Posts about Paratransit

MetroAccess is saddled with a poor customer service record. At a town hall meeting this past October, MetroAccess customers complained about poor treatment by drivers and call dispatchers, poor routing, long waits for pick up and drop off, and vehicle breakdowns. On a couple of occasions, clients of Iona Senior Services' Alzheimer's Day Program were dropped off at the wrong location, and it took hours to locate them. WMATA can do better than this, and taxis could help.

MetroAccess head Christian Kent has crafted a plan to fix the quality of MetroAccess service. Instead of having one vendor bid on the whole package of services, as in the previous contract, the RFP lets vendors bid separately to run the call center, the fleet services, and quality assurance.

Most jurisdictions of similar size do the same. Experts I spoke to feel that this is the best approach, especially having a different vendor handle quality assurance from the one(s) actually running the service.

But one piece of the plan does not make sense: decreasing taxi use from 20%, as specified in the old contract, to only 5%.

Research (cited at bottom) is clear that taxi paratransit services can be less costly than standard ADA paratransit:

• In 2005, Arlington County's taxi paratransit cost $20.50 per trip, versus $35 for WMATA.
• San Francisco's taxi paratransit costs $15-$18, versus $40 for Muni paratransit.
• Houston's ADA taxi service per hour is $32.10, versus $42.65 for paratransit van service.
• 50% of jurisdictions surveyed reported taxis saved money for transit agencies.

Beyond cost savings, there are other advantages. The taxi system has more flexibility. Taxis are there when you need them, can handle a trip without needing to know the day ahead of time, often come quickly, and force riders to wait less. They provide a safety net for peak service times, and fill in gaps in coverage. And customers like the direct, exclusive ride.

There are also challenges with using taxis. Some try to defraud the transit service. It's hard to monitor it, and drivers don't have as much training as the van services. Christian Kent cites these as reasons to decrease the amount of taxi use in the system.

Nevertheless, Arlington paratransit manager Steve Yaffe makes a strong case for taxi use. His system uses taxis to provide 50% of its paratransit service. He has demonstrated that the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.

Yaffe said,

I recognize the difficulty in finding taxi vendors with sufficient internal controls and oversight over training, maintenance and accounting. Another difficulty with using taxis for this type of service is the dearth of jurisdictional reciprocity privileges for taxis being used to transport people with disabilities. However, new business models are being developed and have been implemented elsewhere to get around these obstacles and provide the necessary level of accountability and service oversight. The Metro Access RFP should not preclude the flexibility to increase future levels of taxi participation.

DC disability advocates testified at a January hearing on taxi service, chaired by Councilmember Mary Cheh (Ward 3), about the importance of providing more wheelchair-accessible taxis and drivers with training to serve those with disabilities. When I talked to Cheh about the possibility of the MetroAccess RFP reducing the use of taxis, she acknowledged that this appears to move in the wrong direction.

Instead of defining a percentage of taxi use for the system, WMATA should include specific quality standards for taxis. This will give all the jurisdictions the flexibility to improve quality, so that taxis can provide services for Metro Access users. This could lead to lower costs and better quality. 22 senior service providers in the District signed off on this recommendation. We hope Christian Kent listens.

Research citations:
Arndt, J. & Cherrington, L. (2007). The Role of Private-For-Hire Vehicles In Transit In Texas. Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
Burkhardt, J. (2010). Potential Cost Savings from taxi paratransit programs. Institute of Transport Studies (Monash). Social Research in Transport Clearinghouse.
Burkhardt, J., Doherty, J., Rubino, J., Westat, & Yum, J. (2008). A Survey On The Use of Taxis in Paratransit Programs. Easter Seals Project Action. Retrieved from www.projectaction.org
Chapman, Koffman, Pfeiffer, & Weiner (2010). Funding the Public Transportation Needs of an Aging Population. American Public Transportation Association.

According to the Post article, a survey conducted by students of George Mason University "found that one-third of participants said they took the shuttle for safety reasons" and that "twenty-five percent said they had difficulty walking, and nearly two-thirds said they do not own a car or do not drive." Consequently, designers of the Shuttle-Bug service believe that the service addressed unmet community needs.

In addition, the Arena Stage, which was closed during the Shuttle-Bug's period of operation, will re-open in October 2010. Arena Stage patrons who take Metro will need safe, reliable transportation from the Metro to Arena Stage and back again. Consequently, staff at Arena Stage also drafted a letter of support to continue the Shuttle-Bug service.

