Research Results Digest 366 · mary of lessons from the case studies, the balance of this digest...

Research Results Digest 366

January 2012

C O N T E N T S

Chapter 1—Introduction and Summary, 1

Chapter 2—Survey Results, 7

Chapter 3—General Public Dial-a-Ride, 18

Chapter 4—Contracting for Seniorand Disabled Demand ResponsiveService, 22

Chapter 5—Subsidized Taxi Rides, 27

Chapter 6—Wheelchair AccessibleTaxicabs, 31

Chapter 7—Non-Emergency Medical Transportation, 40

Chapter 8—Guaranteed Ride Home, 44

Chapter 9—Student Transportation, 46

Chapter 10—911 Transports, 51

Sources, 53

Endnotes, 54

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This research was undertaken to identifyhow states and local governments can bestpromote partnerships with taxicab compa-nies for provision of public transportation. A“partnership” typically involves some formof contract for service, but also includes lessformal arrangements as well as regulatoryinvolvement intended to expand or createservice for the public. An expansive under-standing of “public transportation” has beenapplied including not just service providedby public transit agencies but service for alltypes of public agencies, including state andlocal governments, human service agencies,and school districts.

At the outset of the research, a list ofknown partnership types was created on thebasis of a literature review, along with a listof factors that may hinder or help establishpartnerships. A survey of state departmentsof transportation (DOTs) and taxicab regu-lators was then used to learn more about theprevalence of partnership types and factorsthat promote or hinder partnerships. Usingthe survey results, telephone follow-up, andfurther literature review, a series of casestudies was selected to explore how part-

nerships work in practice, what barriershave had to be overcome, and steps taken toovercome these barriers.

Following this introduction and sum-mary of lessons from the case studies, thebalance of this digest consists of a presen-tation of the survey results, 23 case studies,and previous research.

Types of Partnerships and Case Studies

Eight kinds of partnerships betweenpublic agencies and taxicabs have been iden-tified and studied in this research. The fol-lowing partnership types, case studies, andother sources used are shown in Figure 1.

General public dial-a-ride. Contractingwith taxi companies for general public dial-a-ride service seems to be uncommon, butcase studies of the Ann Arbor Transit Au-thority (AATA), the Pomona Valley TransitAuthority (PVTA), and Wisconsin SharedRide Taxi programs illustrate how this doesprove effective in certain situations.

Demand responsive service for seniors orpeople with disabilities. Transit agenciesprovide demand responsive service for

LOCAL AND STATE PARTNERSHIPS WITH TAXICAB COMPANIESThis digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 30, “LocalPractices in Developing Coordination Partnerships with Taxicab Companies.”The project was conducted by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ofSan Francisco, CA, with Total Contract Solutions, Little Elm, TX, undersubcontract to ICF International, Sacramento, CA. David Koffman of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates was the Principal Investigator.The other authors of this digest were Ellen Oettinger of Nelson\NygaardConsulting Associates and Charles Johnson of Total Contract Solutions.

Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Smith

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

people with disabilities as required by the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA), often using taxicabs forsome portion of service as illustrated by case studiesof the San Joaquin Regional Transit District and theOrange County Transportation Authority. In addition,states and localities provide other demand responsiveservices for seniors and people with disabilities, asillustrated by the State of Pennsylvania’s Shared Rideprogram and its implementation in three counties.

Subsidized taxi rides. Popularized in the 1970s as“user-side subsidies,” subsidized taxi rides enableindividual riders to obtain taxi rides at a discount.Historically, they have used tickets, scrip, coupons,and vouchers and mechanisms, but recently there isa trend toward using smart cards. Case studies havebeen conducted of subsidized taxi rides in Baltimore,Maryland; Los Angeles, California; West Hollywood,California; and Olathe, Kansas. The targeted pop-ulations include seniors, people with disabilities,low-income people, and people with AIDS.

Wheelchair accessible taxicabs. Public agencieshave provided subsidies to help taxi companiesobtain and operate wheelchair accessible taxicabs.Three case studies illustrate some of the issues thathave arisen in Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois;

and Seattle, Washington. A report from the Taxi-cab, Limousine, & Paratransit Association (TLPA)provides some perspective and additional examples.

Non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT).States provide access to medical care for participantsin the state-run Medicaid programs, often by means oftaxicabs. Approaches and issues with using taxis forNEMT are illustrated by case studies of programsin Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Anational survey and interviews with two nationalNEMT brokerage providers give perspective.

Guaranteed ride home. Agencies in many metro-politan areas operate programs that encourage com-muters to use transit and ridesharing. As part of theseprograms, they offer commuters a way to get home incase an emergency or long work hours require a triphome that is not feasible using their regular commutermode. Commonly this involves paying for a taxi ride.A national review by the Federal Transit Administra-tion (FTA) provides a good overview of guaranteedride home programs and a case study of a large pro-gram in the Washington, DC, area illustrates a partic-ular approach to overcoming challenges.

Student transportation. Many school districts pro-vide transportation either because of a broad state

2

Partnership Type Sources

General public dial-a-ride • Ann Arbor Transit Authority (Night Ride) • Pomona Valley Transit Authority • Wisconsin Shared Ride Taxi programs

Demand responsive service forseniors or people with disabilities

• Pennsylvania Senior Shared Ride program (3 cases)• San Joaquin Regional Transit District• Orange County Transportation Authority

Subsidized taxi rides • Maryland Transit Administration (Baltimore)• Los Angeles, California• West Hollywood, California• Olathe, Kansas

Wheelchair accessible taxicabs • Chicago, Illinois• Seattle, Washington• Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments

Non-emergency medicaltransportation

• Kentucky• Massachusetts• National brokerage company

Guaranteed ride home • Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments

Student transportation • New Haven, Connecticut• St. Lucie County, Florida • Palatine, Illinois• Cleveland, Ohio • St. Louis, Missouri

911 transport • Houston, Texas

Figure 1 Partnership types, case studies, and sources.

requirement or else for specific groups of studentscovered by certain state or federal laws or courtorders. Most of this transportation is provided usingschool buses, but taxis also provide many trips that donot fit on bus routes. Various situations and methodsare illustrated in five case studies: New Haven, Con-necticut; Palatine, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; St. Louis,Missouri; and St. Lucie County, Florida. The casestudies include transportation of special needs stu-dents, homeless students, students transferred out ofa school that fails to meet standards, and transporta-tion for school desegregation.

911 transport. One example was found of taxisbeing used to serve non-urgent needs of 911 callers.Despite the apparent rarity of this type of service, thecase of Houston, Texas, is included because of thepromise that it seems to hold for other areas.

Published Information

Five previously published reports are particularlyrelevant to this research.

TCRP Report 75. TCRP Report 75: The Role of thePrivate-for-Hire Vehicle Industry in Public Transit,published in 2002, looked at the role of not just taxi-cabs but also limousines, specialized vehicles usedfor non-emergency medical transport, and shuttles.Reliable information about the taxicab industry over-all is very hard to find, so a summary from TCRPReport 75, although dated, is still useful. Conclusionsfrom the report include the following:

• Estimates vary on the number of taxicabs inthe United States, with the two most recentestimating 170,800 and 101,351 for 1986 and1992, respectively.

• Studies are more conclusive with respectto the number of taxicab organizations, withthe same studies estimating 6,349 and 5,701,respectively.

• A survey of 361 taxicab operators in 1998found that more than 60% of taxicab compa-nies operated fewer than 25 vehicles, morethan 72% operated fewer than 50 vehicles,and more than 83% operated fewer than 100 vehicles (smaller companies are likely tobe underrepresented).

• Taxicabs are a heavily regulated industry. Thesurvey of taxicab operators found that state reg-

ulations under which they operate require driverbackground checks (78% of companies), con-trol fares (76% of companies), and control entryinto the market (64% of companies).

• Taxicabs are heavily involved with contractingwith public entities. Of survey respondents,54% contract with local government, 32% withtransit, and 74% with social service agencies(which may include non-profit agencies inaddition to public entities).

TCRP Report 121. TCRP Report 121: Toolkit forIntegrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in ParatransitService and the associated Case Study Report providea comprehensive examination of how taxicabs andother non-dedicated vehicles are used in public para-transit programs. The case studies of public paratransitin this digest were chosen to highlight developmentssince the research for TCRP Report 121.

Project ACTION taxi survey. A Survey on the Useof Taxis in Paratransit Programs, published byEaster Seals Project ACTION in 2008, includes fivecase studies focusing on the use of taxicabs in con-junction with ADA paratransit. It includes someinformation about wheelchair accessible taxicabs,which is incorporated in the discussion of that topicin this digest. The case studies herein were chosento avoid duplicating the Project ACTION surveyand to highlight issues not covered in that report.

FTA guaranteed ride home survey. “GuaranteedRide Home Programs: A Study of Program Charac-teristics, Utilization, and Cost,” published in 2007,includes an overview of the use of taxicabs in theseprograms. The relevant information is summarizedin Chapter 8.

TLPA accessible taxi report. “Assessing the FullCost of Implementing an Accessible Taxicab Pro-gram,” published by the TLPA in 2010, is a valuablecompendium of information about wheelchair acces-sible taxis. The relevant information is summarizedin Chapter 6.

Lessons from the Case Studies

The 23 case studies, supplemented with infor-mation from published reports, illustrate the rangeof partnerships between public agencies and taxicabcompanies. The case studies also illustrate many of

3

the hindrances described by survey respondents andsteps taken to overcome them. This section sum-maries these lessons from the case studies.

In general, the case studies and the literature showthat partnering with taxicabs can be cost effective andexpand service to the public in the right circumstanceswith appropriate controls and incentives.

Taxicabs can be more economical and effective forcertain trips than buses or other modes. Examplesfrom ADA paratransit, school transportation, andgeneral public dial-a-ride illustrate that taxicabs canbe more cost effective than transportation with busesfor long trips, trips to and from distant locations, andtrips at night when demand is low. For example, theOrange County Transportation Authority is finding iteffective to assign evening and Sunday trips to taxi-cabs. AATA uses a taxicab contractor for a nighttimegeneral public service when buses do not operate.And many school districts use taxicabs when theyneed to transport students long distances. The exam-ple of Houston, Texas, shows that not only aretaxicabs less expensive than ambulances (which isnot surprising), they also serve the needs of manypeople who call a 911 emergency service. Taxicabpartnerships have allowed shared ride programs in Pennsylvania to serve a wider area than wouldotherwise be possible, have let the AATA maintainaround-the-clock service, and let Medicaid NEMTbrokers ensure access to medical services wherepublic transit is not an option.

Trips need to be economically attractive for inde-pendent contractor drivers. Almost all taxi driversare independent contractor drivers. As a result taxicompanies have less ability to require drivers toaccept specific trips, take special training, or adhereto special rules than if the drivers were employees.Drivers’ income normally consists of fares collectedfrom passengers less fees paid to a taxi company. Ina typical partnership arrangement, the passengerpays no fare to the driver, but the company passes ona payment in lieu of fare from the revenue receivedfrom the project sponsor. Lack of tips, extra paper-work, delay in payment, or percentage fees retainedby taxi companies can make subsidized or contracttrips unattractive to drivers and lead to poor service.For example, in Los Angeles, drivers often turneddown trips for the City’s coupon program for seniorsand people with disabilities because of paperwork,low tips, delays due to passengers’ assistance needs,

and a processing fee charged by companies. Replac-ing coupons with a debit card reduced drivers’ paper-work, reduced the companies’ processing cost, andallowed the City to forbid the companies from charg-ing the drivers a processing fee. As a result, the triprefusal rate is reduced though not eliminated. In Bal-timore, the Maryland Transit Administration, whichalso uses a debit card for its Taxi Access II programfor ADA paratransit riders, has found it worthwhileto compensate drivers $3 per trip for lack of tips.Seattle and Washington, DC, have both arranged fordrivers of wheelchair accessible cabs to receivefavorable license or lease terms to make operatingthese vehicles economically attractive.

Steady business is an incentive for some drivers.The case studies of student transportation illustratehow steady business from a taxicab partnership canbe economically attractive for drivers. School tripstypically provide steady income for a driver, sincethey tend to be long and repeat five days a week, andbecause school districts like the same driver to beassigned to a student every day. A taxicab operator inCleveland noted how transporting a single student ona daily basis can provide a driver with $300 weeklyincome. As a result, drivers are willing to go throughspecial training and certification, accept occasionalbehavioral problems from some students, and evenaccept a rate of payment somewhat below meterrates in some cases.

Taxicab companies need to recover costs from driver fees. Taxicab companies make money fromthe fees that drivers pay for leasing a vehicle or for dis-patch service. It follows that a taxicab company willonly accept a substantial burden for requirementslike paperwork, billing, payment delay, training, orhigher-than-usual insurance for a sufficient volume ofsteady business that allows the company to increase orat least maintain the number of drivers that lease fromit or pay dispatch fees. This is illustrated by the case ofNight Ride in Ann Arbor and by several school trans-portation examples. In some cases, taxi companiesmay try to pass program costs on to drivers, but thisruns the risk of making the program less attractive todrivers. Alternatively, the public agency can reducethe burden of the problem, as Los Angeles did byautomating payment in its Cityride program.

Contracted rates may be better than meter rates.Case studies of partnerships for general public dial-a-

4

ride, ADA paratransit, school transportation, andMedicaid NEMT illustrate the use of contract rates,based on a bidding or request for proposals (RFP)process. The resulting rates reflect competitive mar-ket conditions and may be higher or lower than meterrates. A rate higher than the meter may be appropri-ate if it allows taxi companies to recoup the cost oftraining drivers, obtaining additional insurance, insti-tuting a drug testing program, and advancing paymentto drivers while waiting for payment from the publicagency. The higher rate lets the company recoup thesecosts without reducing the amount it passes on to thedrivers. However, under certain conditions, a rate lessthan the meter rate may work. For example, the PVTAhas found in recent years that it can pay a rate whichgives the drivers $0.10 per mile less than the meterrate, since depressed economic conditions mean thereis less other work for drivers and PVTA’s dial-a-rideprovides steady business. Contracted rates also allowthe use of rate structures that are simpler than meterrates, easier to verify, and less subject to fraud, suchas flat rates per trip paid by PVTA, the AATA, theCentre Area Transit Authority, and Olathe, Kansas,and Zip Code-based rates used by some school sys-tems in St. Louis.

Partnership arrangements need to take into accountthe opportunities and limitations created by taxi-cab regulations. Where there are strict taxicab reg-ulations, a public agency may be able to involve allthe taxi companies in the area, like Los Angeles doesfor its Cityride program where participants arrangetheir own trips with any permitted taxi company.Neighboring West Hollywood, which also grantstime-limited franchises to taxi companies, is able torequire that companies provide a limited number offree rides to people with AIDS. In comparison, inWashington, DC, which has much looser controls onthe number of taxi companies and their methods ofoperation, the Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments (COG) decided it needed to centrallyauthorize and dispatch trips to specific taxi companiesfor its Guaranteed Ride Home program.

