fixed-route transit for a particular trip due to a disability Service area and hours: Within ¾ mile of each RTC RIDE route when it is operating. Reservations: Any time during normal business hours one day in advance, and similar hours on weekends and holidays. Optionally, up to 14 days in advance. Fares: No more than twice the basic adult fixed-route fare for ADA riders and their companions. No charge for personal care attendants. No fare limit for non-required services. Trip purpose restrictions: Not allowed except for subscriptions and non-required services. Trip request denials: None allowed except in circumstances beyond the control of the operator. On-time performance: No substantial number of significantly untimely pickups for initial or return trips. Similar for dropoffs for appointments. RTC ACCESS Screening based on ability to use fixed-route transit in general, but no screening for individual trips. Exceeds requirements. 24-hour service within ¾ mile of all RTC RIDE routes. Matches ADA requirements exactly during peak periods on weekdays, but substantially exceeds ADA requirements at other times, especially late at night. Exceeds requirements. One to three days in advance from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. Exceeds requirements. $3 for ADA riders and companions could be up to $4. Attendants ride free as required. Non-required services (willcalls, trips in the non-ada area) cost double. Exceeds requirements. None except for subscriptions and will-calls. Meets requirements. No capacity denials of ADA trips. Meets requirements. Standard is 95% of pickups and dropoffs within a 30-minute on-time window. The standard is met for pickups, but there may be numerous dropoffs more than 30 minutes early. Standards meet requirements. Dropoff performance may need improvement. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3

5 ADA Requirement Missed trips: No substantial number of missed trips by the operator, including any time the vehicle arrives late and no trip occurs. Ride times: No substantial number of trips with excessive trip lengths (more than fixedroute travel time, including walk to/from bus stop and waiting). Telephone access: Difficulty reaching an agent should not create a barrier to obtaining service. Generally based on hold times. Subscription service: Not required Shopper service: Not required Will-calls: Not required RTC ACCESS RTC has a standard for very late trips but not for missed trips as defined by FTA. Performance using the FTA definition is not measured, but appears to meet requirements based on analysis of a limited sample of days. Standard: maximum ride time is the fixed-route travel time for the same trip plus 20 minutes for ADA trips and 60 minutes for non-ada trips. Performance is not measured but appears to meet requirements based on analysis of a limited sample of days. Standard: Average initial hold time for reservations no greater than 1.0 minutes. No call should hold longer than 6.0 minutes. Actual average hold is much less than 1.0 minute, but hold times over 6.0 minutes occur about once a day. Meets requirements. Subscriptions are provided when mutually convenient for the rider and ACCESS. Meets requirements. Provided probably more efficient than ADA service. Provided for medical return trips at twice the regular fare. Avoids wasted vehicle trips for customers who are not ready. USE OF TAXICABS RTC contracts with a taxicab company, currently Reno Sparks Cab, to provide RTC ACCESS service from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. every day and to provide backup or overflow service at other times. All reservations are taken by the principal ACCESS contractor, First Transit, using the Trapeze scheduling system. During the night and early morning hours when taxis are used, trip volume is light (Figure 2 on the next page), so taxis are less expensive than large vans would be at these times, since the light volume of trips, spread over a large area, would not make good use of van capacity, resulting in a high cost per trip. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 4

6 Figure 2 Van and Taxi Trips by Time of Day (November 2012) Trips per Weekday Van Trips Taxi Trips Hour of the Day PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RTC has a notably comprehensive system of performance measures and standards that it uses to measure overall system efficiency and contractor performance. Measuring efficiency in terms of operating cost per passenger-trip, ACCESS is about at the median level of a group of eight peer of roughly similar size. Measured in terms of passengers per revenue vehicle hour, ACCESS is well above the median. (Figure 3.) Figure 3 ACCESS Efficiency Compared to Peers Spokane, WA Salem, OR Seaside-Monterey, CA Anchorage, AK Reno, NV Concord, CA Savannah, GA Santa Cruz. CA Operating Cost per Passenger Savannah, GA Seaside-Monterey, CA Salem, OR Concord, CA Anchorage, AK Reno, NV Santa Cruz. CA Spokane, WA Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour $- $20 $40 $ Source: National Transit Database for Fiscal Year 2010 RTC s system of standards for contractor operations and passenger service is more comprehensive than used at many other systems of similar size. Standards of this type are essential for maintaining ADA compliance. The contract with First Transit takes advantage of grant funds to provide opportunities for the contractor to earn bonuses for exceeding the standards, which it does in several areas. Current standards are summarized in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5