Shuttle-Bug ran on a fixed-route basis, complete with bus stop signs. If a rider with disabilities wanted a special drop-off that was safe, the driver would accommodate the request provided the drop-off was on the route.

Shuttle-Bug served the morning peak from 7-10 am, the evening peak starting at 4 pm, weeknights for after-work grocery shoppers and people who attended Blues Night on Monday or Jazz Night on Friday, and a Tuesday/Friday 10:30 am to 1:30 pm service that ran on a slightly larger route to serve another building with a high percentage of older adults.

The average number of rides per day on Shuttle-Bug ranged from 98 to 165, and the total number of rides provided since the program's inception was 44,055. According to SWAT, fare revenues were unnecessary because the cost to collect, handle, and secure the small amount of fare revenue would exceed the value of the fares collected.

How Shuttle-Bug Could Save DC Money

Since about twenty-five percent of Shuttle-Bug riders expressed having difficulty walking, it is likely that at least twenty-five percent qualify for MetroAccess service. MetroAccess service costs on average $38 per ride, whereas the average operating cost per ride on Shuttle-Bug was $4.98.

Now that the Shuttle-Bug service no longer exists, it is likely that those individuals who qualify for MetroAccess who rode Shuttle-Bug will go back to using the more costly MetroAccess service. As we know, MetroAccess is subsidized by the WMATA Compact jurisdictions including the District of Columbia. Clearly, $4.98 per ride is a bargain when compared to $38.

Even when you compare Shuttle-Bug to traditional fixed-route bus service, the cost differentials are striking. The cost per hour to operate Shuttle-Bug was only $60.11 due to there being no overhead costs. The current cost for WMATA to provide fixed-route bus service is $102.41 per hour. (Note: I provide this comparison only to show how much it would cost if WMATA provided the Shuttle-Bug service, and not to suggest that regional bus service is the same as a community shuttle.)

Shuttle-Bug was funded through a public-private partnership, with Waterfront Associates, LLC (the developers of Waterfront Station) and Fairfield Residential (the owner/developer of the View at Waterfront) funding 70% and the District of Columbia funding the remaining 30%. SWAT is presently requesting that the District of Columbia fund the Shuttle-Bug program for an additional year while they seek diversified funding.

One possible strategy to diversify funding would be to ask area businesses that benefited from the service (Safeway, CVS, etc.) to contribute to the service. However, achieving a new public-private partnership would take both time and a demonstrated financial commitment from the District of Columbia.

Shuttle-Bug riders and community residents have already submitted over 500 signed testimonials to continue the shuttle service. According to SWAT, this represents ten percent of the 5,000 households in the target area served by Shuttle-Bug.

Shuttle-Bug is a less expensive option for the District of Columbia in this neighborhood compared with traditional MetroAccess and Metrobus services. Of course, some will argue that Metrobus and Metrorail customers should just walk the four or so blocks to the Waterfront Metro station. Nevertheless, the potential for significant paratransit cost savings for local governments makes Shuttle-Bug an alternative transportation model worthy of further exploration in our region and beyond.

Stuart's high school transition coordinator referred him for travel training before he graduated. Stuart lives near the Pentagon City Metro with his parents, who also rely on public transportation. Before he learned how to ride transit on his own, Stuart had few independent transportation options.

Stuart was nervous when he first started learning how to ride the bus and train. "I was mainly worried about how I could find my way," he explained. But practicing taking transit with his travel trainer, Robyn Bernardy, made all the difference. "The more I do, the more I feel independence," he said. Stuart said he is now ready to be the guide for his mother when they take the train together.

Robyn provided regular one-on-one instruction to Stuart over a two-month timeframe. She was more hands-on at first, but gradually faded into the background allowing Stuart to take the lead and to become more confident.

Stuart learned one route at a time. He now knows how to get to and from multiple locations on his own including the Kennedy Center, where he plans to apply for an internship.

The ECNV travel training program helps people with disabilities and older adults learn to travel safely and independently using public transportation in the Washington area. It teaches travel skills including:

• Identifying transportation options
• Reading maps and schedules
• Planning the trip
• Buying and using fare cards
• Identifying the appropriate bus and/or train to ride
• Boarding, riding, and deboarding trains and buses
• Crossing the street
• Maintaining appropriate behavior
• Handling unexpected situations or problems

The ECNV travel training program is free to participants, and those who complete travel training receive a free reduced-fare SmarTrip card with $50 in fare. Free travel training for those living in Maryland and DC is also being provided by Independence Now, Inc. in Silver Spring, MD and by the District of Columbia Center for Independent Living.