Trip grouping reduces cost. When an individualpassenger hires a taxi, regulations in most areas pre-vent the driver from serving other passengers en route.In comparison, most publicly sponsored programsencourage or require shared rides. In student trans-portation, trips are typically grouped in “routes.” Med-icaid NEMT brokers, ADA paratransit programs, andShared Ride Program coordinators in Pennsylvania

commonly group trips together before assigning themto a taxicab. In Massachusetts, providers that carryMedicaid NEMT trips are required to offer at least a50% discount for the second passenger and each sub-sequent passenger on a shared ride trip. The two tran-sit agencies that contract with taxi companies for gen-eral public dial-a-ride (AATA and the PVTA) bothencourage their taxi contractors to group rides togetherand make it worthwhile for them to do so by paying aflat rate per passenger or a set amount per vehicle hour.

Driver selection is important. Because taxi driversare independent contractors, and taxi companies makemoney from driver leases and dispatch fees, taxi com-panies do not select drivers in the same way that mostcompanies select employees. Therefore many pri-vate agencies add their own requirements for taxidrivers to participate in publicly sponsored service(e.g., special training, certification, or drug test-ing) and reserve the right to bar particular driversfrom participating. This is illustrated by San JoaquinRTD’s paratransit service, AATA Night Ride, PVTAdial-a-ride, and most of the student transportationexamples. Taxicab operators interviewed for thisstudy noted the importance of selecting particulardrivers for regular work on these contracts. For exam-ple, the taxicab operator who performs studenttransportation for the Community ConsolidatedSchool District 15 (CCSD 15) in Palatine, Illinois,noted the importance of picking those drivers that liketransporting students, since some drivers get alongwell with the children and some do not. The taxi oper-ator for AATA noted that only certain drivers appre-ciate the steady nature of contract work, and moreentrepreneurial drivers would rather do other work.One of the services offered by a transportation man-agement company used as an intermediary in severalcase studies is screening and selection of drivers.

Active program oversight is necessary. Even morethan in any contracting situation, active oversight ofa taxi contractor is important. For example, the Cen-ter Area Transit Authority in State College, Penn-sylvania, requires drivers on its shared ride serviceto keep logs that the company uses for billing, andthen places calls to randomly selected passengersto verify trips on a regular basis. Staff in Olathe,Kansas, and at CCSD 15 also described proceduresfor verifying the trips billed by taxi companies. LosAngeles formerly employed a multi-person staff toverify billings for the City’s coupon program,before switching to debit cards. Routine quality

5

control surveys are another useful form of over-sight, one that is used by the Metropolitan Wash-ington COG for its Guaranteed Ride Home program,Kentucky’s NEMT brokerages, and the Houston911 diversion program.

Intermediaries can help with quality control andcontract oversight. A number of the public agen-cies included in the case studies have found it advan-tageous to work with taxicab companies (and othervendors) through a contracted intermediary rather thandirectly. For example, Kentucky and Massachusettsboth contract with regional brokers who make trans-portation arrangements, including pre-arranging eachtrip and monitoring compliance with requirementsfor drivers, vehicles, and insurance. Some NEMT bro-kers also provide training for taxi drivers. The OrangeCounty Transportation Authority, the San JoaquinRTD, and the St. Lucie County school district all workwith a national transportation management companythat performs a similar function. The Maryland Tran-sit Administration contracts with a private broker toadminister its Taxi Card II trip subsidy program. Thebroker verifies that all trips take place only within theprecise area and hours permitted by MTA. For itsGuaranteed Ride Home program, the MetropolitanWashington COG uses a contractor to receive requestsfrom commuters, arrange taxicab transportation, andprovide follow-up for quality control.

Technology reduces costs and allows better control.The taxicab contractor for Houston’s 911 alternativetransportation pilot was chosen partly because of theirability to deliver a trip reservations web portal withcustom fill-forms with drop-down menus that pro-vide for rapid data entry. This portal also ensurestrips are only dispatched to eligible locations. InBaltimore and Los Angeles, debit cards allow formuch better control of a taxi trip subsidy programthan is possible with coupons or scrip, and with lesseffort and expense. Even Olathe, Kansas, which is amuch smaller program, has developed a customerdatabase that allows it to connect each coupon tothe person it was sold to, which helps determine if aperson has sold or given away his or her coupons.The City is also working on computerization of pay-ment, possibly using some kind of smart card. InMassachusetts, the Montachusett Regional TransitAuthority (MART) operates a vendor portal forposting available NEMT trips and letting vendors bidon trips and indicate which they can operate.

Taxicab partnerships should avoid competition withregular taxicab service. Competition with regular,market-rate taxi service was an issue in at least twocase studies. In Pennsylvania, taxi operators resistedthe Shared Ride program when it was established in1981, saying that the Shared Ride services wouldamount to unfair competition. However, the Statewas able to reason that a prior day reservationrequirement that applies to the Shared Ride programeliminated the direct competition element. The Statealso encouraged the counties to use taxi operatorswhere they could, and this helped win over the taxioperators. In Ann Arbor, the transit authority’sNight Ride service, even though it does not requireprevious-day reservations, has response times thatare deliberately made long enough that the servicedoes not compete with regular taxi service. Also rid-ers do not get an exclusive ride and cannot flag downa cab on the street or make a personal appointmentwith a driver.

Some form of public involvement appears to benecessary to establish wheelchair accessible taxiservice. Wheelchair accessible taxis cost more tobuy and operate than conventional taxicabs and tripsby wheelchair users involve unpaid time for load-ing, securement, and unloading, but ADA preventscharging more than regular meter rates. This createsa challenge for all parties involved.

• Cities are using a combination of regulations,incentives, and direct involvement to establishwheelchair accessible taxi service. Examplesinclude percentage requirements in taxi fleets(Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, and underconsideration in Seattle); issuing medallionsor licenses restricted to wheelchair accessi-ble taxis (Boston and Seattle); free or lower-priced wheelchair accessible taxi medallions(Seattle, New York, Miami); waiving annualfees (Seattle); and using public funds to helppurchase wheelchair accessible taxis (SanFrancisco, Washington, Rhode Island PublicTransit Authority).

• Steps taken to make wheelchair accessible taxiservice work for independent contractor driversinclude requiring or subsidizing discountedleases from taxi companies (San Antonio,Washington, DC), and letting wheelchair acces-sible taxi drivers go to the head of the line atairports (Chicago).

6

• Business from the ADA paratransit programhelps make wheelchair accessible taxi ser-vice more sustainable (Houston, Seattle, SanFrancisco, Arlington, Chicago).

• Effective dispatching is needed to makewheelchair accessible taxi service availableto wheelchair users and to bring business towheelchair accessible taxi drivers. Chicagocreated a specialized central dispatching ser-vice for this purpose. Seattle required cabsin a wheelchair accessible taxi pilot programto join a single dispatch association to pro-vide good response time, and Washington,DC, used just two companies with dispatch-ing for its pilot.

• Local agencies have provided training (Seattle,Washington), included training on passengerassistance in training required of all drivers(Chicago), and facilitated very active coordi-nation groups (Seattle, Washington).

CHAPTER 2—SURVEY RESULTS

Three surveys were undertaken to explore theextent to which public agencies have implementedpartnerships with taxicabs, as well as barriers andfacilitating factors for partnerships.

• State DOTs: Email invitations were sent to 79 state DOT contacts including members ofthe Standing Committee on Public Transporta-tion (SCOPT) of the American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) and state contacts for AASHTO’sMultistate Technical Assistance Program(MTAP). Twenty-six usable responses werereceived. Their locations are shown in Figure 2.

• Taxicab Regulators: Email invitations weresent to U.S. members of the InternationalAssociation of Taxicab Regulators (IATR).The invitations were sent directly by IATR topreserve confidentiality. Twenty-four usableresponses were received. Their locations areshown in Figure 2.

• Taxicab Operators: The TLPA sent surveyinvitations to its taxi operator members. Eightusable responses were received.

All three surveys were conducted online. Withsome variation due to differing responsibilitiesamong the respondents, the following topics werecovered:

• Experience with or knowledge of 16 types ofpartnership between taxicabs and state or localagencies

• Opinions about 14 issues that may have hin-dered partnerships

• Factors that have helped in creating partner-ships between taxicabs and public agencies

State DOT Survey

Taxicab Regulation

Of the 26 respondents to the state DOT survey,no agency indicated it has principal responsibilityfor regulating taxicabs.

State DOT Partnerships with Taxicab Companies

Direct partnerships between state DOTs andtaxicab companies are rare. Only two respondentsdescribed direct partnerships with taxicab compa-nies for some type of service:

• Pennsylvania: In one county, the DOT con-tracts directly with taxicab companies to pro-vide subsidized human service transportationfor senior citizens. In every other county, theDOT contracts with a coordinator of servicesthat in turn contracts with various providers,including taxicabs in some cases, for humanservice transportation.

• Maryland: In its capacity as the transit opera-tor for the Baltimore metropolitan area, theDOT administers a taxi trip subsidy for ADAparatransit riders.

Four others described partnerships that workthrough local agencies or consist of funding:

• Arkansas: FTA Job Access/Reverse Commuteand New Freedom programs were cited as atype of partnership.

• Oregon: DOT staff noted that the FTA Section5310, 5311, 5315, and 5317 grants that it makesto public transit agencies and others are used fortaxi ticket programs in some communities.

• Virginia: The DOT had no partnerships at thetime of survey, but was considering fundingarrangements with taxicab companies for 2012.

• Wisconsin: The DOT administers a statewideShared Ride Taxi program that serves over 50 small communities. The DOT providesfunding and oversight, but the municipalitiescontract with the providers.

7

8

State DOT Survey

Taxicab Regulators

Figure 2 Locations of survey respondents.

The Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Wisconsinprograms are described in case studies.

Other State Agency Partnerships

Nine respondents indicated that other state agen-cies partnered with taxicab companies in some way:Type of Partnership Responses

Medicaid non-emergency transportation 9Other human service programs 4Other services 3

The survey asked about partnerships for emer-gency response, but none of the respondents knewof such partnerships.

Most of the respondents who indicated “otherhuman service program” or “other service” did notprovide details, but two mentioned departments ofLabor and Rehabilitation. Many of the partnershipsthat respondents had in mind actually work throughcontracted entities, such as statewide or regionalbrokers for Medicaid NEMT, for example:

• Oregon: The State Department of Human Ser-vices contracts with transit agencies for NEMT,part of which is provided by taxicabs.

• Missouri: In the Department of Social Services,Medicaid (called MoHealthNet) contracts witha statewide broker (M-T-M) that uses taxicabsfor NEMT.

Funding for Taxicab Partnerships

Seventeen DOTs administer programs that pro-vide funding for partnerships between local publicagencies and taxicabs including these examples:

• FTA grant programs: 5310 (Elderly and Dis-abled), 5311 (Rural), 5316 (Job Access/ReverseCommute) and 5317 (New Freedom)

• Pennsylvania Shared Ride Program for seniorcitizens, persons with disabilities, and welfare-to-work transportation program. Not everylocality uses taxicabs, but many do.

• Wisconsin provides funding to local govern-ments for the Shared Ride Taxi program andprovides funding to counties that may contractwith taxi operators for specialized or humanservices transportation.

• Michigan provides operating assistance to localtransit agencies and a few of those agenciescontract with taxicab services for a portion oftheir service.

Knowledge of Other Local and State Taxicab Partnerships

User-side subsidies. Respondents were asked abouttheir knowledge of partnerships between local orstate public agencies and taxicab companies involv-ing user-side subsidies, that is, voucher, scrip, orsimilar arrangements in which an agency subsi-dizes fares for riders. As shown in Figure 3, themost common cases are for seniors and/or peoplewith disabilities, including some that are providedas a supplement to ADA paratransit service. Elevenrespondents were also aware of user-side subsidiesfor job access program participants and as a part of guaranteed ride home programs to promoteridesharing and/or public transportation, but mostof the respondents indicated that there were only afew such programs. Five respondents also claimed

9

Type of ProgramNumerous

(>3)A few (1-3) None

Don'tKnow

Seniors and/or persons with disabilities

5 10 63

Supplemental ADA service4 1047

Job access programs3 1038

Guaranteed ride home services3 958

General public3 1272

Figure 3 DOT respondent knowledge of user-side subsidy programs.

to know of user-side subsidy programs for the gen-eral public.

Direct contracting. Asked about partnerships involv-ing direct contracting with taxi companies or pay-ment for rides, the applications that respondentsbelieve are most numerous are again programs forseniors and/or people with disabilities, but an equalnumber knew of “numerous” cases of contractingwith taxis for general public demand responsive tran-sit service (see Figure 4). These cases include thePennsylvania and Wisconsin programs (two respon-dents) already mentioned. The Pennsylvania SharedRide program is principally targeted to seniors andpeople with disabilities but is also open to the gen-eral public at unsubsidized rates. Respondents from

Oregon and California also believe that there are anumber of cases of taxicabs providing general pub-lic demand response service in their states. Con-tracting for Medicaid non-emergency trips is alsowidespread and two respondents indicated use oftaxis for 911 transports but did not provide details.

Other. Asked about four other types of partner-ships with taxicab companies, the type that respon-dents believed was most common was assistancewith purchase of accessible taxicab vehicles (Fig-ure 5). In addition, there were five respondents whoknow about partnerships for coordinated dispatchingof accessible taxicab vehicles. Two respondentsknow of taxicabs being used for emergencyresponse, including a respondent from Wisconsin

10



Don'tKnow

Seniors and/or persons with disabilities4 4 7 9

Supplemental ADA service5 5 7 8

Job access programs3 6 7 8

Guaranteed ride home services3 8 6 8

General public5 4 7 8

Special education1 1 5 18

Medicaid (NEMT)5 5 5 9

Emergency 911 transports2 0 6 17

Figure 4 DOT respondent knowledge of direct taxicab contracts.



Don'tKnow

Assistance with emergency response0 22 20

Assistance to buy accessible taxicabs2 7 6 10

Coordinated dispatching of accessible taxicabs

1 44 15Regulatory requirements, incentives, or special permits for accessibletaxicabs 0 31 21

Figure 5 DOT respondent knowledge of other taxicab partnerships.

who described taxicabs (and amphibious vehicles)being used to evacuate stranded residents fromflooded properties.

Nine respondents provided examples of partner-ships, most of which have been mentioned already.Follow-up on these is included in the case studies.

Hindrances to Partnerships

Respondents were asked to what extent 14 dif-ferent issues hindered taxi partnerships. Amongthose who gave answers other than “don’t know,”most indicated that most of the factors (shown in

Figure 6) were at least a “minor issue” but therewere only a few factors that many respondents con-sidered a “major issue.” The factors most commonlycited as major issues were the following:

• Taxi companies cannot meet drug and alcoholtesting requirements (6 respondents)

• Real or perceived concern with taxi servicequality (5 respondents)

• Taxi companies cannot meet insurance require-ments of public agencies (4 respondents)

• Under-capitalized taxi companies (4 respon-dents)

11

Factor Major Issue MinorIssue

Not anIssue Don't Know

1. Taxi companies cannot meet insurance requirements.

4 4 5 12

2. Taxi companies cannot meet drug and alcohol testing requirements.

6 2 6 11

3. Taxi companies cannot meet drivertraining requirements.

3 4 6 12

4. Taxi companies cannot meetrequirements for on-board equipment.

2 7 5 11

5. Taxi companies lack access to capital. 4 5 4 15

6. Inadequate supply of taxicabs in service area.

3 9 1 12

7. There are too few taxi companies toprovide competition in service area.

2 10 2 11

8. Real or perceived concern with taxi quality.

5 10 1 9

9. Inadequate public regulations.

0 4 8 13

10. Restrictions on sites for picking up ordropping off passengers.

0 5 7 13

11. Lack of driver participation due to lack of tips, long trips, paperwork.

2 4 6 13

12. Taxi companies feel payment is tooslow. 1 4 5 15

13. Taxi companies feel payment is inadequate.

3 3 6 13

14. Taxi companies feel payment requires excessive paperwork.

1 5 4 15

Figure 6 Hindrances to partnerships—opinion of state DOT staff.