7 Figure 4 ACCESS Operational Standards Operational Standards RTC Van Goal RTC Taxi Goal Remarks Weekday Passengers / RVH* 2.72 None Appropriate. Better than most. Weekend and Holiday Passengers / RVH* Preventable Collision Accidents per 100,000 RVM* Preventable Passenger Accidents per 100,000 RVM* Miles between Mechanical Road Calls Percent of Preventive Maintenance Inspections Performed On-time 2.10 None ,000 10, % 100% *RVH=Revenue Vehicle Hour; RVM=Revenue Vehicle Mile Figure 5 ACCESS Passenger Service Standards Passenger Service Standards On-time Pick-ups (% of all Passenger Trips within 30-minute window) On-time Drop-offs (% of all Passenger Appointment Drop-offs within 30- minute window) Customer Complaints per 1,000 Passengers Average Telephone Hold Time (minutes) RTC Van Goal RTC Taxi Goal 95% 96% Appropriate 95% None Average 1.0 min. 0 calls >6 mins. Not Applicable No Shows (% of all Passenger Trips) 2.5% None Appropriate. Others do not have a standard Actual performance is better, leading to frequent contractor bonuses. Many others have no standard Actual performance is better, leading to frequent contractor bonuses. Many others have no standard. Standard is higher than other systems. Actual performance is even better. Appropriate. Others have no standard. Remarks Appropriate but performance may need attention. Stricter than other systems. that have a standard. Even lower actual complaint rate leads to large bonuses. Actual average about 35 secs., which is appropriate for ADA. Appropriate. Contractor is able to earn bonuses. THE ELIGIBILITY PROCESS RTC s ADA paratransit eligibility certification program is based on in-person assessments of all applicants, which has become standard practice at most large transit systems in the U.S., and many medium size systems that are RTC peers. Since January 2007, eligibility screening has Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6

8 been conducted by The Continuum, a community-based intergenerational health and wellness center serving clients of all ages in the Reno area. Although The Continuum conducts the screenings, RTC staff make the final determinations of ADA paratransit eligibility. RTC concluded a new contract with The Continuum effective in April 2013 for an additional two to four years. Generally, the number of applications approved has been declining over time (Figure 6), as the process has made more use of in-person screening. At the same time, the portion of applications denied has fallen to near zero. A low eligibility denial rate can result from applicants being advised ahead of time about the nature of the process and the requirements for eligibility. But a rate that is effectively zero is cause for concern and may indicate that some people who could use RTC RIDE for some or all of their trips are being certified as eligible for ACCESS without restriction. Other systems that conduct in-person screening of all applicants give conditional eligibility to 15% to 30% of applicants, meaning that they are eligible for paratransit for some trips but not others. The process in use for ACCESS assigns conditional eligibility to just 1.8% of applicants. RTC would have to strengthen this process before it could begin screening trip requests to determine if the customer is eligible for the particular trip being requested. Enhancements can be made to the current eligibility process, likely within the contractor s existing scope of work and within the process as described in the RTC ACCESS Rider s Guide, that would make it more accurate and allow for effective use of conditional eligibility. Figure 6 Trends in Eligibility Applications 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Applications Approved Applications Denied POLICY AND SERVICE OPTIONS An analysis was made of possible changes to RTC ACCESS policies and operating methods that have the potential to help maintain service that complies with ADA requirements without diversion of resources from fixed-route transit. The options are summarized in Figure 7, with a rough measure of financial impact and impact on riders. Following that is a short analysis of each option. The options are presented in an order that attempts to place first those options that have positive financial impacts and either neutral or positive impacts on riders, also taking account of implementation issues. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 7

9 Figure 7 Summary of Policy and Service Options Option Financial Impact Impact on Riders 1. Implement more rigorous eligibility screening process «««= 2. Implement trip eligibility screening ««= 3. Adjust the fleet mix to include smaller vehicles ««= 4. Switch service to taxicabs at 5:00 p.m. Instead of 8:00 p.m. «= 5. Share transportation resources with social service agencies ««+ 6. Replace tickets with pre-paid fare accounts Neutral + 7. Eliminate all ACCESS service in the non-ada service area ««8. Serve only the ADA required area at each time of day «««9. Raise fares to ADA maximum for: a) All trips: b) Trips over 4 miles only: c) Peak-period trips only: «««««««10. Work with social service agencies to share the cost of access trips To be determined To be determined 11. Provide replacement service in non-ada areas Added cost + Financial Impacts: «««High: potential for 7 to 10 percent reduction in operating cost ««Medium: potential for 2 to 6 percent reduction in operating cost «Low: potential for 1 percent or less reduction in operating cost Impacts on Riders: + Positive: potential to improve the mobility of people with disabilities = Neutral: no significant impact on the mobility of people with disabilities, or a mixed impact Negative: potential to reduce the mobility of people with disabilities. 1. Implement a More Rigorous Eligibility Screening Process There is room to enhance the current eligibility process to ensure that eligibility outcomes are more consistent with industry standards for in-person eligibility assessments. No change would likely be needed to the eligibility contractor s scope of work or the description of the process in the current RTC ACCESS Rider s Guide. Changes would include a greater proportion of functional assessments (rather than just interviews) and more time allocated to the actual conduct of interviews (excluding administrative overhead time). These steps will result in significant cost savings. Eligibility denials, which are currently virtually non-existent, and the increase in conditional eligibility determinations will change the public s perception of the process as being a virtual rubber stamp process in which almost everyone receives full eligibility. A reduction in application volumes of between 3% and 5% can be anticipated, or at least a slowing down in application volume increases. These application reductions will in turn result in fewer trips than would otherwise be provided given current trends. While a significant Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 8