Of course, travel training has its limits. Travel training will not take away the environmental barriers at some transit stops and stations or along the path of travel to those stops and stations. And not everyone who starts the travel training program will be able to develop the skills necessary to travel on their own. Some people with disabilities and some older adults will continue to need to use the paratransit service for some or all of their trips.

But for those individuals, like Stuart, who can learn how to use the fixed-route bus or rail for some or all of their trips, travel training increases independence and opportunities while reducing paratransit costs. And according to Stuart, "It's a blast!"

3. Continue to charge twice the bus fare for MetroAccess trips within the ¾ mile corridor of the fixed route. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), WMATA can charge no more than twice the fixed route fare for MetroAccess trips made within the ¾ mile service area surrounding the fixed route. WMATA calls this the "base fare." Sarles proposes keeping the MetroAccess base fare policy the same as it is now. How much the MetroAccess base fare increases will depend on how much the bus fare increases.

4. For trips outside the ¾ mile area, increase each of the zone fees by $1. According to the MetroAccess Customer Guide: "Any trip that begins or ends more than ¾ of a mile from the nearest bus stop or is more than 1 ½ miles from a Metrorail station is subject to a supplemental fare, in addition to the base fare." The supplemental fare is based on 4 zones. Zone 1 is up to 3 miles from the fixed route. Zone 2 is between 3 and 6 miles. Zone 3 is between 6 and 9 miles. Zone 4 is more than 9 miles. The current zone fee is $1 per zone. Sarles proposes increasing each zone fee by $1. So, Zone 1 would increase from base fare plus $1 to base fare plus $2. Zone 2 would increase from base fare plus $2 to base fare plus $3. Etc.

Several significant changes to MetroAccess that are still being considered by WMATA were not included in Sarles' April 22 FY2011 operating budget presentation. These changes are as follows:

5. Reduce the MetroAccess service area to match the hours and times the fixed route service is available for specific trips. For example no bus service on weekends or holidays or after 7 p.m., etc. would mean no MetroAccess service.

Again, due to scheduling software limitations, MetroAccess currently only has the capability to base the ¾ mile corridors on peak period fixed route service. They don't yet have the "polygons" for midday, evening, Saturday or Sunday. In addition, this reduction in service could prove difficult to explain to the many MetroAccess customers who would be affected by it.

6. Implement conditional eligibility on July 1. Under the current eligibility process, individuals found eligible for MetroAccess are unconditionally eligible (i.e., eligible for all trips). Conditional eligibility (i.e., trip-by-trip eligibility) refers to eligibility for some trips, but not all, as the customer's ability to use fixed-route service is likely to change with differing circumstances.

While moving forward with conditional eligibility would result in significant cost savings while preserving service for those individuals who really need it, there are significant implementation issues to be addressed. WMATA staff has stated that they do not currently have the capability to implement conditional eligibility on a trip-by-trip basis, which they must have in order to meet the ADA requirements. The level of accessibility (pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, landing pads) must be known at each origin and destination to determine what trips are eligible for MetroAccess versus what trips can be taken on the fixed route. Disabilities that vary from day to day, like M.S., must also be able be taken into account.

7. Once conditional eligibility is implemented, change the free fixed route ride program so that it is only available to MetroAccess customers who are found conditionally eligible (and not available to customers who are found unconditionally eligible).

As background, the free fixed route ride program was originally implemented to encourage MetroAccess customers to use the less costly fixed route service when they are able to do so. This type of program is quite common in transit systems in the U.S. because it encourages rider behavior that will result in operational cost savings (a win-win for the rider and the transit provider).

The assumption behind this proposed change is that MetroAccess customers found unconditionally eligible (i.e., eligible for all trips) cannot ever use the fixed route. While it is reasonable to assume that someone found unconditionally eligible for MetroAccess would be unable to use the fixed route on his or her own, it is equally reasonable to assume that same person might occasionally—with the appropriate assistance of a personal care attendant, friend, or family member—be able to use the fixed route.