Though most DOT respondents did not cite spe-cific hindrances to partnerships, several had importantinsights:

• Many see program rules as inhibiting part-nerships, namely ADA compliance and mak-ing taxicabs accessible for people who usewheelchairs. Some taxi companies are unableor unwilling to meet vehicle maintenance andsafety requirements. In one state, even cabcompanies that are awarded publicly fundedaccessible taxicabs do not want to pay the localmatch share of the vehicle, at 20% of the cost.

• Beyond physical and financial requirements,the drug and alcohol testing and ongoing report-ing requirements were cited as too onerous forsome companies.

• One respondent stated that the taxi companieshave not been aggressive about seeking outpartnerships with public agencies. Another saidthat although companies had been invited tomeetings to discuss potential partnerships, theyhave declined to attend.

Helping Factors

Respondents were asked about factors that havehelped in creating partnerships between taxicabs andpublic agencies. This was an open-ended question.Responses were in four general areas.

Regulations and program design. For Wisconsin,which has a statewide “shared ride taxi” program, aconsistent design of the shared ride programs through-out the state was seen as important for the success ofpartnerships.

Grant programs. Federal grant programs were men-tioned frequently as foundational to partnershipswith taxicab companies. The FTA Section 5316 (JobAccess and Reverse Commute) and Section 5317(New Freedom) programs were cited as direct helpsto partnerships. These programs are being used tofund purchases of accessible taxis and to fund ridesubsidy programs.

Joint committees and industry outreach. Severalrespondents identified good relationships with thetaxi industry as critical to the success of any pro-gram. One specifically mentioned trust as an impor-tant factor. Another cited “able” taxi companies andowners that have worked as partners toward changesthat were instituted and toward establishing new con-ditions in the industry and in state programs. Thisflexibility was cited by another respondent, as well,

who mentioned that several taxi companies recog-nized their separate roles as operators of a for-profitcompany and as an operator of a publicly fundedtaxi service. This differentiation was particularlyhelpful to the public agencies with which the com-pany partnered. Wisconsin cited its statewide taxiowners association as essential to the success of itspartnerships.

Coordination plans and studies. Four state DOTrespondents cited the coordination plan process (forcoordination between public transit and human ser-vice transportation) as instrumental in identifyingtaxi companies as important partners in their over-all service delivery. Another respondent stated thatthe process made the human service agencies moreaware of the opportunities to partner with taxicabcompanies. At least one coordinated plan identifiedexpanding the existing taxi voucher programs as animportant strategy for the state going forward.

Taxicab Regulator Survey

The 24 survey respondents work for taxi regula-tory agencies that are located within the governmentsof four states, 18 cities, and two counties, includingsmall cities (as small as 30,000), many large cities,and the largest cities (New York and Los Angeles),distributed throughout the United States. The respon-sibilities of the agencies vary with the regulatory sys-tem in place. Not all gave comprehensive descrip-tions of their regulatory systems, but the range ofvariation is clear:

• Some regulate only taxicabs while others reg-ulate all types of vehicles for hire.

• Some grant franchises to a limited number ofcompanies.

• Some issue medallions or licenses that areequivalent to medallions, some grant certifi-cates upon a showing of public convenienceand necessity, and some have open entry.

• Some have their own enforcement staff whileothers rely on police or sheriff’s departmentsfor enforcement.

Direct Partnerships

Six of the regulators’ agencies directly partnerwith taxicab companies. These are typically pro-grams run by other departments within the samegovernment or agency (for some reason, all in California):

12

• The City of Los Angeles DOT regulates taxi-cabs and also provides a taxi subsidy programfor seniors and people with disabilities.

• The Orange County Taxi Administration Pro-gram (OCTAP), which coordinates taxicabservice permitting and other administrativefunctions for cities in the county, is part ofthe Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) that operates transit service, includ-ing ADA paratransit, which provides certainrides on taxicabs.

• The San Francisco Municipal TransportationAgency regulates taxicabs and also operatesthe City’s transit system, including ADA para-transit, which has a taxi subsidy component.

• The San Diego Metropolitan Transit Devel-opment Board regulates taxicabs in the countyand also operates the regional transit systemand the complementary ADA paratransit ser-vice, which uses taxis for some trips.

• The City of West Hollywood regulates taxi-cabs and has an unusual program that pro-vides free taxi rides to medical appointmentsfor people with AIDS, as well as a more con-ventional taxi coupon program.

• The Sunline Transit Agency (serving PalmSprings and nearby cities) regulates taxicabsin its jurisdiction and is planning a guaranteedride home program.

Four of these agencies also provide grant fundingto taxicab companies, for example, for alternative fueland electric vehicles (San Francisco), and wheelchairaccessible taxicabs (San Diego).

Knowledge of Partnerships by Other Agencies

Sixteen respondents know of other agencies thatpartner with taxicabs:

Partnership Type Responses

Medicaid non-emergency transportation 9Other human service programs 10Emergency response or services 1Other services 10

Aside from Medicaid, the specific examples men-tioned included school transportation, ADA para-transit overflow, senior and disabled taxi couponprograms, and an unspecified program by the Districtof Columbia Department of Risk Management.

Respondents were asked to provide more detailsabout partnerships between local public agencies andtaxicab companies that exist in their areas in three gen-eral categories. The answers follow a similar pattern asthose from state DOTs. Although the question askedabout partnerships “in your area,” the responses appearto refer to partnerships more broadly, even nationally.

User-side subsidies. By far the most common usesof user-side subsidies noted were for seniors and/orpeople with disabilities and as a supplement toADA paratransit service, followed by guaranteedride home programs to promote ridesharing and/orpublic transportation. Three respondents indicatedthat there were a few examples of user-side subsidiesfor the general public, but none of them provideddetail. Figure 7 provides details.

Direct contracting. Service for seniors and/or peo-ple with disabilities and by ADA or senior/disabled

13



Don'tKnow

Seniors and/or persons with disabilities5 68 3

Supplemental ADA service3 79 4



General public

0 3 12 7

Figure 7 Regulator knowledge of user-side subsidies.

paratransit programs for some portion of service werethe most common types of partnerships noted, fol-lowed by Medicaid non-emergency trips and specialeducation transport, guaranteed ride home programs,and general public demand responsive transit service.One respondent mentioned 911 transports, but whencontacted was unable to provide further information.Figure 8 provides details.

Other. More respondents knew of at least one appli-cation of regulatory requirements, incentives, or spe-cial permits for accessible taxicab vehicles than appli-

cations of assistance with purchase of accessibletaxicab vehicles. The next most common types ofpartnerships respondents knew were for coordinateddispatching of accessible taxicab vehicles and assis-tance in emergency response. Figure 9 provides details.

Hindrances to Partnerships

Respondents were asked to what extent 14 dif-ferent issues hindered taxi partnerships. In general,as shown in Figure 10, the regulators saw fewerhindrances to partnerships than the state DOT

14



Don'tKnow

Seniors and/or persons with disabilities

3 10 5

3 10 5

4

Supplemental ADA service

6



General public

1 2 11 9

Special education3 4 5 11

Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) 3 7 5 8

Emergency 911 transports

0 1 10 11

Figure 8 Regulator knowledge of direct taxicab contracts.



Don'tKnow

Taxicab assistance with emergency response

0 1 11 9

Assistance with purchase of accessible taxicabs

0 7 11 5

Coordinated dispatching of accessible taxicabs

1 5 10 7

Regulatory requirements, incentives, or special permits for accessibletaxicabs 2 8 10 4

Figure 9 Regulator knowledge of other taxicab partnerships.

15

FactorMajorIssue

MinorIssue

Not an Issue Don't Know

1. Taxi companies cannot meet insurance requirements of public agencies.

1 2

0 1

0 1

1 1

2 4

2 2

0 2

2 8

2 3

3 6

6 5

2 9

13 7

2. Taxi companies cannot meet drug and alcohol testing requirements.

15 73. Taxi companies cannot meet driver training requirements of public agencies.

14 7

4. Taxi companies cannot meet requirements for on-board equipment (first aid, special signs, or indicators).

11 10

5. Taxi companies lack access to capital.

9 8

6. Inadequate supply of taxicabs in service area.

14 5

7. There are too few taxi companies to provide competition in service area.

17 4

6

8. Real or perceived concern with taxi quality.

7

9. Inadequate public regulations.

14 4

10. Restrictions on sites for picking up or dropping off passengers.

11 3

7

8

11. Lack of driver participation due to lack of tips, long-distance trips, or too much paperwork. 5

12. Taxi companies feel payment is too slow.

4

13. Taxi companies feel payment is inadequate.

14. Taxi companies feel payment requires excessive paperwork.

2 93 9

5 91 8

Figure 10 Hindrances to taxicab partnerships—regulator opinion.

respondents saw. There were only five factors thata majority of respondents considered either a majoror minor issue. These were as follows:

• Lack of driver participation due to lack of tips,long-distance trips, too much paperwork

• Taxi companies feel payment requires exces-sive paperwork

• Taxi companies feel payment is too slow• Taxi companies feel payment is inadequate• Real or perceived concerns with taxi service

quality

Asked for specifics, three agencies offered thesecomments:

• Los Angeles: In the past year, we changed froma paper scrip program for Cityride with exces-sive paperwork (due to past fraud), to a newdebit card payment system using on-boardvehicle GPS trip verification. This has elimi-nated all driver paperwork, improved fraudmonitoring, provided quicker driver reimburse-ments, and reduced, if not eliminated, driverprogram charges from companies. Wheelchairservice trips are still not accepted because ofthe ability of independent contractors to refuse.Many drivers will not take a wheelchair trip dueto the added time to handle wheelchairs priorto turning on the meter, low tips, and so forth.

• Atlanta: Funding sources have always been anissue for creating these initiatives. (RedondoBeach also commented on funding as an issue.)

• Seattle: The taxicab industry is fragmented.Taxicab associations only dispatch and do notown taxicabs or employ drivers. The StateLabor & Industries Department claims associ-ations exercise control by dispatching therebyvoiding the driver independent contractor sta-tus. Associations cannot guarantee pick uptimes because they cannot tell drivers when orwhere to work, for example, in which computerdispatch zone.

Los Angeles and Seattle are both included in thecase studies.

Helping Factors

Respondents were asked about factors that havehelped in creating partnerships between taxicabsand public agencies. This was an open-ended ques-tion with later telephone follow-up. Responses werein four general areas.

Regulations. Many respondents indicated that regu-lations were key to promoting partnerships betweentaxicab companies and public agencies. Many licens-ing commissions or public utility regulators use thepermitting process to incentivize partnerships or par-ticipation in certain programs. Nashville allows taxi-cab companies up to five additional taxicab permitsif the additional taxicabs are wheelchair accessible.The initiative has resulted in an increase of accessi-ble taxicabs from 2 in 2006 to 27 in 2011. San Diego,which uses an RFP-based permitting system, awardsextra points to companies that include wheelchairaccessible taxicabs in their proposal.

Some cities simply mandate accessible servicein some form. New York City requires that compa-nies provide an accessible trip, even if that meansusing a different company that has accessible cabs.Companies are not allowed to deny an accessible trip.Other cities require fleets of a certain size to includea certain number of wheelchair accessible vehicles.Fleets must comply or they risk their authority forregular service.

Los Angeles includes a total company servicerequirement for wheelchair trips in its franchiseagreements whereby internal incentives are providedto drivers (at overall company cost) to take thesewheelchair trip requests. The City credits these regu-lations and companies’ internal incentives for driversto take wheelchair trips (such as $15 added incomeper on-time trip) with overcoming the issues createdby independent contractor drivers and avoiding abigger wheelchair trip response issue.

Several respondents also noted that their regu-lating bodies have taken a leadership role in stan-dardizing taxi rules and in raising the standards ofdrivers and their vehicles. OCTAP noted that centralregulation of taxis serving a large number of juris-dictions within the metro area ensures that compa-nies meet minimum requirements. According toOCTAP staff, this centralized process “takes theguess work away when a local agency decides onand approves partnerships with taxicab companieswithin the county.”

Financial incentives. Some regulators have puttogether programs for payment incentives that aid inthe formation of partnerships. San Francisco usesportions of advertising revenues and medallion trans-fer fees as a “Driver Fund” to provide additionaldriver benefits. The City of Seattle and King Countyissue taxicab licenses (similar to medallions in other

16

cities) for wheelchair accessible taxicabs at no costand with no annual license renewal fee. The licensesare awarded by lottery to those best qualified or by RFP.

Joint committees and industry outreach. Severalrespondents cited meetings with industry representa-tives and/or joint committees as essential to promot-ing partnerships with public agencies. Seattle hascoordinating groups with member representativesfrom government agencies, nonprofits, and the taxi-cab industry. These groups share information andlook for solutions to common transportation prob-lems by forming ad-hoc committees to address par-ticular issues.

San Francisco uses town hall meetings with infor-mal formats rather than traditional formal bodies tofoster frank and productive discussion among all par-ties. The statewide regulatory agency in Delawarehas just begun to reach out to the industry to discussthe State’s needs as well as to hear the thoughts of thecompanies. The primary aim was to develop effectiveregulation and discuss potential legislative changes,but the agenda also included an education piece for thecompanies—the meetings discussed ways to promotecleaner, more reliable, and safer service.

Grant programs. Many regulators indicated involve-ment in grant administration or cooperation in appli-cations with taxicab companies. A few are involvedin pass-through grants for electric taxis, hybrids, orcompressed natural gas vehicles. San Francisco isadministering a grant for the acquisition of 50 elec-tric taxis that will be supplied to the industry.

Primarily, though, most cities that cite grants asan aid to fostering partnerships with the taxicabindustry use New Freedom funds or Job Access andReverse Commute (JARC) funds to purchase wheel-chair accessible taxis on behalf of taxi companies.Several respondents cited the New Freedom pro-gram as a critical piece of their coordination activi-ties. Other types of grants include increased trafficsafety training for drivers.

Other incentives. Other types of incentives are spe-cific to each city’s needs. San Francisco plans toimprove taxi service to the public without cost to theindustry through a web and smartphone applicationthat locates cabs through GPS. Due to specific con-straints of the regulations and the taxicab compa-nies themselves in mandating driver behavior, this

private-sector solution is thought to close a gap inthe city’s taxi service delivery.