10 reduction in applications already occurred when 100% in-person assessments were introduced in 2006, it is anticipated that there will be an additional, though much smaller, reduction as perception of the increased accuracy of the screening process changes. Pros: A more accurate eligibility process will ensure that ACCESS service is available for those people and trips that ADA requires be served. Cons: A period of adjustment will be required for the public to understand the changes and for those whose trip patterns are affected are able to make alternative arrangements. Estimated Annual Savings: $140,000 to $220,000, based on a 3% to 5% reduction in ridership. Implementation: Additional staff training and establishing modified procedures could take up to a year for full implementation. 2. Implement Trip Eligibility Screening ADA eligibility screening would be applied to each trip request from individuals with conditional eligibility as determined in their ADA eligibility application process. The trip screening would determine whether the customer was prevented by a disability from making each particular requested trip, based on the person s disability and the condition of sidewalks, street crossings, and similar features between bus stops and their starting and ending points. Pros: A 5% to 7% reduction in trip volumes could result from routine implementation of trip screening, freeing up resources to serve additional demands for ADA-eligible trips. Cons: Staff time would be required for reservationists or others to screen the trips and, in some cases, to determine conditions near bus stops and between bus stops and customers starting and ending points. Estimated annual savings: $220,000 to $325,000 based on a 5% to 7% reduction in trips. Implementation: Time would be needed to enhance the eligibility process so that it can accurately determine conditions of eligibility and to build up a pool of customers with conditional eligibility. The eligibility contractor could begin making conditional eligibility determinations with a year. Implementation on a significant scale would require two to three years. 3. Adjust the Fleet Mix to Include Smaller Vehicles Analysis of passenger loads on the current ACCESS fleet indicates that RTC could replace 30% to 40% of the current fleet with sedans or minivans. Potential cost savings would come mainly from reduced operating and maintenance costs of smaller vehicles. There would also be some capital cost savings as the smaller vehicles are less expensive than the cutaway buses. To be conservative, only the capital cost savings and savings from fuel usage have been estimated. Pros: RTC would conserve resources that would help to preserve service. Service could become more efficient with faster operation, including faster boarding and alighting, access to neighborhood streets and to locations not easily navigable by larger vans. Cons: Scheduling trips would become more complicated due to limited wheelchair spaces and fewer seats on the smaller vehicles. There is uncertain availability of appropriate vehicles that operate on CNG fuel. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 9