Because eligibility is based on the individual applicant's ability to use the fixed route alone, it is plausible that even individuals found unconditionally eligible for MetroAccess would sometimes use the less costly fixed route. It could be counter-productive for WMATA to take away the incentive (i.e., free fixed route fare) for using the less costly fixed route.

WMATA Finance & Administration Committee Chair Catherine Hudgins, who also chairs the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board's Access for All (AFA) Advisory Committee, has facilitated the Finance & Administration committee's discussion of the FY2011 operating budget. To date, that has primarily focused on fare policy as opposed to service cuts.

It is uncertain whether the WMATA Board will discuss the AFA's recommendations regarding MetroAccess, which were presented in response to Catoe's proposed FY2011 operating budget and which differ significantly from what is outlined in both Catoe's and Sarles' proposed FY2011 operating budgets.

The AFA's recommendations include no MetroAccess service cuts; instead they focus on operational strategies, the eligibility process, and fare policy to achieve cost savings. Interestingly, the AFA projects that its recommendations would result in greater MetroAccess cost savings (estimated $10+ million in cost savings) than the MetroAccess service cuts and adjustments outlined in Sarles' proposed FY2011 operating budget (estimated between $6 and $7.2 million in cost savings).

Here is my question for WMATA and the WMATA Board:

If WMATA can achieve greater cost savings on MetroAccess through improved operations, tightening the eligibility process so that the service is only available to the people who need it when they need it, and modest fare increases than it could through Catoe's and Sarles' proposed MetroAccess service cuts, why are the service cuts still on the table?

Increase taxi usage for MetroAccess trips by 10 to 20 percent. Transit authorities in cities across the U.S. (including DC, New York, San Francisco, and Houston) are contracting out portions of their paratransit service to taxi service providers. This is an increasingly common practice due to the cost savings that can be achieved, specifically for those single rider trips that cannot be scheduled with additional riders. AFA contends that increasing the taxi usage for MetroAccess trips by 10 to 20 percent could save the authority between $3.8 and $7.7 million annually.

Self-insure the MetroAccess fleet. While it would force WMATA to get a firm grasp on hiring, training, supervision, retraining, and preventative maintenance, self-insuring the MetroAccess fleet would also result in significant savings (approximately $2 million annually).

Reduce presumptive eligibility and add conditional eligibility. Once a person's application for MetroAccess is complete, the ADA regulations allow WMATA 21 days to make a determination regarding that person's eligibility. Once the 21-day period passes, the person is given "presumptive eligibility" until the determination is made.

The AFA letter alludes to the number of paratransit applications that are not being reviewed and decided upon within 21 days and, consequently, the number of applicants who are being given presumptive eligibility as a result. Reducing the number of people being given presumptive eligibility (especially for those individuals who are later found ineligible) would also result in meaningful cost savings.

If a person is currently found eligible for MetroAccess, they are found unconditionally eligible, which allows MetroAccess use for all trips. The ADA allows for conditional eligibility, which applies only to certain trips which the individual's disability prevents making using the fixed-route system. Changing to conditional eligibility could result in savings of between $3 and $5 million annually.

Increase MetroAccess fares. According to ADA regulations, the MetroAccess fare for the MetroAccess service area within ¾-mile of the fixed route cannot exceed twice the amount of the fixed route fare. The service area beyond ¾-mile does not fall under this specific regulation, and WMATA has proposed increasing them up to 300-400%.

However, fares outside the ¾-mile beyond the fixed route should not be increased to the point where they become cost-prohibitive for most riders, as would be the case if they were increased by 300 to 400 percent. A more modest increase would be appropriate.

In addition to AFA's recommendations, there are a couple of operational decisions that WMATA could make that would also increase the cost-effectiveness of MetroAccess.

Group riders together. Just as is the case with the fixed route, the more people you have on a vehicle, the more cost-effective the service. Thus, from an operational perspective, one of the best ways to get paratransit costs down is to combine more trips on a single vehicle. Riders going in the same direction at the same time would ride together.

Most MetroAccess rides are call-ins and the ride times may vary somewhat. An alternative is to encourage regular riders to request and accept subscription service. Subscription service is intended for regularly scheduled trips, such as daily trips to work, regularly scheduled trips to adult day programs or senior centers, etc.

MetroAccess could choose to offer subscription trips at times that enable rides to be grouped on the same vehicle. These subscription trips would be predictable, using the same route, same driver, and same pickup locations each day, with pickup and drop-off times based on well thought-out scheduling.