Los Angeles absorbed the technology upgradecosts when it switched from paper vouchers to a swipecard system for its user-side subsidy program and usedits technology consultant contract to upgrade all of thecab software. The program used equipment that thecabs were required to have anyway, but the City’sabsorption of the cost eliminated major protest of thechange and ensured that all systems had equal accessto a uniform programming and consulting service.As described in more detail in a case study, the costswere offset by savings that would result from theupgrade.

Taxicab Operator Survey

There were eight responses to the survey invita-tion sent by the TLPA. The respondents indicatedthat their companies participate in the followingtypes of partnerships:

Type of Partnership Responses

Contracted ADA service 3Trip subsidies for seniors

and/or persons with disabilities 2Contracted service for seniors

and/or persons with disabilities 2Trip subsidies for ADA paratransit riders 1Guaranteed ride home 1Contracted general public service 1911 transports 1

The few operators that did respond made a num-ber of observations about hindrances and incentivesfor partnerships. Hindrances included insufficientfinancial incentives, low demand for service, and lackof government interest or participation.

Insufficient financial incentives. The primary issueindicated in the open-ended answers was insufficientfinancial incentives for participating in programs. Twooperators specifically cited private Medicaid brokersas not paying a high enough rate for them to partici-pate in the program. They feel that the brokers take toolarge a percentage of the reimbursement from Medic-aid, making it an unprofitable venture for taxicabs.

Another company indicated that other financialpressures have shrunk their operating margin, mak-ing partnerships yielding reduced profits not feasi-ble. These pressures include guaranteed minimumwages, payroll taxes, and increasing overall costs.

17

One company stated that the purchase of acces-sible taxis with no subsidy is not possible becausethe rate of return is the same, but the vehicle is moreexpensive.

Low demand for service. Two companies indicatedthat there is not enough demand to warrant theirparticipation in certain programs. One company isa provider of accessible taxi service, owning fivewheelchair accessible vehicles. However, there are14 other accessible cabs in the city, and there is notenough demand for them. Additionally, many orga-nizations have their own vehicles to transport theirparticipants and do not need the taxi service.

Without a guarantee of ridership from a publicagency (in one case, the local transit authority), thetaxicab company could not enter into an agreementor contract for service. The paperwork required forthe company and drivers was too much of a risk totake on without this guarantee.

Lack of government interest or participation. Arespondent described the willingness of the taxicabcompany to work with any public agency in thearea; however, the agencies either do not need taxiservice or are unaware of the potential benefits ofa partnership.

One respondent sees it as a problem that thereis no taxi representation on the board of the localplanning district, or anyone from the private sector.In one area, the transit union reportedly prohibitedpartnerships with taxicab companies for any services.

Incentives for partnerships. Two companies de-scribed things that helped incentivize partnerships.One indicated that government regulation of marketentry allows it to remain profitable and stabilizes itslong-term financial decision-making. Another indi-cated that a new transit administrator recently tookoffice and saw the benefit of partnering with taxicabcompanies. Until this happened, there was little inter-est on the part of the government to work with taxis.

CHAPTER 3—GENERAL PUBLIC DIAL-A-RIDE

The following case studies of the Ann Arbor Tran-sit Authority, the Pomona Valley Transit Authority,and Wisconsin Shared Ride Taxi programs illustratehow taxis can be used effectively to provide demandresponsive service for the general public in certain sit-uations. All these programs have been operating formany years.

Ann Arbor Transit Authority

Overview and history. Night Ride is a shared ridetaxi service that operates at times when AATA’sfixed-route services do not. Night Ride enables AATAto provide at least some form of public transportationaround the clock within the City of Ann Arbor. Otherparts of AATA’s service area, including the city ofYpsilanti, are not served by Night Ride. AATA initi-ated Night Ride in 1983 in response to the commu-nity’s need for safe, low-cost transportation late atnight. Trips are also available on major holidays whenfixed-route service does not operate. Anyone may useNight Ride. The fare for a trip on Night Ride is $5.00,or $2.50 for individuals with an ADA or senior iden-tification card, or $3.00 for holders of the Go!Passavailable to employees who work within the bound-aries of the Ann Arbor Downtown DevelopmentAuthority.

Night Ride changed substantially in 2002 when,in response to budget pressure, AATA consideredterminating the program but instead increased thebasic fare from $1.50 to $5.00. Many short trips andcasual trips that were formerly made on Night Rideno longer occur. The primary use is by people whoneed it to get home from work when AATA bus ser-vice does not operate. Night Ride currently servesabout 400 trips per week.

Service parameters. Night Ride operates from11:00 PM to 6:00 AM Monday through Friday and7:00 PM to 7:30 AM on Saturday and Sunday. Noorders are taken after 5:15 AM weekdays and 6:45 AM weekends. All Night Ride trips must bescheduled by phone reservation. Customers call theNight Ride service phone number to request service.Drivers are not permitted to pick up passengers whoattempt to flag down a vehicle. Similarly, tripsarranged directly with a driver are not permittedunder Night Ride. These restrictions are intended tolimit possibilities for fraud involving trips that neverreally happened. They also help to distinguish NightRide from the ordinary taxi service.

Night Ride cabs normally take 15 to 40 minutesto arrive to pick up passengers. The average wait is20 minutes. It is a deliberate part of the service con-cept that response times should be long enough thatthe service does not compete with regular taxi ser-vice. Night Ride is a shared ride service, so the cabmay pick up and/or drop off other passengers whileserving any trip. AATA recommends that Night Ridecustomers allow at least an hour to complete a trip,

18

though the average trip takes about 45 minutes. Ser-vice for wheelchair users is provided with a lift-equipped van.

Taxicab contracting. AATA contracts with a singletaxi company, Blue Cab Company, to operate NightRide. This company won a competitive procurementconducted in 2002 and most recently in 2009. Underthe Night Ride contract, the taxi company takes reser-vation calls (including by telecommunications devicefor the deaf—TDD), dispatches trips, collects fares,and provides extensive reporting. The contractor “isauthorized and encouraged to consolidate unrelatedpassenger trips into one vehicle.”

Most trips are provided with vehicles that are ded-icated to Night Ride service for a period of time. Thecontractor is required to have available at least oneaccessible vehicle for all hours the service is operated.The number of dedicated vehicles in each time periodis established jointly with AATA based on demandpatterns. For many years there were at least twodedicated vehicles and a third was often used from11:00 PM to 1:00 AM or 2:00 AM depending on vol-ume and from about 4:00 AM onward. A recentexpansion of the boundaries of the program resultedin the use of three dedicated vehicles at all times andthe addition of a fourth during periods of expectedheavy volume.

Since these vehicles do not mix regular taxi busi-ness with Night Ride business during the hours theyare dedicated to Night Ride, this part of the service isnot, strictly speaking, taxi service. The drivers of thevehicles are paid by the hour as employees. However,the same vehicles operate as regular taxicabs at othertimes, with the same drivers acting as independentcontractors and receiving compensation from farerevenue. Also, the contractor supplements dedi-cated vehicles with non-dedicated taxicabs wheneverneeded to accommodate demand. Drivers who carryNight Ride trips when operating in non-dedicatedtaxicab mode are compensated on the basis of meterrates, that is, the company pays the difference betweenthe Night Ride fare, which is retained by the driver,and the meter fare.

AATA pays for service based on a rate per rev-enue vehicle hour. For 2011, the rate is $28 per hourfor non-accessible vehicles and $40 per hour foraccessible vehicles. For dedicated vehicle service,the payment is based on actual hours the vehicles arein operation. For non-dedicated service, the con-tractor receives payment for one revenue vehiclehour for each 3.5 trips provided, that is, $8 per trip.

According to Blue Cab’s owner, the dedicatedvehicle service is more profitable, since payment isfixed per vehicle hour. Trips on what he termed“cash cabs” can lose money since AATA’s paymentis fixed at $8 per trip, but the driver is paid for themeter. As a result, the company attempts to place asmany trips as possible on dedicated vehicles, andonly 5% to 10% of trips are carried on cash cabs.

Contract requirements. In the early days of NightRide, AATA simply required that each driver belicensed as a taxi driver by the City. At that time, theCity had a strong program of taxi regulation, withlimits on numbers of taxi companies and vehicles andstrong enforcement. Later, the City moved to an openentry system of regulation with much more limitedenforcement. In this environment, AATA determinedthat it needed to enforce standards through the con-tracting process. The combination of AATA’s con-tracts for Night Ride and other services with contractsfrom local schools and for Medicaid non-emergencytransportation provides a stable base of revenue thathas enabled two of the many taxi companies in AnnArbor to establish themselves as dominant players. (Alarger taxi company has the contract for AATA’s para-transit services.) With the stable revenue from con-tracts, these companies are able to maintain 24-hourdispatch systems and comply with the requirements ofcontracting organizations.

The contract requires a regular program of pre-tripvehicle inspections and record keeping; exterior andinterior vehicle cleaning to specified standards; eighthours of driver training on accessibility, customer ser-vice, and disability awareness; driver uniforms andname badges; FTA drug and alcohol testing; and $1million in general liability and automobile liabilityinsurance. There are also standards for driver suitabil-ity that are similar to those in many taxicab codes per-taining to criminal convictions and driving record. Anorganized complaint investigation process is required,with reports to AATA. Detailed record keeping of trips and call taking activity is required, as wellas completion of reports for the National TransitDatabase.

The requirement for $1 million in general liabil-ity insurance exceeds the $500,000 requirement ofthe City of Ann Arbor. The taxi company initiallyattempted to insure only those vehicles used in NightRide for the higher amount, while leaving the rest ofcompany’s 35 vehicles at the lower rate. However,this met with resistance from the insurance company.

19

Further, contracts with the public schools, whichaccount for more service than Night Ride, also require$1 million in insurance.

According to Blue Cab’s owner, AATA’s require-ment for drug testing is unique among the organiza-tions the company contracts with. He noted that drugtesting has the potential for significantly limiting theavailable driver pool, since Michigan allows medicaluse of marijuana. However, the company has foundthat participation in drug testing has been a useful sell-ing point in discussions with social service agenciesinterested in purchasing taxi service.

Driver issues. From the point of view of drivers,operating dedicated vehicle service represents steadyincome. This appeals to some drivers, but not tothose who are most entrepreneurial. Also, since thededicated vehicles only operate for limited hours,this work needs to be combined with some regulartaxi work to make up a full shift and provide a rea-sonable income.

Pomona Valley Transit Authority

Overview. The Pomona Valley TransportationAuthority (PVTA) provides local, door-to-door trans-portation services in four cities on the eastern edgeof Los Angeles County. PVTA operates general pub-lic dial-a-ride in two of the cities, San Dimas andClaremont. PVTA also operates service for seniorsand people with disabilities called Get About through-out its service area. San Dimas and Claremont have apopulation of about 35,000 each in 16 and 13 squaremiles, respectively.

All PVTA’s local services supplement regionalservices, including Foothill Transit, which operatesconventional fixed-route service, and Access Ser-vices Inc., which operates ADA paratransit through-out Los Angeles County. Get About began in 1975,while Claremont Dial-a-Ride began in 1985, and SanDimas Dial-a-Cab began in 1987, taking advantageof funds that became available from a transportationsales tax in Los Angeles County.

Get About uses a combination of dedicated vansand some taxicabs, but San Dimas Dial-a-Cab andClaremont Dial-a-Ride (except for a group trip com-ponent) are shared ride taxi services operated entirelyby the local taxi provider.

Service description. Claremont Dial-a-Ride andSan Dimas Dial-a-Cab are similar but distinct ser-

vices. Features of the two services are similar withsome differences:

• Customers call one hour in advance for apickup. Since rides are shared, customers areadvised to allow 30 to 45 minutes of traveltime after they are picked up.

• Service is available to the general public forany purpose.

• Service operates within the limits of eachcity, but with limited additional destinationsavailable.

• Service operates 24 hours, except that on Clare-mont Dial-a-Ride only seniors, people with dis-abilities, and children under the age of 16 canride outside core hours (6:00 AM to 7:00 PM,weekdays and 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday).

• Rides traveling together, with the same pickupand dropoff, can ride for one fare.

• Service is curb-to-curb, passengers mustcarry their own packages, and exact change isaccepted (or pre-paid tickets in the case ofClaremont).

• Fares are higher on the San Dimas servicethan on the Claremont service:

Claremont San Dimas

General public $1.25 $3.00Service beyond city $2.00 $4.50

limits or Claremont core hours

Senior/disabled $0.75 $1.50(24 hours, alldestinations)

The two services combined carried about 69,000passengers in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of about$760,000:

Claremont San Dimas

Passenger trips 47,915 21,206Trips by wheelchair users 763 1123Cost per passenger trip $10.02 $13.22Total cost $480,016 $280,310Fare revenue $46,046 $21,785

The cost per trip (excluding PVTA adminis-tration) is similar to the cost of taxi trip subsidyprograms.1

Taxi contracting. All the dial-a-ride service is pro-vided by taxicabs that can mix dial-a-ride work with

20

regular taxi business. The company, which providestaxi service in a much larger area, has about 80 cabs,but about four to five drivers tend to do most of thedial-a-ride work in San Dimas and Claremont. Theservices use regular taxicabs, five accessible vehiclesleased to the company by PVTA, and some olderaccessible vehicles sold to the company after the endof their lease.

Customers call the taxi company directly toarrange rides, using a number that connects to thecompany’s reservations center in Anaheim. The dis-patchers relay groups of trips to the drivers thatoperate in this area and let the drivers determinethe best sequence of pickups and dropoffs to servethe trips efficiently while meeting standards for on-time service.

PVTA pays a flat rate for dial-a-ride trips:

Claremont Dial-a-Ride: $9.05 per passenger tripSan Dimas Dial-a-Cab: $11.60 per passenger tripWheelchair or scooter fee: $3.00

These rates are based on many years of experi-ence with trip patterns. The taxi contractor estimatesthe mileage and meter fare for each trip using a pro-gram called CabMaestro. This data is used as a basisfor paying drivers and is provided to PVTA for usein negotiating future rate adjustments. In the pastactual meter readings, as reported by drivers, wereused for the same purpose, but the results from thesoftware are considered more accurate and showshorter trips on average.

The contract requires FTA drug testing, report-ing for the National Transit Database, automobileliability insurance with a combined single limit of atleast $1 million per occurrence, and “a formal train-ing and retraining program which shall be subject toreview and approval by PVTA.” The contractor isrequired to keep records of preventive maintenanceof vehicles. The contractor is required to pick up 90%of rides within 45 minutes of receiving a call, and issubject to a payment deduction of $500 in any monththe standard is not met. There is deduction of $50 fora wait time of over 60 minutes and $100 for impropersecurement of a wheelchair.

Drivers and vehicles. For drivers, dial-a-ride workprovides a base of income at a time when business isvery low. As is typical in taxi operations, the driversare independent contractors who pay a lease fee,which is the company’s revenue. The companypays the drivers for the dial-a-ride trips they carry

based on the meter rate, less $0.10 per mile. Giventhe lack of other business, PVTA finds that driversare willing to do dial-a-ride work at these rates, andthat response times have actually improved—about14 minutes compared with about 28 minutes in thepast. Reported on-time performance (i.e., responsewithin 45 minutes) in fiscal year 2010 was over 99%.PVTA’s Administrator estimates that Dial-a-Cabaccounts for 80% of all taxicab work in San Dimas.

