Subcommittee on Paratransit Research - AP060(1) Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:45 – 5:30 pm Washington Hilton, Morgan Room Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting 1. Attendance (Attachment A) 2. Agenda (Attachment B) 3. Welcome and Self-Introductions 4. Review/Approval of Minutes from the 2009 Annual Meeting The minutes, posted on the Committee website, were approved. 5. Call for Papers and Paper Review • 21 papers, good number for 2010, half were technical that may be of limited value to practitioners. Richard DeRock suggested offering criteria on desired papers. Some of the models weren’t corresponding to operational realities. Analysis needs to be based on empirical data, rather than theoretical. Patti Post asked whether practitioners with research needs can be matched to academics in search of a topic? Problem Statement submittals tend to be bigger than TRB paper submittals and more universal. Rosemary Gerty: a similar effort occurred in 2004 for a Call for Projects, but without the extra step of laying out parameters. Local agencies can supply data, but should also be offering a problem description. Where a close working relationship exists with an operator, work with the operator to identify the problem or develop the strategy to be tested, and have the operator validate the conclusions. How quickly can a Call for Papers be issued? Can this be a multi-year Call for Papers - e.g. 2011/2012, or call for staged research where the first phase is the research and the 2nd stage is the analysis? The second example could result in two published papers. Also, when a paper on a locality is up for review, someone from the locality should assist in reviewing. Perhaps professors should be allowed to pitch an idea to the Research Subcommittee? • Sunday Workshops - the afternoon had a practitioner focus which was very well received. One suggestion for next year’s workshop would be Accessibility Issues, Canadian approach vs. U.S. approach. Next year’s Annual Meeting theme concerns Livability, which includes a focus of pedestrian pathways and aging-in-place - perhaps a workshop can come from that, with a nexus to paratransit? Other ideas: paratransit vehicles. The paratransit vehicle market is a mess - no full-size GM chassis, no Ford engine, minivans have little support and availability (just Chrysler now) and don’t make Buy America, Mercedes Sprinters don’t make Buy America, Internationals are too big, and prices have gone through the roof. FTA tried to have a forum on desired features - but the paratransit market is too small to support a chassis model. Manufacturers would have to be involved. Standard Taxi might be applicable, but capacity might not meet human service transportation needs.

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 1

Research on the Quality of Life for mobility-impaired people in high-rise communities (Transit Oriented Developments) as compared to suburbians might be useful. This might include the Connecting Communities effort. This may make a better research topic. ESPA may be interested in participating in an effort on this topic. A related topic is creating accessible pathways - curb cuts, accessible stops, etc. - to draw riders from paratransit to fixed route transit. Tampa, WMATA, Pittsburgh, LINK, Austin Metro and Los Angeles have done work in this area. Funds spent on these public works projects build relationships, increase assess to fixed-route and independence, and can reduce paratransit operating costs. Participants from around the country can speak to the role of paratransit in this effort. Linkage with the Accessibility Committee would be appropriate. LINK’s plan, as paratransit demand from those with disabilities drops, is to offer general public DAR service in neighborhoods that can’t support fixed route. Another subject: Successes in Mobility Management. Several regions are looking for models. The issue is still new and important, links with fixed route transit. Mobility Management is provided very differently with varying circumstances. A TOD workshop may be appropriate to determine increases in mobility. Call for papers to reduce paratransit expenditures without reducing overall mobility presentations at a workshop? Transferability would be a criterion for selection. A project may be selected for further research. The ultimate objective is to reduce overall costs. Consensus seemed to be that the workshop will focus on the general topic of improving access through infrastructure and community development improvements, which in turn can decrease reliance on paratransit. This is a broad topic which generally fits under next year’s theme of livability. 6. Synthesis Topics Options discussed: • Curb-to-Curb vs. Door-to-Door - focus on implementation of Origin-Destination trips? Is best practice all Door-to-Door or selective? Sue Clark volunteered Russ Thatcher and Ron Brooks to work with her on this project. • Best Manufacturer practices for small vehicles. This has been attempted by APTA before. Perhaps a world-wide synthesis on paratransit vehicles would be appropriate with an eye towards Buy America exemptions, combined with domestic operator’s strategies to cope with the unavailability of suitable vehicle replacements. An APTA project with FTA participation would yield quicker results than a synthesis project - and the problem is immediate. Tammy Haeftling from DART or Rob Padgett at APTA may be the best people to carry this effort forward as a Quick Study Request. Perhaps the initial project should identify the crisis, with an eye to foreign vehicles being a solution offered later. Rob will be consulted and would then consult with Dianne Schwager.