Of course, MetroAccess already groups multiple riders together on the same vehicle. However, WMATA can do even more to increase MetroAccess efficiency through increased subscription service and grouped trips. At the same time, MetroAccess should focus taxi usage on trips that cannot be grouped or "sandwiched" between groups on MetroAccess vehicles.

Create zones and require transfers. Can you imagine a one-seat transit ride from Fairfax City to Rockville? On the fixed route, you would need to take the CUE bus to the Vienna Metro station, transfer to the Orange Line, then transfer to the red line at Metro Center to Rockville. On MetroAccess, no transfer is required. Yet ADA complementary paratransit service is intended to complement (i.e., be comparable to) the fixed route service.

Much like carpooling, paratransit trips are easier to group together when they are relatively short trips. If you wanted to carpool from Arlington to DC, it probably wouldn't be difficult to find a carpooling opportunity (though, of course, transit would probably still be a better option!). However, if you wanted to carpool from Arlington to College Park or Arlington to Frederick, it might be more difficult to find a carpooling opportunity.

A strategy for creating shorter paratransit trips that are easier to group together is to create zones and only promise one-seat rides within zones. The original DC diamond (DC and Arlington) could be one zone. The rest of the service area in Virginia could be another zone. And due to the large service area in Maryland, it might be necessary to somehow divide Prince George's County and Montgomery County into two additional zones. MetroAccess riders traveling to and from zones outside the diamond might have to transfer from one MetroAccess vehicle to another at safe, lighted locations.

The fare structure would be kept as simple as possible, perhaps with just two fare levels. With a zone system, reservations could remain a centralized function; however, scheduling would occur by zone and would require communication between scheduling offices.

In addition to allowing for more grouped trips, this type of zone system would have additional operational benefits. It would be much easier for drivers to learn one zone than it currently is for them to learn the entire service area of DC, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Alexandria, City of Falls Church, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County. This would make it easier for paratransit drivers to do their jobs and to feel truly successful, increasing on-time performance and morale while decreasing staff turnover.

Of these ideas, the zone system would likely be the most controversial among the disability community and is not presently endorsed by AFA. However, it certainly appears to be less harmful than cutting back the service area to ¾-mile around the fixed route. And it could significantly improve operations and the cost-effectiveness of the service.

The closing paragraph of the AFA's April 7th letter to the WMATA Board states:

MetroAccess costs should be put in context of the benefits of helping the region's most vulnerable populations. Growth in the number of MetroAccess trips means more people with disabilities are working, getting medical care, and experiencing freedom and mobility they would otherwise not have.

WMATA can save the same amount of money (or perhaps more) on MetroAccess through operational improvements than they could by cutting back the service area to the minimum requirement of ¾-mile around the fixed route. Cutting back the service area to the minimum requirement of ¾ mile around the fixed route would leave people with disabilities with no transportation options.

Therefore, the WMATA Board should give serious consideration to the recommendations of AFA and to the other suggestions offered by transit planners and the disability community that will best preserve mobility for people with disabilities while reducing paratransit costs. Doing so will result in a win-win for WMATA, the disability community, and the Washington metropolitan region.

What is ADA complementary paratransit?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires public transit agencies that provide fixed-route service to provide "complementary paratransit" services to people with disabilities who cannot use the fixed-route bus or rail service because of a disability. The ADA regulations specifically define a population of customers who are entitled to this service as a civil right. The regulations also define minimum service characteristics that must be met for this service to be considered equivalent to the fixed-route service it is intended to complement.

Service characteristics: In general, ADA complementary paratransit service must be provided within ¾ of a mile of a bus route or rail station, at the same hours and days, for no more than twice the regular fixed route fare.

What are the three categories of eligibility for ADA complementary paratransit?

Category 1: People who can't navigate travel on the bus or train, even if it's accessible, because of a disability

This category includes people who are unable, due to a mental or physical impairment (including a vision impairment), to board, ride, or disembark from an accessible bus or train without assistance. For example:

• People with cognitive disabilities, if they do not know where to get off the bus or how to go to their destination from the bus stop
• People who are blind or who have low vision, if they don't have the travel skills needed to navigate the route to their destination.
• A person with a visual impairment that allows him/her to see well enough to travel independently during the daytime but not at night.