Wisconsin Shared Ride Taxis

The State of Wisconsin provides assistance forapproximately 50 shared ride taxi services acrossthe state. Two are municipally operated, and the restare contracted out to private operators. In almost allthe participating communities, the shared ride taxiservice is the only available form of public transporta-tion. The program dates from the mid-1980s when pri-vate operators lobbied for state and federal assistancebecause they were having difficulty staying in busi-ness. The operators convinced many municipalities tostart shared ride programs.

Most of the services are not taxi service in theusual sense, despite its name and the fact that many ofthe local services are called taxi service and use vehi-cles that look like taxicabs. The program is strictly apublic transit program—there is no metered fare. Mostcommunities are small—the largest has a populationof about 18,000. Each town issues its own request forproposals for service, but the State approves them. TheState is slowly converting all contracts to hourly ratecontracts, but since most RFPs are issued for 5 yearsat a time, this is a slow process. Some municipalitieshave per-mile contracts at the moment.

The State uses FTA Section 5311 funding forrural transit to support the operations. Four systemsare part of urban areas, so the State can use some5307 funding for those systems. Generally, about65% of each municipality’s operating costs are pro-vided by the State. Some municipalities do not con-tribute to the programs at all, and the State’s 65% isthe only subsidy. Some municipalities do subsidizein addition to the State’s contribution.

The municipalities typically have three to sevencompanies bidding on their RFPs. This competitionresults in cost savings for the municipalities. Sincethe taxi operator is essentially guaranteed rides andpayment, the contracts are highly sought-after. Theoperator network in the state is fairly sophisticated.It is doing the “missionary” work to promote the

21

programs in shared ride communities. There werethree major players in the system—one was just pur-chased by another, so now there are two.

The State would like to bring 10 to 20 additionalcommunities into the shared ride taxi network. Ittypically gets one to two additional communitieseach year. At the moment, there is not enough fund-ing to include the additional 10 to 20 that it couldpossibly add.

Much of the success of the Wisconsin shared ridetaxi system seems to derive from the active assistancethat the state DOT provides to the municipalities. Thishas included education of local officials about fed-eral funding and compliance issues and ongoingtechnical assistance. There is an active associationof private operators, the Wisconsin Association ofTaxicab Owners, which is allied with three otherstatewide organizations representing rural and para-transit operations, non-emergency medical trans-portation providers, and transit systems.

CHAPTER 4—CONTRACTING FOR SENIOR AND DISABLED DEMANDRESPONSIVE SERVICE

Many older people and people with disabilitieshave difficulty using conventional, fixed-route publictransportation, and many transit agencies, cities, coun-ties, and other organizations provide demand respon-sive services, often called dial-a-ride, to serve theseneeds. In the case of people with disabilities, the ADArequires that public transit operators receiving federalfunding provide “complementary paratransit” for peo-ple with a disability that prevents use of fixed-routetransit service.2

Research conducted for the TCRP in 2004 iden-tified 31 public transportation operators that contractfor non-dedicated vehicles, mostly taxicabs, forsome portion of their paratransit programs, includ-ing ADA paratransit, non-ADA senior services, andsome human service transportation.3 These 31 agen-cies are ones that responded to a survey, so it can beassumed that there are in fact many that use taxis forsome portion of their demand responsive servicesfor seniors or people with disabilities.

Pennsylvania Senior Shared Ride Program

Each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties has a SharedRide program for seniors supported by proceedsfrom the State Lottery. These services provide more

rides per capita for older people than any other pro-gram of its kind identified in a national study of seniortransportation conducted for the American PublicTransit Association in 2010.1 These services are alsoopen to the general public, but without the 85% sub-sidy available to seniors age 65 and older. Other agen-cies (such as the Department of Public Welfare for theMedical Assistance Transportation Program) alsopurchase service and pay for their clients.

A coordinator of Shared Ride services in eachcounty decides how to deliver service. This coordina-tor is housed in different agencies in different counties.In some cases, the coordinator may be part of thecounty transportation department and in others, part ofa transit authority. Some use no taxi operators what-soever and some use taxi service exclusively andunderstand the benefits of these partnerships. One usesfive taxi companies to cover the entire county. Onetwo-county area is the only Shared Ride system with24-hour, seven day per week service, because this isserved by a taxi company with those hours.

Door-to-door service is available for medical tripsfor seniors and curb-to-curb is available for the gen-eral public if they are willing to pay the unsubsidizedfare. Fares in each county are different, and door-to-door trips average approximately $15 to $16 per trip,of which the State Lottery pays 85% for seniors. In many areas, the Association on Aging pays theremaining 15%, so seniors essentially ride for free. In1997, the State made the same program available topersons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and64 using other funding sources.

According to the Chief of Specialized Trans-portation at the Pennsylvania State DOT, taxi oper-ators resisted the Shared Ride program when it wasestablished in 1981, saying that the Shared Ride ser-vices would amount to unfair competition. However,the State was able to reason that a prior day reserva-tion requirement that applies to the Shared Ride pro-gram eliminated the direct competition element. TheState also encouraged the counties to use taxi oper-ators where they could, and this helped win over thetaxi operators.

Also, a taxi company that is a Shared Ride serviceoperator can bypass some state service area regula-tions that otherwise apply to taxi operators. The StatePublic Utilities Commission oversees taxi licensingand operations, and companies are licensed based onspecific service areas. Over 2,000 taxi companies haveassigned areas throughout the state. For Shared Ridetrips, participating taxi companies use the establishedShared Ride fare and not the taxi fares set by the State.

22

Suburban Transit Network (Montgomery County)

Overview. The Suburban Transit Network (TransNet)is a nonprofit in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,that began in 1980 as a pilot program and has devel-oped into a regional transportation service with multi-ple public agency contracts. The first service was thePennsylvania State Lottery’s senior citizens’ SharedRide service; others include the Department of PublicWelfare’s non-emergency Medical Assistance Trans-portation Program, and the Office of DevelopmentalPrograms’ service for adults with developmentaldisabilities. The latter two are funded by Medicaid.The State Lottery-funded Shared Ride service wasthe impetus for the organization, which began as aconsortium of taxicab companies.

Initially, TransNet focused on meeting the needsof senior citizens and disabled persons, doing soexclusively through relationships with existing Mont-gomery County taxicab companies. While its coreridership continues to be groups such as seniors anddisabled persons, TransNet also contracts with schooldistricts, colleges, and private companies to offer spe-cialized transit services and commuter shuttles. TheState Lottery program still provides a significant por-tion of TransNet’s revenue.

Taxicab company partnerships. TransNet began asa consortium of taxi companies and their continuedmembership in the organization depends on theiradherence to policies and procedures. TransNetinvolves them in the development of new policies andprocedures to facilitate buy in. For most of these com-panies, the contracts TransNet has with state agenciesare a significant part, if not all, of their business; theirregular dispatch businesses are very small in compar-ison. Because of this, they are highly motivated tokeep their relationship with TransNet and comply withrequirements.

Since the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commis-sion regulates taxi companies based on assigned ser-vice areas, there is some territorialism between thetaxicab companies where service areas overlap. Thishas been an obstacle in some respects for TransNet,but for the most part the companies have been work-ing together for many years and have learned to giveand take.

Service quality issues. Some companies provide ahigher quality of service than others, and it is still astruggle for TransNet to maintain equal compliance

with their service standards throughout the county.Still, it is much better than when TransNet firststarted.

A Risk Management Committee consists of threecarrier members, one driver, one representative froma senior citizen agency, one representative from aprovider of services to people with mental retarda-tion, two representatives from TransNet’s insurancecarrier, and TransNet’s Risk Manager and Risk Man-agement Coordinator. The committee meets on amonthly basis. TransNet’s Risk Manager and stafffrom an independent fleet service company randomlyinspect vehicles at each carrier site to ensure compli-ance with these procedures.

Schuylkill Transportation System (STS) (Schuylkill County)

Overview of program. STS is the public transitoperator in Schuylkill County in rural NortheasternPennsylvania. STS operates fixed-route and para-transit services, including ADA paratransit, MedicalAssistance (Medicaid), the Shared Ride program,the Persons with Disabilities Program, and employ-ment transportation.

The Office of Senior Services is a major subsidizerof the Shared Ride program through the State Lottery,subsidizing approximately 79% of the total SharedRide trips. State Lottery funds pay 85% of trip costs,and the remaining 15% is paid by the senior for non-medical trips. For medical trips, most seniors pay$1.00 though this is waived for some low-incomeclients; the local Office for the Aging pays the remain-ing $1.10 to round out the 15% match, for medicaltrips only. They will allow trips to the doctor, adult daycare centers, grocery shopping, and County-operatedsenior centers.

General public participants account for 13% ofridership. These are trips that are related to recre-ation, trips to malls, group trips to various locations,and out of county shopping excursions. The other8% of trips are provided for nursing and personalcare facilities and medical facilities. In total, thereare approximately 26 subsidizing entities.

Taxicab subcontracting. Approximately 45% oftrips are performed by STS and about 55% are per-formed by taxi subcontractors. STS uses four taxisubcontractors whose performance, for the mostpart, agency staff consider very credible. STS hasa formal contract with each provider and fares are

23

negotiated year to year. STS has a set trip rate fromthe State for the Shared Ride program—$14 for tripsunder 10 miles, and $15 for trips over 10 miles. STSnegotiates per-trip costs with each cab companyannually; these rates do not exceed what theyreceive from the State. The rates depend on the vol-ume of trips that the companies typically transport;one company provides nearly 40% of the trips in thecounty, and they receive a lower reimbursementrate. Another provides trips in more rural parts of thecounty where fewer trips are taken and is thereforereimbursed at a higher rate. The STS call center dis-tributes trips to taxicab companies in a balanced wayto ensure that one company does not receive all thevery long-distance trips that may cost more to pro-vide than the flat trip reimbursement.

STS’s contracts with taxi companies require insur-ance coverage of at least $500,000, a requirementmuch more stringent than the State’s $35,000 require-ment. One company has coverage for $1 million.

The relationships are mutually beneficial. Thetaxi providers in this rural area benefit by gettingmore business and making contacts with individualswho may need their services beyond what STS canoffer. STS benefits by being able to provide more ser-vice: taxi partnerships have allowed STS to expandservice to some areas of the county and even acrosscounty lines in some cases.

Issues with taxicab company partnerships. STS’smain concern about taxicab companies is servicequality. STS staff believe that certain taxi subcon-tractors are more concerned with service quantitythan quality. This can have an effect on service deliv-ery and customer satisfaction. There are also concernsin regards to employees, dress codes, and the enforce-ment of certain policies and procedures set by STS.Also, certain providers sometimes show preference totrips scheduled through their taxi service, and this hascaused some problems in on-time performance fortheir STS trips.

STS reports that the only area of concern on theside of the taxi companies is reimbursement levels.STS did lose a few potential contractors because of this.

Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA),Centre County

Overview. CATA serves the Borough of State Col-lege, home of Pennsylvania State University, andthe four surrounding townships. It operates a net-

work of fixed-route transit services called CATABUS,a ridesharing program, and a demand responsive ser-vice called CATARIDE. CATARIDE is open toanyone, as required by the State Shared Ride pro-gram, but those age 65 or over and those eligible forparatransit under the ADA may use CATARIDE atreduced fares.

As of August 2010, the following fares applied:general public—$13.35, senior citizens—$2.00,ADA eligible—$3.00. In practice, CATA sets thesenior fare and calculates the general public fare sothat applying the 85% subsidy from the State Lotteryyields that fare. The general public fare needs to beapproved by the State and cannot be more thanCATA’s actual cost per trip. The service carries about30,000 trips per year, primarily older adults subsi-dized with State Lottery funds, with the remainingsmall portion its ADA clients.

Taxi contracting. CATA contracts with a local taxicompany to operate all its CATARIDE service. Thetaxi company operates three CATA vans and uses itsown taxi vehicles as needed to meet demand. CATAmaintains the vans it lends to the taxi operator, andthe taxi operator maintains its own fleet. The contractrequires that the operator maintain liability insuranceof $2 million per occurrence and also requires thatthe operator comply with FTA drug testing rules.

The same taxi company, one of the dominantcompanies in the area, has been the operator for thisservice for 25 years. This company advertises thatall of its drivers are drug tested. At least for the para-transit contract, it participates in the same pool thatCATA uses for its own drivers. CATA puts the con-tract out to bid every few years, typically with anoption for the contract to extend up to 5 years. Therehas been competition from non-taxi companies inthe past, but the last competing bid received wasmore expensive than the local taxi operator. The taxicompany is also a Disadvantaged Business Enter-prise (DBE), which helps CATA meet is goal forDBE participation.

CATA pays the company a per passenger rate(not mileage or hourly rate). There is a fixed rate forambulatory trips and a fixed rate for non-ambulatorytrips. The drivers keep logs of passenger trips andthe company bills CATA based on these logs.CATA places calls to randomly selected passengersto verify trips on a regular basis, and it has neverencountered a situation in which the passenger didnot take the trip listed by the taxi company. In thisrespect, CATA feels confident that the company

24

keeps sound records. Note that the rate paid is notconnected to the regular taxi meter rate, so the taxicompany is able to build in its costs for insurance,FTA drug test, and record keeping.

Service quality. CATA receives very few complaintsabout missed trips or anything relating to the taxi oper-ator or the paratransit program. CATA attributes thisto the small size of the paratransit program. In the past,the company tended to provide many trips as directrides, without ride sharing, which increased customersatisfaction. Recently, the company has focused moreon arranging shared rides, which it is encouraged to doin its contract and which is in its interest given the flatper-passenger payment structure. This has createdsome dissatisfaction from customers but is in line withthe intended nature of the program.

San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD)

Overview. San Joaquin RTD serves Stockton andvicinity, in San Joaquin County, California. Since2009 the District has been contracting with a privatemobility management company, American LogisticsCompany (ALC) to provide its ADA paratransit andother demand responsive services using non-dedicatedvehicles, including taxicabs. RTD’s experience illus-trates how contracting through an intermediary ap-pears to allow for contract provisions that might bedifficult for many taxi companies to comply with.

Prior to 2009, this service was provided directlyby the District. There was a transition period duringwhich only a portion of the service was provided byALC, but since September 2010 the contractor hasbeen doing all of RTD’s ADA paratransit in theStockton Metro Area (SMA-ADA) and general pub-lic dial-a-ride (GP-DAR) in rural areas, includingreceiving reservations, scheduling trips, and provid-ing service.

Contracting. The functions retained by RTD areADA eligibility and administering a process to trackpassenger no-shows and apply suspensions for thosewith a pattern of frequent no-shows. The District alsooperates a program called One-Stop Shop, which is afull-service call center where customers can accesstransportation options throughout the county and sur-rounding areas, and provides travel training througha contract with a Sacramento-based non-profit.

Separately, RTD made an agreement with a localnon-profit, United Cerebral Palsy (UCP), to transportits own clients using vehicles provided by the District.

Previously, trips by these passengers had accountedfor a large portion of demand on the ADA service.

As of early 2011, the SMA-ADA and GP-DARservices carried about 90 trips per day, while UCPcarried about 200 trips per day.