11 Estimated annual savings: Variable amounts per year, averaging $195,000 reduced capital cost for buying replacement vehicles; minimal fuel cost savings due to the low price of CNG fuel; likely but unknown maintenance cost savings. Implementation: Vehicle acquisition would depend on the schedule for retirement and replacement of the current fleet. In addition RTC would need to explore whether appropriate vehicles are available and test their characteristics for use in ACCESS service. It would be necessary to experiment with adjustments to scheduling software. Phasing in of smaller vehicles could begin in about two years. 4. Switch Service to Taxicabs at 5:00 p.m. Instead of 8:00 p.m. Demand is low enough from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. that taxis might be more cost effective than current van service during those hours. Pros: RTC would conserve resources that would help to preserve service. Cons: About 700 more trips per month, involving more clients, would be made on taxicabs, requiring the ACCESS contractor to coordinate with the taxicab provider and requiring customers to deal with two different providers. Estimated annual savings: $37,000. Implementation: Time would be needed for changes to the taxi provider scope of work, for public outreach, and for the taxi provider to make adjustments to its operations. These could be accomplished within one to two years. (The current night taxi contract expires June 30, 2014.) 5. Share Transportation Resources with Social Service Agencies There may be social service agencies in the RTC service area that current receive ACCESS service but would prefer to transport their own clients, in exchange for financial or other support from RTC. RTC would work with social service agencies in the area to provide emergency road service, vehicle maintenance and repairs, driver training, and technical assistance. RTC would also help with vehicles, either in the form of retired ACCESS vehicles or assistance with obtaining grant funding. In return, agencies would agree to provide a minimum number of rides to ACCESS users each month. For those committing to a higher level of rides, RTC would provide a small operating grant annually to offset the cost of insurance, fuel, and administration. Rides would be requested through the individual programs. Agencies would provide the drivers and comprehensive, collision and liability insurance. Pros: The agencies could provide service to their clients at much less expense than RTC s expense for serving these same trips. The agencies could have more control over their clients transportation schedules, greater ability to coordination transportation and care schedules, more personal contact with the clients, and the ability to devote a portion of the service to clients who live beyond the ADA service area. The agencies would benefit from some of the services that RTC could provide, such as maintenance, driver training, shared insurance costs etc. Cons: Additional coordination and resources, including arranging for vehicles, are required to implement this recommendation. There is some risk that few or no agencies would be interested. Estimated annual savings: $160,000 assuming 10% of current ACCESS trips transition to agency-provided service. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 10

12 Implementation: Time would be needed to identify agencies and work out arrangements, including access to vehicles. Implementation could take two to three years. 6. Replace Tickets with Pre-paid Fare Accounts Currently all ACCESS fares are paid using paper tickets purchased at more than 25 outlets, by mail, or on the RTC website. Tickets have some advantages compared to cash, but some clients cannot handle tickets; customers need to keep track of their tickets supply and purchase more, allowing time for delivery or buy tickets in person; tickets can get lost; drivers are still placed in a position of having to enforce fare payment; and RTC incurs expense to print, distribute, securely store, count, and reconcile tickets. Instead of tickets, RTC could transition to a system of pre-paid accounts. Clients, their caregivers, or agency sponsors would still pay in advance, but would not receive or need to pick up and keep track of tickets. Instead, the payments would be recorded in an electronic account. The Trapeze scheduling software used for ACCESS already includes electronic accounts. Each time a client reserves a trip, the reservationist would check the account balance to confirm that funds are available to pay for that trip. Once the reservation is confirmed, the account would be debited for the appropriate fare. If the trip is later cancelled, the fare would be credited back to the account. Pros: Pre-paid accounts are more convenient for customers and for RTC than tickets. Customers with severe disabilities do not need to handle tickets, drivers are completely removed from enforcing fare payment, and there is no opportunity to lose tickets. RTC would have more flexibility for establishing new fare structures and for third-party sponsorship of rides. Cons: Some staff time would be needed to process payments and to verify balances during the reservations process. There may be upfront costs if a more automated payment system is desired, but RTC would save on the cost of printing, distributing, counting, and reconciling tickets. Estimated Annual Cost Savings: Probably cost neutral. Implementation: Pre-paid accounts could probably be introduced as an option for frequent riders in about a year. Full implementation for all riders would take two to three years. 7. Eliminate All ACCESS Service in the Non-ADA Service Area ACCESS provides roughly 700 non-ada trips per month, which amounts to about 3.6% of total service. These are trips by ADA-eligible individuals that go to or from locations beyond the three-quarter mile boundary around RTC RIDE routes. Most of these trips are being taken by about 25 people who make repeat trips. Pros: By eliminating longer, more expensive trips, RTC can concentrate on meeting requests within the federally-required ADA areas. Cons: Even though non-ada service is used by a small group of people, the fact that these individuals clearly depend on the service for repeated trips means that the impact of eliminating the service on those individuals could be severe. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 11