Category 2: People who need an accessible bus or train.

This category includes people who use wheelchairs and other people with disabilities who can use an accessible vehicle but who want to travel on a route that is still inaccessible (not served by accessible buses or accessible trains and key rail stations).

Category 3: People who have a specific disability-related condition

This category includes people who have a specific disability-related condition that prevents them from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location. Environmental barriers (distance, terrain, weather) or architectural barriers not under control of the transit agency (such as lack of curb ramps) that prevent an individual from traveling to or from the boarding or disembarking locations may form the basis for eligibility. For example:

• A person who uses a wheelchair may be able to negotiate a trip to the bus stop up a moderately sloped hill on a summer day, but not in the winter after a heavy snowfall.
• A person may be eligible if architectural barriers present safety hazards on the only route to the train station or bus stop.
• A person who walks with a cane and would need to travel 3/4 mile to the bus route, but she cannot walk that great a distance.
• People with disabilities that affect them very differently over time, such as multiple sclerosis. During some periods, they are able to go to the bus stop or train station. During other periods, they are not able to do so.

All three categories include people who may be able to ride fixed-route transit for some, but not all of their trips.

What is conditional eligibility?

In terms of ADA complementary paratransit, conditional eligibility (also known as trip-by-trip eligibility) refers to paratransit eligibility for some trips, but not all, as the customer's ability to use fixed-route service is likely to change with differing circumstances. Conditional eligibility may be appropriate for individuals who can reasonably be expected to use fixed route service for some trips (when barriers that prevent travel are not present), but who cannot be expected to use fixed route service under other conditions. A few examples of barriers and conditions that may prevent an individual's use of fixed route service include:

• Weather conditions may prevent use of fixed route service by someone with a temperature sensitivity.
• A person who is able to navigate the fixed route system for some trips. (See note below on travel training.)
• A person with a variable condition (for example, multiple sclerosis, HIV disease, or the need for kidney dialysis) may be unable to ride fixed route service depending upon their condition at the time of the trip.
• Barriers in the environment (such as lack of a sidewalk or curb cuts) that prevent a person from getting to or from a bus stop, or from using the bus stop (if a lift cannot be deployed at the bus stop because it lacks a 5' by 8' landing area, for example) would prevent use of fixed-route service for that trip.

Travel Training: Many people who cannot negotiate the entire fixed route system can be travel trained for certain trips. Typically, training is provided for trips that the person makes frequently, such as to work or school. These individuals would only be ADA paratransit eligible for trips they have not been trained to make on fixed route. As part of the application and determination process, it should be determined if such training has been provided. Individuals cannot, however, be required to participate in travel training. The public entity may choose to offer training and may encourage individuals to take advantage of this service. Until the individual takes advantage of this service and is adequately trained, paratransit service must be provided.

Can a person with a disability who lives outside of the designated ADA complementary paratransit service area apply for ADA paratransit eligibility?

Yes. Individuals who live outside of the ADA complementary paratransit service area, or even outside of the transit agency's jurisdiction, can still apply for ADA paratransit eligibility. Their applications should be accepted and considered. This includes persons visiting from other transit districts as well as persons who live just beyond the borders of the transit agency or in other areas where no public transit service is provided. These persons may be able to get to the ADA paratransit service area on their own and would then be able to ask for paratransit service.

A few citizens came forward to speak out against the elimination of the R3 bus, which serves the National Archives facility in Adelphi. Some riders in the area will be left without service at all times, others would lose service on weekends and off-peak. They spoke of the importance of continuing to have good access for visitors, researchers, and employees at the National Archives, and also of the general importance that transit plays in keeping livable communities accessible.

Other riders spoke out against fare increases. Some talked of the hardship of the additional cost of their commute, others were opposed to giving more money to an agency in which they have little faith. Some spoke of the waste they think exists in the agency, while others criticized what they characterized as the overpayment of workers and lack of oversight of Metro.

The meeting was at times boisterous, with applause and the occasional 'amen' from those in the audience. It was at all times civil. Most speakers stayed within the 3 minutes alloted for testimony.

Metro provided a shuttle from New Carrollton station to the hearing, which ran continuously during the proceedings. Additionally, the city of Greenbelt organized a bus to take residents to the hearing.