Operations. ALC manages the SMA-ADA and GP-DAR services from an operations center in Utah andcontracts with vehicle operator subcontractors in theservice area including taxi operators and others. Thecompany declined to provide information aboutthe number of vehicles operated or the number of companies that operate them, except to say thatenough of the vehicles are wheelchair lift equipped tomeet demand and none of the vehicles are dedicatedexclusively to this contract. In the case of taxicabs, thevehicles have meters and take other trips when theyare not needed for SMA-ADA or GP-DAR service.When any of the vehicles are providing RTD servicethey display an identifying placard. RTD inspectsthe vehicles to be sure they meet contract standards.

ALC provides the drivers with a GPS unit andspecially programmed smart phone that is used fordispatching trips. Vehicle location and trip statusinformation is also available to RTD via a web portal.

The company uses a variety of driver compen-sation methods that make the most sense for thedriver and the contract. The method chosen dependson the number and frequency of trips available to beserved as well as the number of trips the provider isinterested in serving. Some drivers choose to serveonly some trips while others choose to commit100% of their service to this contract. Compensa-tion can be per hour, per trip, per mile, per group,per individual (based on higher need customers), orany combination of these.

RTD’s contract requires the contractor to train thedrivers who are providing the service using a trainingprogram approved by RTD and covering ADA, dis-ability sensitivity, knowledge of the service area, andso forth. ALC requires all its contracted providers tomaintain workers’ compensation as required by law.It is not clear if this includes coverage for independentcontractor taxi drivers.

The rates paid by RTD are not connected to taximeter rates. The agency pays the contractor a flat rateof $2 per reservation, $29.50 per SMA-ADA trip,and $47.50 per GP-DAR trip. The same rate appliesfor a valid no-show, meaning that the vehicle was atthe proper place at the scheduled time, but the pas-senger did not take the trip. The rate for GP-DAR is

25

similar to RTD’s cost per trip when it provided thatservice directly, but the rate for SMA-ADA serviceis about 15% lower and includes vehicles.

The District estimates that it will save about $7 million over 5 years by contracting for SMA-ADA and GP-DAR and by its arrangement withUCP. About 97% of pickups occur within the Dis-trict’s established on-time window of 20 minutesbefore or after the scheduled time.

Orange County Transportation Authority

Background. After some years of making very littleuse of taxicabs, the Orange County TransportationAuthority has been experimenting with limited use oftaxis and other non-dedicated vehicles in its ADA’sparatransit service, known as ACCESS. As a majortransit operator serving Orange County, California,OCTA provides 1.2 million ADA paratransit trips peryear. Ridership has roughly doubled in the past 10 years, and cost per trip has increased by 68% injust 3 years. This makes it a high priority for OCTAto look for ways to contain costs.

Under terms of its current contract for paratransitservice, since 2006, the turnkey service operator, Veo-lia Transportation, has diverted a number of ACCESStrips during AM and PM peak hours, overnight, andon weekends to taxicabs with the objective of reduc-ing the number of revenue vehicle hours operatedusing the OCTA fleet. Trips were also sent to taxis for“service protection,” that is, at times when demand isextremely high or in case of unforeseen circumstancessuch as breakdowns or a driver being severely behindschedule.

Under this arrangement, approximately 300 tripsper day, out of 4,500 to 5,000, were diverted to taxis(supplemental service). OCTA pays Veolia per rev-enue vehicle for dedicated vehicle service and pertrip for trips sent by Veolia to the supplemental ser-vice provider.

Pilot program. In 2010, in response to rising costsand budget pressure, OCTA began looking at increas-ing its use of supplemental service. In July 2010,OCTA and Veolia initiated a pilot program in whichall Sunday ACCESS service, about 800 to 900 tripsper day, would be performed by non-dedicated vehi-cles. For this purpose, Veolia began working withAmerican Logistics Company (ALC), which man-ages taxis and other non-dedicated vehicles from adispatch center in Utah.

Having all service on Sunday performed by non-dedicated vehicles meant that there would need to beprovision for wheelchair accessible service. It alsoraised concerns about driver training and how pas-sengers would identify the vehicles and drivers asbeing part of OCTA ACCESS. Veolia developeda training program that addressed topics such asempathy training and transporting persons using amobility device. Veolia did not train all prospectivenon-dedicated service drivers directly, but conductedseveral train-the-trainer programs emphasizing therequirements of this service. An OCTA ACCESSplacard was developed to be displayed in any vehi-cle performing ACCESS trips in this service. Inaddition, drivers were issued a photo ID which isidentical to those worn by the Veolia ACCESSdrivers. Veolia performs drug and alcohol testing forthe supplemental service drivers.

In the pilot program, Veolia continued to take allreservations, but sent Sunday trips and trips between10 PM and 6:30 AM to ALC, which subcontractedwith a mix of taxi drivers and other operators to pro-vide service. Calls from riders to check ride statusduring these times were forwarded to ALC’s controlcenter. Under this arrangement, the volume of supple-mental service grew from 7,000 to 9,000 trips permonth to about 14,000 trips per month, about 10% ofthem by riders using a mobility device.

Results of the pilot. For the most part, the results of thepilot were considered positive. On-time performancewas 95% to 97% and complaint rates were low, belowthe contract standard of one complaint per 1,000 trips.There were no missed trips. Compared with more con-ventional methods of using taxis in paratransit, thearrangement seems to benefit from selecting specificdrivers who want to provide paratransit. Also, there isflexibility to pay drivers an hourly rate in some cases.One concern involves the vehicles being used in theservice. Veolia has observed some safety issues withthe vehicles being used in supplemental service. Thevehicles are owned by the drivers and not kept at acentral location where they can be easily inspected.

OCTA continued with this arrangement afterthe pilot ended in September 2010. The agency isplanning to expand its use of non-dedicated vehi-cles in May, by sending all trips after 6:00 PMMonday through Saturday to ALC. If results con-tinue to be positive, OCTA is considering expand-ing the arrangement further to include all Saturdaytrips and more peak period trips.

26

As in the case of San Joaquin RTD, OCTA’sexperience seems to show potential benefits fromcontracting with taxicabs through an intermediarywhich can select and train drivers and deal with qual-ity control issues.

CHAPTER 5—SUBSIDIZED TAXI RIDES

Subsidizing taxi rides is a convenient way for apublic entity to provide mobility for users withoutneeding to enter into formal contracts. Subsidized taxirides, popularized as “user-side subsidies” in the1970s, were conceived as a means for reducing thecosts of existing transportation services for the elderlyand people with disabilities by placing the subsidyfunds directly in the hands of the users and encourag-ing them to select the providers of their choice.4

Although the user-side subsidy concept could apply toany type of transportation service, it has been mostcommonly implemented using taxicabs. In addition totheoretical advantages based on free-market economictheory advanced by early proponents, taxi subsidiesare an attractive means of providing service for a num-ber of practical reasons. They do not require startingup a new service. They can be tailored to the amountof budget available by adjusting the amount of subsidyoffered per trip or setting a limit on the number of tripsauthorized per user. Also, unlike a direct contractfor service, they do not trigger FTA drug testingrequirements—drug and alcohol testing rules do notapply to taxicab drivers if patrons are allowed tochoose the taxicab companies that will provide the ser-vices.5 Because riders are choosing among companiesthe transit agency’s liability may also be reduced.

In addition to providing mobility for users, sub-sidized taxi rides may help transit operators reducedemand for ADA paratransit as described in a recentreport from Easter Seals Project Action.6 That reportgives examples of taxi subsidies that are administeredusing coupons, vouchers, scrip, and debit cards. Thenumber of transit agencies and other public entitiesthat subsidize taxi rides is not known, but it is prob-ably in the hundreds. An Internet search using termslike “taxi coupon” or “taxi scrip” produces manypages of results for programs run by cities and transitoperators all over the United States. One large taxicompany in the Chicago area lists on its website over30 municipal taxi subsidy programs for seniors inthe Chicago area in which the company participates(http://www.americantaxi.com/senior_programs.asp,accessed April 26, 2011).

Maryland Transit Administration(Baltimore, Maryland)

Overview. MTA is the transit operator for metropol-itan Baltimore, including ADA paratransit, calledMobility/Paratransit. As part of settling a lawsuitconcerning Mobility in 2005, MTA agreed to estab-lish a taxi subsidy program for ADA paratransit rid-ers that would provide them with an alternative toMobility. This program, now called Taxi Access II,provided 286,000 rides in 2010 at a cost to MTA of$3.9 million excluding broker fees. Eight taxi com-panies and two sedan companies in Baltimore andnearby communities participate. Some notable fea-tures of this program include use of plastic smartcards to verify rider eligibility and track usage,incentive payments to drivers and taxi companies toencourage participation and good service, adherenceto a strict service area, administration by a privatebroker, and effective monitoring to control fraud.

Program design. As initially established, customerscould take up to four rides per day, and the programwould pay a meter fare of up to $50. Riders paid a$3 fare in cash to the driver for each trip. MTA foundthat the program was very expensive: the agency paid$8.4 million in fares for 382,000 trips in 2007, for anaverage fare of $21.91. Aside from encouraging longtrips, these rules also created opportunities for fraud,since it made it worthwhile for passengers to wit-tingly or unwittingly leave their card with a driverwho could generate fraudulent trips.

As currently configured, riders can take up to tworides per day and the program will pay the meter fareup to $20 per ride. The rider still pays $3 per ride andis responsible for any meter fare over the $20 limit.Some other features include the following:

• Each customer is issued a Taxi Access II cardthat includes a picture ID, a 16-digit cardnumber, and electronically encoded eligibilityinformation.

• All rides must be reserved through a taxicompany dispatch office with full details ofpickup and drop-off location, which cannotbe changed after the vehicle has arrived. Rid-ers must identify themselves to the taxi dis-patcher as Taxi Access II riders and give theircard number. Records of these reservationshelp establish the authenticity of each trip.

• At the beginning of the trip, the customer paysthe $3 fare and hands his or her taxi card to the

27

driver who uses it to electronically register thestarting point of the trip, which is recorded viaan on-board GPS unit and transmitted to thetaxi office. At the end of the trip, the driveragain uses the card to record the end point ofthe trip. This process creates a record of theexact start and end times and locations whichcan be used to audit fare payment requestssubmitted by the taxi companies.

• Drivers retain $2 of the $3 cash fare as a tip,and $1 goes to the taxi company to compen-sate for the record keeping that is required.

• Weekly, the broker pays the taxi companies forthe meter fares of the trips, up to the $20 pertrip limit. (The cash fare from the rider doesnot reduce the amount paid by MTA to thetaxi company.) The taxi companies in turn paythe drivers. At the beginning of each contractperiod, MTA pays the broker a cash reservewhich allows the broker to pay the taxi com-panies weekly although MTA only pays thebroker monthly.

• Using the electronic trip records, the brokerconducts audits to verify that the meter faresrequested are reasonable in comparison withthe pickup and drop-off locations and times ofday and that all trips were entirely within theauthorized service area. The authorized ser-vice is based on MTA’s ADA paratransit man-date, which is the area three-quarters of a milearound all MTA transit routes. Taxi companiesand drivers are not paid for any trips outside ofthe service area.

• The broker is compensated for the amountsthat it pays to taxi companies plus a manage-ment fee, less any meter fares paid for anytrips outside of the service area.

Note that the taxi card is used for tracking eligi-bility and usage, but not for payment. Unlike someother programs, riders do not purchase ride value inadvance and no ride value is stored on the cards. Thisis possible because the rider pays a flat amount foreach trip (plus the amount over the $20 meter limit),not a percentage.

Discussion. Taxi Access II provides a convenientalternative to MTA’s ADA paratransit service.MTA’s management does not believe that the pro-gram significantly reduces demand for the ADA para-transit program, but it may provide a cost-effectiveway to grandfather certain trips that will become

ineligible for the ADA service if the ADA ser-vice area is reduced to correspond to transit servicereductions since the time of the 2005 settlementagreement.

In a program that is distinct from Taxi Access II,but that works through the same broker, MTA is alsousing taxis as a way to serve dialysis trips by ADAparatransit riders. It is more cost effective to servethese trips with taxis than with shared ride, presched-uled, ADA paratransit. As an incentive for riders toparticipate, the fare is $2.00 per trip, only a little morethan for a Mobility trip (a fare of $1.85) but with adirect, exclusive ride that can be ordered withoutadvance reservation.

City of Los Angeles

The City of Los Angeles operates a transportationassistance program for individuals age 65 or olderand qualified disabled persons. The program, calledCityride, offers participants reduced costs for the pur-chase of rides on City-permitted taxicabs or CityrideDial-A-Ride services. The City’s program illustratesanother way of using smart cards and combiningtaxi subsidies with other services. It also illustratesthe way Los Angeles regulates taxicabs by means offranchises, a method that is uncommon in the UnitedStates.

Los Angeles grants franchises to a limited numberof taxi companies that are selected by a competitiveprocess. Each franchise is a time limited grant ofauthority to operate taxicab service. Currently, eightcompanies have franchises. Among other things, thefranchise ordinances require each taxi company tohave a digital dispatch system with geographicpositioning capability and to provide the City withdetailed information from this system about usage andresponse times. Cabs have to be capable of acceptingcredit/debit card payment and relaying charge andauthorization data through the digital communicationsystem. The franchise ordinances also require thecompanies to participate in any transportation couponor user-ride subsidy program sponsored by the City.

Prior paper coupon program. Cityride participantspaid $5 for a book of $84 worth of coupons, eachworth $1.00. Participants could use their coupons ona variety of transportation options—buses, para-transit vehicles, or taxis. About 40% to 50% of thecoupons were used in taxis. Each participant coulduse up to a maximum of $12 worth of coupons for

28

each taxi trip; multiple participants riding togethercould pool their coupons for a longer trip.

There were various types of fraud involved withthis paper system. For instance, some participantswould sell these coupons to their friends, and some-times passengers would complain that drivers hadtaken more than the appropriate number of couponsfor a trip.

Much of the record keeping required by the City,other than for Cityride, could be completed using thecomputerized dispatch system. But there was exten-sive paperwork required of both drivers and compa-nies for the Cityride coupon program. The City wouldpay for the value of value trips taken, but payment bythe City could take months and companies wouldcharge drivers 5% to 10% of the fare amount forbilling, record keeping, and the cost of payment delay.Drivers did not like this system because of this extrafee as well as the lack of tips. Drivers often turneddown trips for these reasons. Also, many Cityrideclients were perceived to be more difficult than others,either behaviorally or physically (needing assistance).

Smart cards. In early 2010, the City replaced thecoupon system with a smart card system. Now,Cityride participants may purchase up to $42 of crediteach quarter for $21 (or $9 for low-income partici-pants) paid via check or money order. (An online pay-ment feature is available but is not currently beingused.) The amount that can be purchased was reducedfor budgetary reasons unrelated to the change fromcoupons to cards. Participants can accumulate a creditof up to $168. Cityride taxi ridership is running atabout 10,000 trips per month.