13 Estimated annual savings: $187,000, largely by CitiCare. CitiCare currently funds all non-ada trips, so it may be possible for them to redirect the funds to provide either taxicab or replacement services in the non-ada areas. Implementation: Could be implemented within a year, allowing time for current non- ADA riders to make alternative arrangements, and time for CitiCare to consider options for use of its funds. 8. Serve Only the ADA Required Area at Each Time of Day ADA paratransit is only required at times when there are RTC RIDE routes actually in service within three-quarters of a mile of the pick-up location and the drop-off location. RTC could establish three ACCESS service areas based on RTC RIDE service at different times of the day: 1) a maximum ACCESS service area, in effect during daytime and early evening hours; 2) an intermediate ACCESS service area, in effect later in the evening; and 3) a 24-hour minimum ACCESS service area, in effect late at night. Pros: A smaller service area during different times of the day would allow RTC to concentrate on serving required ADA trips and operate more efficiently. Cons: About 8% of client trips, roughly 1,600 trips per month (not counting attendants and companions), made by 104 clients would no longer be available. Estimated annual savings: $408,000. Implementation: Time would be needing to make adjustments to the scheduling software, as well as to explain changes to clients and give them time to seek other arrangements. This option could be implemented in one to two years. 9. Raise Fares The current ACCESS fare of $3.00 for ADA-required service is $1.00 lower than the maximum permitted by ADA. Three options were analyzed: raise all trip fares, raise fares for all trips over four miles, and raise peak-period trip fares. Pros: Any fare increase would increase revenue and reduce costs due to a drop in ridership. Cons: A fare increase would present a hardship for passengers, many with very low incomes and no other transportation options, and limit their access to critical services. An increase limited to peak-hours or long trips would present implementation challenges. Estimated annual revenue and savings: $585,429 for all trips; $256,019 for trips over four miles; and$197,233 for peak-period trips. Implementation: Required steps would include public hearings and distribution of higher-value tickets (if tickets are still used). While these steps could be accomplished within a year, it may be desirable to postpone any fare increase until other cost saving options have been exhausted. 10. Work with Social Service Agencies to Share the Cost of ACCESS Trips RTC would explore arrangements with agencies that depend on their clients arriving within a narrow window for their programs to pay a proportion of the actual cost of the trip (as opposed Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 12

14 to the fare) in exchange for premium service. Examples of these agencies are Medicaid-funded adult day health programs and dialysis clinics. Pros: Cost sharing agreements will decrease RTC s net operating costs and continue to provide a guaranteed arrival time window for the clients. Cons: Cost sharing agreements are difficult to achieve with agencies that have already benefited from paying no more than the fare (or nothing) for premium trips. Estimated annual savings: More analysis are is required to determine the number of trips that could be candidates for cost sharing. Implementation: Depends on the response of agencies. 11. Provide Replacement Service in Non-ADA Areas Over the years, the availability of ACCESS service in the non-ada service area has become more and more limited. It may be possible to establish some more sustainable type of service for certain areas. Such service would not be purely demand-responsive like ADA paratransit, but would involve some elements of regularly scheduled service and could potentially be available to anyone, not just people with disabilities. These services are commonly termed flexible transit services. Because they would be offered in areas where paratransit service was no longer operated, they are referred to here as replacement services. Four candidate areas for replacement service were identified based on public input, examination of non-ada trips currently provided by ACCESS, and review of demographics and development patterns. The candidate areas are: Cold Springs, north of U.S. Route 395 near the Nevada-California border Northern Lemmon Valley Spanish Springs Northeast Sparks The cost of the replacement services would depend on the hours and days that they operated. One possible schedule is as follows: Days of operation: three days per week for each of four services Hours of operation: 7:00 AM 12:00 noon, 1:00 PM 4:00 PM (eight hours per day) With this schedule, replacement service would cost about $224,000 for each area. Without any additional funds, RTC will not be able to provide the replacement service. Summary of Options and Impacts The analysis of the options is summarized in Figure 8. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 13

15 Figure 8 Summary of Policy and Service Options Option Implement more rigorous eligibility screening Estimated Annual Savings Impact on Riders $140,000 to $220,000 3% to 5% reduction in trips due to reduced application volumes Implement trip eligibility screening $220,000 to $325,000 5% to 7% of current trips would no longer be eligible Adjust the fleet mix to include smaller vehicles Switch service to taxicabs at 5:00 p.m. Instead of 8:00 p.m. Share transportation resources with social service agencies Replace tickets with pre-paid fare accounts Eliminate all ACCESS service in the non-ada service area Serve only the ADA required area at each time of day Raise fares to ADA maximum for: a) All trips: b) Trips over 4 miles only: c) Peak-period trips only: Work with social service agencies to share the cost of access trips Provide replacement service in non-ada areas Average $195,000 in capital costs Some risk of scheduling error, assigning a nonaccessible vehicle to a rider who needs a lift or ramp $37,000 About 700 trips per month would be made on taxicabs instead of vans. $160,000 More convenient service for agency clients Cost neutral Increased convenience $187, trips per month, mostly by about 25 repeat riders $408,000 1,600 trips per month (not counting attendants and companions), made by 104 clients $585,429 $256,019 $197,233 To be determined Added cost of $224,000 in each service area Higher fares for very low-income clients making 100% of trips 40% of trips 31% of trips Some agencies might pass on costs to riders Sustainable service in areas where ACCESS service would be eliminated Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 14