However, citizens who didn't know about the shuttles, might have been discouraged by the lack of regular service by the hearing site. Only one bus route, the F13, serves the church where the meeting was held, but the last return trip to New Carrollton passes by the church at 6:35—25 minutes before the hearing started.

Additionally, as several commenters at the hearing noted, even with shuttle service back to New Carrollton, the lack of decent bus service would make it difficult or impossible to return to their homes. One blind citizen criticized Metro for the location of the hearing, saying that they should be "ashamed" that there were no hearings held in southern Prince George's.

In fact, of the 6 budget hearings held in the region, the only one south of Route 50 is the one in Southeast Washington. The same commenter said that cross-county bus service was a "joke" and that was why the hearing didn't have even more citizens there to testify.

Many Greenbelters turned out, which is to be expected since Metro has proposed restructuring all bus service in the city, including the elimination of one route (the R3), the truncation of another (the C2), and the restructuring of the R12 and T16/17. And while no official notice has been given, some feel that Metro's restructuring makes it more likely that Prince George's County Transit will discontinue at least one route, the 15.

Many of the Greenbelters were members of Transit Riders United, which for over 6 months has been working with Metro and Prince George's County planners to improve bus service in Greenbelt. In December, members tell me, they were informed that Metro had a proposal, but couldn't release it until it was okayed by Prince George's. The plan was finally released late last week, less than a week before the hearing, and with little time to consider the implications or find alternatives.

After the meeting, I spoke with one WMATA representative, who was surprised that there were not more positive comments, especially about some of the changes in the Greenbelt area. I told him that with only three minutes each, most citizens were bound to focus first on the changes most harmful to them, and then if there was time left over, they would get around to positive comments.

Update: WAMU also covered the hearing and interviewed Mr. O'Neil.

Some people who qualify for MetroAccess need to use the service for every trip, whereas other people who qualify can use the fixed-route service some of the time and under certain conditions. This varies based on the individual's abilities and the conditions around the stops and stations and in the path of travel to the stops and stations.

There has been a great deal of discussion on how to address escalating paratransit costs in our region. Should the MetroAccess fare structure change? Should Metro cut back the ADA complementary paratransit service area to more closely reflect the ADA minimum requirements?

For most people who do not have disabilities and who do not rely on ADA complementary paratransit service to get where they need to go, the answers are an immediate and resounding "Yes" and "Yes." But from my perspective as a person with a disability who relies on the fixed-route, it is not that simple.

Here's what I do know. Mobility is extremely important to the disability community, and I can speak to this from experience. The disability community, and in particular those individuals who rely on ADA complementary paratransit service, should be included and engaged in the discussions regarding any proposed changes to MetroAccess.

I also believe that the focus of this dialogue on paratransit should be expanded to address how we can preserve and promote mobility for people living with disabilities in our region. This will require thinking outside of the bus, so to speak, and should include other modes beyond ADA complementary paratransit.

Efforts are already underway to reduce MetroAccess costs. For example, the Centers for Independent Living in our area will soon be teaching people with disabilities how to use the less costly fixed-route bus and rail service when they are able to do so. In addition, WMATA is about to implement a conditional eligibility process for ADA complementary paratransit.

However, we've got a long way to go before WMATA, the jurisdictions, and the disability community will all be ready for the major changes to MetroAccess outlined in the proposed FY2011 budget. Here's a Q & A illustrating why:

Question: Is there a central number a person with a disability can call to find and reserve another ride if ADA complementary parartransit service is no longer available in his/her area or becomes cost prohibitive?

Answer: No.

Question: Are there currently other accessible, affordable transportation options beyond ¾ mile of the fixed-route?

Answer: In many cases no, though this depends on the trip distance. Fortunately, we have accessible taxicab service in our region. However, lengthier trips will be cost-prohibitive for individuals at lower income levels and perhaps even to some at moderate income levels. In addition, I can share from experience that some taxicab operators refuse or attempt to avoid the very short trips. So, relying on taxicab service exclusively could be problematic for the disability community.

Question: How many communities beyond ¾ mile of the fixed-route have robust transportation voucher programs to fill in remaining service gaps?

Answer: None, but there are some good programs out there that could be expanded (i.e., in Fairfax County).

Question: How far along are we as a region with human services transportation coordination? Could that be part of the solution?

Answer: We're not too far along yet, but we have great potential in this area to increase transportation options for people with disabilities through coordination. This will take time, however, and will not happen soon enough to help us in FY2011.