With this system, a participant who wants topay using the Cityride card must hand the card tothe driver immediately upon boarding the cab alongwith a photo ID. The driver swipes the card throughthe meter to verify the Cityride account balance andenters the number of riders. At the end of the trip,the taxi driver swipes the card through the meteragain to determine the total fare and gives the ridera receipt showing the fare, the amount paid from therider’s Cityride account, any other amounts paid,and the balance remaining in the Cityride account.For cases where the digital communications or GPSequipment does not work, a telephone hotline isavailable to authorize charges.

As in the coupon program, a maximum of $12per trip can be paid per participant using the card—enough for a ride of approximately 5 miles. Any fare

over $12 must be paid in cash. However, as withthe coupon program, multiple participants travelingtogether can each contribute up to $12 to the cost ofa ride.

Most of the preparation for Cityride cards wasdone in 2009, though the transition had been talkedabout for at least 5 years. The switch started in early2010, and after September, coupons were no longeraccepted. Since coupons were good for six months,the City had to phase in use of the cards.

Because of the requirements of the City’s fran-chises, the capacity already existed for cabs to acceptthe new cards, although with some additional pro-gramming. The City paid for all of the programmingthat had to happen for units to accept Cityride cards.If the card reader in a cab needed to be updated, thatwas the responsibility of the owner. The City alsoinstalled card readers in dial-a-ride vehicles, soCityride cards are accepted on them as well. MJMInnovations (which also provides cards and brokeragefor Baltimore’s taxi subsidy program) and MyTran-sitPlus were the contracted companies for providingthe programming and technology.

Results. The City has disallowed the 5% to 10%charge that companies used to impose on drivers forprocessing coupons. The City picks up the tab forcard transaction fees. These fees cost half of whatit formerly cost the City to process paperwork andmonitor usage under the old system, and it wants toincentivize the program. The savings more thanmake up for the cost of installing the new system.

The cards greatly reduce the potential for fraudand the paperwork that was required for coupons.Payment is made in a matter of weeks instead ofmonths.

Trip refusals are down, though the City acknowl-edges that there are always going to be trip refusals.The issues of tips and passenger assistance needsremain, but drivers no longer lose the company pro-cessing fees and no longer have to handle coupons.It is no longer possible for a driver to take too few ortoo many coupons; if the driver swipes the card twicefor the same trip, the mistake is detectable and can befixed later electronically.

Future initiatives. Many companies are beginningto voluntarily install systems in the back of theirtaxicabs to facilitate credit card payment. Cityrideclients will be able to swipe their Cityride cardsthemselves instead of relying on the driver.

29

West Hollywood, California

Overview. The City of West Hollywood, whichborders Los Angeles to the north, has two taxi subsidyprograms, one of which is very unusual. The City reg-ulates taxis via a franchise system similar to that ofLos Angeles. As a result of a franchise RFP processconducted in 2004, seven companies that also havefranchises to operate in Los Angeles were awardedfranchises to operate in West Hollywood. However,individual cabs must be “sealed” for operation ineach city. The City’s taxi subsidy program illustratesthe flexibility that exists with such programs to serveparticular groups with a variety of program designs.The program also shows the potential for cooperationamong cities through use of a third-party programadministrator.

Medical rides for people living with AIDS. Taxicompanies are required to participate in the programto transport residents living with AIDS. An employeeof one of the taxicab companies serves as a centraldispatch for the service. She takes all of the calls anddistributes them on a rotating basis to the variouscompanies. People living with AIDS are registeredin the program through their case workers. The ser-vice is free and is only available for medical tripsbetween 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM.

The program is tightly run, but the City may haveto start monitoring more closely for fraud. A clientrecently booked a taxi trip to a Macy’s, claiming itwas a trip to fulfill a prescription.

The taxi companies are not reimbursed for thesetrips but are required to fulfill them. Since a primarytenet of the foundation of West Hollywood was gayrights, the City Council is very sensitive to gayrights and prioritizes these issues. Thus, there is ahigh population of individuals living with AIDS inWest Hollywood, and the City Council wants toextend support to them.

Seniors and residents with disabilities. Seniors andcertain residents with disabilities are eligible for taxicoupon discount books. Specifically, the follow-ing individuals are eligible: residents who are 65 orolder, blind, wheelchair bound, suffering from HIV,with Alzheimer’s disease, in chemotherapy/radiationtreatment, or on kidney dialysis treatment. They canpurchase a book with coupons worth $28 in taxi tripsfor $8. The coupons are good for any time of day andany trip type. As in Los Angeles, participants areallowed to use a maximum of $12 per trip from thecoupons; the rest must be paid by the rider.

Beverly Hills uses the same coupon program,and it has the same vendor. Los Angeles used thesame vendor, until it switched to a smart card pro-gram. Drivers who must go between jurisdictionsfind it difficult to use both programs.

Olathe, Kansas

The City of Olathe, Kansas, located about20 miles southwest of Kansas City, provides subsi-dized taxi coupons for low-income residents, as wellas for seniors and people with disabilities. Olathe’sprogram is unusual for including low-income resi-dents. It is also unusual for the generous amount oftravel allowed for a flat-rate payment system. Thesefeatures appear to depend on the small geographicarea that is served. In addition, the program showsthe effect of using federal funding.

Participants purchase coupons from the Citythat they can use to pay for rides with two partici-pating taxi companies. There are four categories ofcoupons:

CostCoupon Coupon per Type Purpose Limits Coupon

Green—personal

Purple—work

Blue—medical

Yellow—special

30

Shopping ormedicaltrips byelderly anddisabledresidents

Low-incomeresidents forjob prepara-tion skills,work, andwork relatedactivities

Elderly anddisabledresidentsneedingaffordabletransporta-tion to reachmedicalappoint-ments

Five-minutestop at anylocation inthe city

20 couponsper month

50 couponsper month.Verificationof employ-ment, appli-cation, etc.,is required

As needed formedical.appoint-ments withdocumenta-tion frommedicalprovider

Unlimited

$3.00

$2.50

$2.50

$1.00

Each personal, work, or medical coupon is goodfor a one one-way taxi ride within the City limits only,and each special (yellow) coupon is good for a wait upto 5 minutes. The companies are required to provideservice Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM to7:00 PM, and any longer hours that the company actu-ally operates. As a result, service is actually available24 hours every day. In addition to conventional taxis,both companies operate a lift-equipped minibus pro-vided by the City. It carries two passengers in wheel-chairs and eight seated passengers. The company canuse the minibus in taxi service but needs to make itavailable at any time as needed for wheelchair acces-sible service or group trips arranged by the City. Thesegroup trips operate to major shopping destinations andcost one personal coupon for a round trip.

This program is the current version of one thatbegan in 1977 allowing trips for any purpose forelderly and disabled residents. Recently, due to bud-get limitations, the City cut back on the number ofpersonal trips allowed and raised the coupon pricefor these trips from $2.50 to $3.00, while leaving thework and medical components as they were. Theprogram is funded by FTA New Freedom and JobAccess/Reverse Commute grants matched by fundsfrom the City’s General Fund and a CommunityDevelopment Block Grant. In 2010, the programprovided about 50,000 trips, of which about 53%were work trips, at a cost of about $600,000.

The two participating companies were selectedusing an RFP issued to comply with FTA require-ments. One of the participating companies is a smalllocal operation while the other serves the entireKansas City metropolitan area of which Olathe is apart. This company is part of a company that operateslimousine, paratransit, and shuttle services world-wide. It advertises a flat rate of $10 for any trip upto 5 miles in length plus $2 per mile after that. A tripfrom one corner of Olathe to the other is about 10 miles long, but many of the coupon trips are veryshort. This company operates a fleet of station wag-ons, plus some wheelchair accessible vehicles. Thecompanies provide a dedicated reservations numberfor the Olathe taxi program.

The City has always paid the participating taxicompanies a flat rate per trip. The current rate is$12 per trip. The flat rate payment avoids issues thatsometimes occur with taxi subsidy programs ofovercharging for trips by inflating mileage. It alsosimplified program administration. Since the programis limited to the 62-square mile area of the City,

there is not the wide variation in trip lengths thatcould occur in a larger area.

A customer database allows them to connecteach coupon to the person to whom it was sold toprevent misuse of coupons. This helps to determineif a person has sold or given away coupons. The Cityis also working on computerization of payment, pos-sibly using some kind of smart card.

The flat payment rate could conceivably createissues with poor service for some trips, since thedrivers of the larger company are independent con-tractors. However, the City has not heard complaintsfrom drivers and some drivers like doing coupon trips.Given the rate structure of the larger company, it ispossible that the City’s payment actually exceeds themeter fare for most trips. There have been some com-plaints of long response times, even though one of thecompanies advertises a response time of 10 minutes.In general, the City considers the program extremelysuccessful.

CHAPTER 6—WHEELCHAIRACCESSIBLE TAXICABS

There is increasing interest in wheelchair accessi-ble taxis, not just for use in ADA paratransit but sothat any person who uses a wheelchair can take tripson conventional taxi service. No reliable national datahas been found, but various sources suggest that anincreasing portion of taxi fleets consists of wheelchairaccessible vehicles. In a 2010 survey of taxi opera-tors, 51 respondents reported that 4.2% of their fleetsare made up of accessible vehicles, although this ispredominantly fleets of greater than 100 vehicles.7

A 2008 survey conducted for Easter Seals ProjectAction6 gave examples of wheelchair accessible taxisbeing used in paratransit service in Arlington, Vir-ginia; Houston, Texas; and San Francisco, California.The following was reported in the 2008 survey:

• In Arlington, Red Top Cab operates a portion ofthe ADA paratransit service for the Washingtonregion and also of the separate paratransit ser-vice provided by Arlington County (directlyacross the Potomac River from Washington,DC). Red Top has 365 taxi cabs that can be usedin ADA paratransit services, 40 of which areaccessible taxis. Having accessible cabs enablesRed Top to compete for this business.

• In San Francisco, there are more than 100accessible cabs. The City’s regulations prohibit

31

taxicab company drivers from refusing triprequests from disabled riders.

• In Houston, the Greater Houston Transporta-tion Company (Yellow Cab) operates a largefleet of accessible cabs that are used in con-tracted ADA paratransit service and paid onan hourly basis.

A recent report for the TLPA8 provides moredetail about Houston Yellow Cab. Yellow Cab’s2,245-cab fleet includes 200 wheelchair accessiblecabs of which 150 are operated under contract withMETRO, the transit agency, in ADA paratransit ser-vice. These vehicles are essentially dedicated to theADA paratransit service. But the other 50 accessiblecabs are integrated in Yellow Cab’s taxi opera-tions and are available to the general public at reg-ular taxi rates. In this case, it appears that the sta-ble base provided by the ADA paratransit contracthelps Yellow Cab justify maintaining a fleet ofaccessible cabs. The following is an excerpt fromthe TLPA report:

“The experience of Houston Yellow Cab illus-trates the fact that such a service is far more likelyto be successful if the taxicab company is work-ing as part of the publicly sponsored (subsidized)complementary ADA paratransit program ratherthan competing with it. With the contract that wasawarded to Houston Yellow Cab, the company isenjoying market density since it is, in a practicalsense, one of the few options available for ondemand wheelchair users.”

The same report provides examples of regula-tory measures to promote accessible taxis.

• Boston issues taxi medallions, including somethat are limited to wheelchair accessible cabs.About 2.3% of cabs are wheelchair accessiblevehicles, representing about 38 accessibletaxicabs.

• Portland, Oregon, requires that each company’sfleet contain at least 20% wheelchair accessibletaxicabs, unless the company participates in aninter-company agreement called the PortlandAccessible Cab Association, in which case therequirement is reduced to 10%. All the Port-land taxi companies belong to this association.The provision allowing a reduced 10% require-ment was added in about 2002 after experienceshowed that 20% accessible cabs was unneces-sary and few cabs could meet demand if theywere coordinated.9

• New York and Miami have made availablemedallions for accessible vehicles sold at adiscounted price.

San Francisco has created a special category oftaxi medallions for “ramp taxis” which must meetdetailed requirements spelled out in the City’s taxiregulations.10 The City has also assisted financiallyin the purchase of ramp taxis so that these vehicleswould be available for participants in the City’s taxiscrip program for ADA paratransit riders.11 Thisillustrates the concept in the Houston case, that apublic subsidy for use of taxicabs by paratransit rid-ers helps make accessible taxis more economicallyviable. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority(RIPTA) is buying ten accessible taxis, which willbe operated by companies that will pay only the 20%match for the federal funding obtained by RIPTA.12

The examples of Chicago and Seattle also illus-trate regulatory approaches to encouraging wheel-chair accessible taxis, as described in the followingcase studies. A case study of Washington, DC, showsa different approach, where FTA New Freedom fundshave been used to establish accessible taxi service. Itis now also possible for taxi companies to obtain FTANew Freedom funds directly to purchase accessibletaxicabs, as long as they operate some form of sharedride service, for example, by service under contract toa transit agency or human service agency.13

The ADA does not require that taxicab operatorsinclude accessible vehicles in their fleet, but doesestablish rules for such vehicles and their operationwhen companies choose to operate them.14 It is con-sidered discrimination to

• Refuse to provide service to individuals withdisabilities who can use taxi vehicles,

• Refuse to assist with the stowing of mobilitydevices, and

• Charge higher fares or fees for carrying indi-viduals with disabilities and their equipmentthan are charged to other persons.

The TLPA report describes some of the issuesthat make operating accessible vehicles a challengefor taxi companies. The report asserts that

• A ramp equipped minivan with accessibilityfeatures is more expensive than sedans mostcommonly used in taxi service. Prices from$27,000 to $35,000 are quoted for used mini-vans with accessibility features, while a newvehicle with rear or side wheelchair entry

32

costs $46,000 to $49,000 compared with 5,000for a used police vehicle bought at auction.

• Accessible vehicles are usually newer usedsedans typically used as taxicabs.

• Because accessible vehicles are usually newerand more expensive than conventional taxi-cabs they have greater property damage expo-sure when involved in an accident. Insurancerates will reflect this.

• Rates may also reflect an expectation that pas-sengers with disabilities will file more liabilityclaims for higher dollar amounts.

• Accessible vehicles use more fuel than con-ventional taxicabs and may have a shorteruseful life.

• Drivers require additional training to operate awheelchair accessible vehicle, including oper-ation of the accessible feature and providingassistance to passengers using wheelchairs.

• The additional time needed to serve wheel-chair passengers makes providing trips to themless productive than serving other customers.Time is needed to deploy the ramp, secure thepassenger and wheelchair, stow the ramp, andupon arriving at the destination, again deploythe ramp, release the securements, assist thepassenger in disembarking, and stow the rampagain.

• Trips by wheelchair users may be shorter thanthe average taxi trip.

It should be noted that only anecdotal evidenceis offered for the magnitude of most of these factors.Experience from Seattle shows at least one casewhere the last bullet point is not the case—wheelchairtrips there are actually longer than others.

These factors affect not only taxi companies butalso drivers and affect the willingness of drivers toaccept trips by wheelchair users. As noted before,some cities have issued regulations requiring driversto accept trips from people with disabilities. Taxidrivers are usually independent contractors, so it is dif-ficult for taxi companies to require a driver to acceptany particular trip. The TLPA report provides an inter-esting example of a taxi company in San Antonio thatoffers its drivers discounted leases for operatingaccessible vehicles and accepting a certain number ofwheelchair trips. The Washington, DC, case study inthis chapter also illustrates use of driver incentives.