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 2

7. Research Problem Statements Considerable discussion on the TOPS selection process. Options for research problem statements discussed: • Curb-to-Curb vs. Door-to-Door - focus on cost implications and cost-effectiveness. Assess liability implications as well as driver time. Assess implications of client subgroups - market segmentation by eligibility category. Can’t have the same title as a synthesis proposal. The justification for a Research Project must be clear - otherwise TOPS Committee members will ask whether a State of the Practice Synthesis study would be sufficient, especially with a popular topic idea. Would a solid synthesis pave the way for a successful Research Problem statement submittal? TRB staff is divided among those who do syntheses vs. problem research. Some problem statements have arisen from synthesis projects (as the first third of the research). The FTA Origin to Destination requirement generalizes these questions to curb-to-curb ADA paratransit providers. FTA might make a definitive ruling before the research project can be completed. Richard DeRock and Steve Yaffe can work on this one. Same Day vs. Next Day also has different cost implications - though ADA requires Next Day. While Same Day increases trip requests, it nearly eliminates cancellations and no-shows. • Research on the Quality of Life for mobility-impaired people in high-rise communities (Transit Oriented Developments) as compared to suburbians might be useful. This might include the Connecting Communities effort. Combining an accessible pathways project would be germane. Do enough examples exist for a study? Will Rodman suggests nominating exemplar properties. Richard DeRock offers Wenatchee as an example. Arlington’s R-B corridor may be an example. Maryland MTA performed a similar project on state roads. Pittsburgh had a similar cooperative project with public works to use frequent paratransit rides to prioritize accessible pathway improvements. This would be a multi-year project. One phase would be to identify candidate communities - a Source & Method Demonstration Project? Call for Papers to identify places that have done this? Consensus - save this Problem Statement until after a workshop on the topic. 8. Other Business • TCRP - Dianne Schwager of TRB distributed a sheet showing the status of current TCRP projects and the new problem statements. Panel names are still being accepted through this week. • July 2009 NCHRP Writing Research Problem Statements webinar was very informative. Dave Ripplinger distributed a one-pager: “How to Write an Effective Research Statement”. Always good to partner with APTA Access Committee or other appropriate outside groups such as ESPA (and note that). i. Keep the title brief ii. Brand the proposal iii. Quantify the problem iv. Estimate the benefits in terms of time, $ and lives saved v. Nationalize the problem (examples) vi. Define the expected product

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 3

vii. Use real #s viii. Provide detail only when necessary ix. Refer to and differentiate from the existing body of knowledge. If the work is related, list it and specify the relationship. x. Accuracy in project cost estimates is important. xi. (David Knight): Indicate which FTA office would be concerned with the research project, as per the FTA and TRB strategic plan. Synthesis Projects are in a different decision track. http:/www.trb.org/researchfunding/public/researchfunding.aspx 9. Meeting Adjourned at 5:40

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 4

Attachment A Attendance at the Meeting Richard Andrews, University of Oklahoma David Chia, Planners collaborative, Inc. Sue Clark, FTA Office of Civil Rights Cornald Cunningham, Majestic Transportation Richard DeRock, Link Transit Marie-Christine Desharnais, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Lisa Dirks, Urban Transportation Center Buffy Ellis, KFH Group Penny Everline, Easter Seals Project ACTION Rosemary Gerty, TranSystems David Knight, US Department of Justice Heather Menninger, AMMA Transit Planning Hal Morgan, TLPA Patti Post, Patti Post & Associates David Ripplinger, Small Urban & Rural Transit Center David Rishel, Delta Services Group, Inc. Will Rodman, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates Dianne Schwager, TRB Steve Yaffe, Arlington County Dept. of Environmental Services

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 5

Attachment B

Subcommittee on Paratransit Research - AP060(1) Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:45 – 5:30 pm Washington Hilton, Morgan Room AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Welcome and Self-Introductions 3. Review/Approval of Minutes from 2009 Annual Meeting 4. Call for Papers and Paper Review for 2009 Annual Meeting A. Papers received in recent years: 2004 Annual Meeting – 23 papers, with 92 reviews, by 41 reviewers 2005 Annual Meeting – 15 papers, with 56 reviews, by 34 reviewers 2006 annual Meeting – 14 papers, with 65 reviews, by 37 reviewers 2007 Annual Meeting – 14 papers received, with 2 “repeats”; 60 reviews, by 37 reviewers 2008 Annual Meeting – 12 papers, with 54 reviews, by 38 reviewers 2009 Annual Meeting – 12 papers, with 57 reviews. 2010 Annual Meeting – 21 papers, with 81 reviews, 44 reviewers B. Trends in papers received. 5. Sunday Workshop A. Past workshops 2003 – Reviewing Research Papers 2004 – Researchable Topics 2005 – Paratransit Related Research 2006 – International Paratransit 2007 – Results of TCRP Project B-28 – ADA Paratransit Demand Estimation 2008 – Using Taxis Effectively in Paratransit Services 2009 – Emergency Planning: Role of Paratransit 2010 – Accessible Taxis B. 2011 workshop

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 6

6. Synthesis Topics TRB undertakes a series of studies to search out and synthesize useful knowledge from all available sources and to prepare documented reports on current practices in the subject areas of concern. Reports from this endeavor constitute the TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice. Seven topics selected for current year. 7. Research Problem Statements Development of Research Problem Statements is intended to meet the objective of stimulating research, one of the functions of the Committee. Research Problem Statements due June 15th. Nine projects selected for this year. A. Recently published TRCP reports of interest: • Report 136 - Guidebook for Rural Demand-Response Transportation: Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance • Report 129: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms for Public Transportation B. TCRP Problem Statements of interest for this year: • A-37 Paratransit Emergency Operations and Preparedness Handbook • A-15C Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition C. Research needs and plan for developing Problem Statements 8. Other Business A. TRB webinar on Writing Research Problem Statements B. Other new business 9. Adjourn

TRB Annual Meeting 2010

Page 7