Question: Why do people with disabilities who rely on ADA complementary paratransit service choose to live beyond ¾ miles of the fixed-route anyway? Why can't they just move if the service area changes?

Answer: Not all people with disabilities who rely on paratransit service choose where they live. Some people live with family members who have already made the choice for them, and others simply live where they can afford to live. That is often not within ¾ mile of a Metro station or bus stop.

And finally...

Question: If Metro cuts back the paratransit service area to ¾ mile around the fixed-route, how will people with disabilities who previously relied on the paratransit service be able to get a job, rent their own apartments, go shopping, visit friends, and live independently?

(Sound familiar? This is the same question I asked myself when I was 16 and did not have access to public transportation.)

Answer: I do not have a good answer. Neither does WMATA. Nor do the jurisdictions.

The truth is that some people with disabilities would have no transportation options. I remember all too well what it was like to have no transportation options, and I would not wish that upon anyone.

MetroAccess: This is a controversial area because any reduction in service impacts people who likely have no other reasonable alternative for mobility. The federal government requires transit services to offer paratransit to persons with disabilities living within ¾ miles of a transit stop during the hours that transit stop has service.

WMATA now has the capability through GPS to restrict service to the area required under federal guidelines. They propose to do so and charge double the bus base fare to riders, the maximum allowed. WMATA could also allow local jurisdictions to choose to offer service beyond the federally mandated minumum, if they chose, as long as that jurisdiction increases their contribution to pay for the extra cost.

An additional component for cost control is to encourage persons with disabilities to use the fixed-route system (the rail and bus system others use). WMATA currently permits the disabled to ride free on the fixed-route system. WMATA publicizes this program to potential users, which has mitigated some of the cost increases that come with an aging population.

For some persons with disabilities, getting to the fixed-route system is a challenge. WMATA could try a voluntary pilot program to provide vouchers when MetroAccess riders use taxis or vans to carry them to the fixed-route system. The value of the voucher would be less than the $40 it costs to run the average MetroAccess trip.

The disabled individual would get a free ride; WMATA would save money. To control costs, they could restrict the number of vouchers each person can get within a given time frame. WMATA would still have to provide MetroAccess service, but this could potentially offset some of its costs.

None of these measures will reduce or add to the $10 million savings that WMATA projects in its proposed budget through "managing" MetroAccess costs in any meaningful way. They would mitigate the immediate effects of the reduction in service area and perhaps help reduce future MetroAccess costs. The fare increase for MetroAccess patrons would also be lower if the bus base fare does not increase at the 20% rate proposed.

Parking: The WMATA Board adopted a resolution in 2007 to increase parking fees every two years along with fares. Following this policy would mean parking fares would increase between 20¢ 30¢ for parking costs that currently range from $3.25 to $4.75. It would bring in additional parking revenue of about $3.7 million for FY11, assuming no loss of demand, according to WMATA.

However, WMATA projects parking revenue will fall by $2.8 million in FY11 at the current rates, primarily in reserved parking and in parking meter usage due to the recession. Some station lots have spaces available throughout the day while others remain filled.

It doesn't make sense to increase parking rates systemwide while both ridership and parking revenue are declining and a substantial fare increase is on the horizon. However, WMATA might get more parking revenue by letting general users start using the reserved parking and metered spaces at earlier times.

It would also make sense to permit the General Manager to adjust parking fees according to demand at various stations throughout the system. Some other parking proposals that have sparked interest for possible revenue increases include overnight parking and charging for parking for those exiting before 10:30 am. There may be a way to generate revenue from these if the fee more than offsets collection costs.

For now, increasing the availability of spaces, increasing rates at lots that are filled and possibly even lowering parking fees at select stations to increase ridership should generate additional revenue. I'm going to assume a rough estimate of $1.65 million, or about half of a general increase from these measures.

Charters: Charter bus services used to provide about $2 million in revenue annually to WMATA. Federal guidelines imposed two years ago essentially forced WMATA out of the business, even when private companies could not handle the demand, such as the former Redskins shuttles. Transit agencies should push to overturn these prohibitions, since there is now a different administration, but it would probably generate little to no revenue in FY11 even if the rules are eventually modified.

The bottom line is there aren't a lot of revenue enhancements or savings here, although a targeted parking proposal could raise some worthwhile revenue.

Next: Other ideas that could bring in some revenue.