The following case studies of accessible taxicabsin Chicago, Seattle, and Washington, DC, illustrate

different approaches involving various combinationsof mandates and incentives, each tailored to localconditions.

Chicago, Illinois

Overview. The City of Chicago illustrates a regula-tory approach to ensuring availability of accessibletaxicab service, including numerical requirementsand creation of a centralized dispatch system so thatthe public can easily find an accessible cab and sothat operators of accessible cabs get business fromwheelchair users.

A single toll-free number is available for thepublic to order an accessible cab, including cabsoperated by multiple companies. The accessible cabdispatch system was started in the early 2000s. Themayor has made a push for Chicago to be an acces-sible city, so the department that regulates taxicabshad a mandate from him to further this goal. Dis-ability advocates are also major partners in the proj-ect. Chicago had accessible cabs before 2000, butwithout any centralized dispatch for accessible cabs,a person would have to call multiple companies tofind an accessible taxi.

Rules for wheelchair accessible vehicles. Chicagoissues medallions that confer the right to operate ataxicab. Anyone owning between 15 and 49 medal-lions (adding portions of medallion ownershiptogether) must have one wheelchair accessible vehi-cle (WAV), and anyone owning 50 to 74 medallionsmust have two. Above that, medallion owners arerequired to have one additional WAV per every 25 vehicles. The City has in the past assisted indi-vidual owner-operators in purchasing WAVs. TheCity has provided $10,000 for the purchase of aramped van, but has only distributed these grants to asmall number of owners (fewer than 10). The fundingused to sponsor this program has since been depleted.As of April 2011, there were 89 accessible cabs oper-ating with 11 more expected by the end of the year.Since there are 6,800 medallions, the accessible cabsrepresent roughly 1.3% of the total fleet.

All accessible cabs must subscribe to the centralaccessible dispatch service. This is a special case of arule that requires all cabs in Chicago to subscribeto a dispatch service, with the sole exception of about300 cabs operated by owner/operators who have onlyone medallion. The accessible dispatch service isfunded by fees of $270 per month paid by subscribers.

33

All drivers of accessible vehicles must accept anaverage of at least four calls per day from the centralaccessible dispatch service over the course of a month.The City monitors this with data collected by the dis-patch service. No fines are assessed for failing to meetthe four calls per day requirement if the call cen-ter did not receive sufficient calls to distribute to allthe drivers. The City does not limit the number of non-accessible trips an accessible vehicle takes; it onlyrequires a minimum of accessible trips per day.

Accessible dispatch operations. The accessible dis-patching service is provided by a dispatch companyspecific to accessible cabs. This company is a sub-sidiary of a larger dispatch company, and is a sepa-rate limited liability company (LLC). The accessibledispatch is separated financially and operationallyfrom the larger company, but does use the call cen-ter technology that already existed at the larger dis-patch center. Dispatchers for the accessible serviceare specifically trained for that type of dispatch.

All cabs in Chicago are required to have GPS andMobile Data Terminals (MDTs). The dispatchers usethis technology to assign calls. When a call comes in,they send the trip request to all cabs within a 5-mileradius of the pickup. A driver can accept the tripby pressing a button on the cab’s MDT. If no driveraccepts, the request radius is expanded to a largerzone, and so on until the trip is accepted.

Initially, the City received complaints about unfairtrip assignment because of the accessible dispatch’saffiliation with a larger dispatch company. However,

since the process is so computerized, the City believesit is very fair. This has been an education process forthe drivers.

Use of wheelchair accessible taxicabs. During2010, there were 36,517 trips dispatched by the cen-tral wheelchair accessible dispatch system. Usage hadbeen climbing until 2006, when they peaked at over38,000. In 2007 and 2008, usage fell after prices forthe Taxi Access Program, a scrip program for ADAparatransit user, were increased. Since 2008, usage hasbeen moving back up. These trends are shown in Fig-ure 11. Note that these figures do not include any tripsby wheelchair users that did not go through the centraldispatch system, including trips hailed on the street.Some trips arranged directly between drivers and pas-sengers may not be included either. The annual usageis equivalent to a little over 100 trips per day, whichfalls considerably below the target of four trips peraccessible cab per day.

Partnership with paratransit. Accessible cabs ser-vice benefits from two programs for users of theADA paratransit system in Chicago. One is the TaxiAccess Program (TAP), which provides a discountto use taxicabs. Participants can take up to four taxirides per day valued up to $13.50 for the reducedprice of $5.00 each. The TAP information materialsinclude the toll-free number of the accessible taxidispatch. The second is Mobility Direct, a sister pro-gram to TAP, that places regular repeating trips byusers of ADA paratransit system on taxicabs.

34

Number of Centrally Dispatched Trips

Year

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 11 Chicago accessible taxi trips.

Facilitating factors. According to the BusinessAffairs and Licensing Director of the Chicago Depart-ment of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection,having buy-in from the cab industry is critical to mak-ing the program work. She notes three important partsof the program that make it work: incentive, enforce-ment, and communication:

• Incentive: Drivers who pick up accessibletrips receive vouchers that allow them to skipto the front of the line at the airport.

• Enforcement: If drivers do not pick calls asthey are required to, the driver and owner ofthe cab are notified and called in for a meeting.

• Communication: Accessibility issues com-prise two days of the 10-day training that isrequired for all drivers. Local community col-leges provide this training.

There are fewer turnovers of drivers of accessiblecabs than regular cabs. Most accessible cab drivershave been affected by a person with a disability insome way (either through family or other communityexperience) and are dedicated to their role. Mostaccessible cabs are leased weekly instead of double-shifted like most cabs. Many are owner-operators.

Issues. Some drivers develop personal relationshipswith clients and are booked via driver cell phone.For a while, these clients would also call the dis-patch line to log the trip. However, friends of driversbegan calling to log a trip, claiming it had beenscheduled via driver cell phone, and the City foundthat the meters were merely switched on and off.The City no longer allows clients to call in and “log”trips; they must use the dispatch service. Some com-panies were amassing vouchers and handing themout to drivers as an incentive to pick up outlyingtrips or trips that other drivers did not want to take.

Seattle, Washington

Seattle has implemented requirements for wheel-chair accessible taxicabs following a 2-year demon-stration program that tested the economic viability ofaccessible taxis and the number of accessible taxisneeded to provide responsive service. The Seattleexperience illustrates not only the value of a well-planned and analyzed experiment but also a cooper-ative process involving multiple jurisdictions, thetransit operator, people with disabilities, and taxiindustry representatives. The demonstration and the

analysis also show how a variety of indirect subsi-dies have made it economically viable to operatewheelchair accessible taxicabs.

Overview. The City of Seattle and King Countyjointly conducted a demonstration during 2007 and2008 in which 16 wheelchair accessible taxicabswere operated with temporary licenses and extensivedata was collected and analyzed. The data was doc-umented and analyzed in a comprehensive report byCity and County staff.9 Following the demonstration,permanent licenses were issued for 30 accessibletaxis and then for 15 more.

As background, the City of Seattle and KingCounty operate under a 1995 interlocal agreementto regulate taxi service in the region. The Countylicenses all drivers for the City and County, and theCity licenses the vehicles for both jurisdictions.These City-issued licenses are similar to medallionsin other cities; they confer a right to operate a taxicaband can be sold. The taxicab industry is consideredfragmented, with hundreds of individual owners,though all of them are affiliated with just six dispatchassociations.

Demonstration project. The Wheelchair AccessibleTaxicab (WAT) demonstration project followed yearsof discussion and planning. In 1996, the Seattle CityCouncil passed a resolution listing the need forwheelchair accessible taxicab service as a priority.In 1999, King County established a goal that 10% ofcounty taxicabs be wheelchair accessible by 2001.Meetings among City and County staff and industryrepresentatives identified a number of issues includ-ing the following:

• The demand for accessible taxi service andthe appropriate number of accessible cabs wereunknown.

• The fragmented nature of the taxicab industrymade it a challenge to find a fair method formandating accessible taxis. With 680 ownersof 908 Seattle and King County taxicabs,which owners should be required to bear con-version costs of $10,000?

• There would be the additional costs of pur-chasing and operating accessible taxis such asinsurance and maintenance but accessible taxiscould only charge the taximeter rate.

• Drivers would need special training whichwould be an extra cost in time and money.

35

• Driver incentives might be needed (e.g.,reduced lease rates or waiving fees).

After studying the experience of other cities thathad accessible taxis, most of which were subsidizingpurchase of accessible vehicles or providing otherincentives, it was determined that a demonstrationproject was needed because conditions in Seattlewere different from other cities, and because none ofthe other cities had conducted an analysis of demandand economic impact.

In late 2006, an RFP was issued to select agroup to operate WATs with eight temporary, non-transferable WAT licenses. The eight licenses wereawarded to a group of taxi drivers who had organizedas Washington Accessible Taxi. The drivers wererequired to affiliate with a single computer dis-patch taxicab association because there were too fewaccessible taxicabs to have them split up and stillbe responsive to service requests. The drivers chose toaffiliate with Yellow Cab. WAT operations began inOctober 2006. In June 2008, the number of WATswas increased to 16 at the request of Metro, the tran-sit system, and to test how adding taxis would affectresponse time.

A Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Advisory Com-mittee, composed of nine people with disabilities,was established to provide monitoring of, and feed-back regarding, the operation and evaluation of theWheelchair Accessible Taxicab Demonstration Proj-ect. The committee members met quarterly fromJanuary 2007 to March 2009. Committee membersrode the accessible taxis, monitored project statistics,observed marketing methods, discussed the taxi ser-vice with peers, and held quarterly meetings to assessthe project’s progress.

King County Metro, the transit system, partici-pated in several important ways.

• Staff of the Accessible Services department ofKing County Metro, which operates the ADAparatransit system, managed the demonstrationproject.

• Using grant funds from Washington StateDOT, the transit system obtained eight side-entry wheelchair accessible minivans, loanedthem for the demonstration, and providedmajor maintenance for these vehicles.

• The paratransit system provided a base ofprofitable business for the accessible taxisby sending “overflow” trips that could notbe accommodated on the fleet of dedicated

minibuses that provide most of the ADA para-transit service. Normally these trips wouldhave been sent to “cabulance” operators (pri-vate for-profit accessible van services thatalso carry trips for Medicaid and private indi-viduals) or to other taxicab companies. Forwheelchair trips, Metro paid the same ratethat it would have paid for cabulance ser-vice, on average about 58% more than thetaximeter rate. This was a no-cost subsidyfrom Metro’s perspective, since the agencywas paying no more than it would have usingcabulances.

To dispatch the ADA paratransit trips receivedfrom Metro, Washington Accessible Taxi opened anoffice staffed by drivers and an office manager. Theoffice manager, who was paid by Metro using grantfunds, collected operating data, including data fromtrip sheets as well as revenue and cost data. Com-puter dispatch records and service response recordswere retrieved from the dispatch computer andsubmitted monthly by Yellow Cab, the dispatchorganization with which the drivers had affiliated.Metro also provided training on assisting passen-gers with disabilities. This was the same trainingprovided to drivers of Metro’s paratransit vans andwas provided by the agency’s principal paratransitcontract operator.

Two additional forms of assistance helped makewheelchair taxi operation more economically viableduring the demonstration:

• Dual taxicab licenses (valid for operation inSeattle and in King County) were provided atno cost. Normally such a taxi license would costover $100,000 on the open market. Alterna-tively, a taxi operator without a license wouldpay a lease to a license owner of about $420 perweek. Unlike normal licenses, the ones awardedfor the demonstration were valid only for theduration of the demonstration and were non-transferable. The WAT primary driver wasable to drive one shift and lease out the otherthereby earning profits like an owner but with-out an owner’s cost of purchasing the WATlicenses.

• Annual taxicab license fees of $1,050 to Seat-tle and King County were waived.

Results of the demonstration. The results of thedemonstration were thoroughly documented and ana-

36

lyzed by City and County taxicab regulatory staff.Demand for WAT service quickly grew to an aver-age of about 400 to 500 trips per month. When thenumber of accessible vehicles was increased from8 to 16 in the middle of the second year, demandincreased to around 800 trips per month. The aver-age number of all wheelchair trips per WAT wasapproximately 1.6 per day, or 1.2 per shift (assuming1.3 shifts per day). Wheelchair trips accounted forabout 8% of all trips served by WAT vehicles.

About 48% of the demand for WAT service con-sisted of overflow trips from the ADA paratransit sys-tem, while 29% consisted of dispatched trips and 23%consisted of trips hailed on the street or arranged aspersonals between a driver and a passenger.

Drivers of accessible cabs carried somewhatfewer trips per shift than drivers of other cabs, butearned about the same revenue because the tripswere longer on average and because of the higherrate paid by Metro for wheelchair trips. Figure 12shows the figures.

The demonstration evaluation also examined theeffect of operating expenses on driver income anddetermined that WAT operation would continue tobe financially viable as long as permanent licenseswere issued free of charge, license fees continued tobe waived, and Metro continued providing a base ofdemand at favorable rates. Owners of the perma-nent WAT licenses would be able to sell them after5 years. The current market value of dual licenses atYellow Cab is reported to be more than $250,000,but the value of a WAT license is unknown andwould presumably depend on the revenue that a newowner could expect to earn.

Response times for dispatched trips served by thewheelchair taxis in Seattle averaged about 30 minuteswhen there were eight vehicles in service and fell toabout 23 minutes when the number of wheelchairtaxis increased to 16. These times exclude about10 minutes required to lower the ramp, load thewheelchair passenger, and properly secure the pas-senger and wheelchair. These steps must be com-

pleted before the driver starts the taximeter. Bycomparison, the average response time for non-wheelchair cabs in Seattle was about 10 minutes. Pro-jecting from the trends seen in the demonstration, itwas estimated that 31 wheelchair taxis would beneeded to bring response times down to the samelevel as for other taxis.

There were too few wheelchair taxi trips dis-patched to county areas to determine an averageresponse time for those trips. The average taxicabservice response times for ambulatory passengers inKing County was estimated to be approximately16 minutes. Since the county area is very large, andmany trips would have to be manually dispatched,the demonstration evaluation concluded that addi-tional county-only wheelchair taxi licenses wouldbe needed to ensure timely service for passengersusing wheelchairs.

Outcomes following the demonstration. Instead of30-plus WAT licenses for Seattle and 15 for thecounty, as had been recommended, there are now45 dual licenses. The City issued 30 permanent, trans-ferable WAT licenses distributed by two separate lot-teries to eligible individuals in 2009 and 2010. Bothlotteries attracted hundreds of applicants. Initially,these licenses were valid for operation in Seattleonly. Later, King County passed an ordinance thatallowed them to issue a county taxicab license tothese 30 city-only WATs making them dual-licensed.License fees from the City and the County havecontinued to be waived.

In 2011, King County issued 15 dual WATlicenses (valid for city and county operation). Thepurpose of these additional licenses was to help serveKing County, but it was considered unnecessary torestrict them to the county because both the City andCounty require that WAT drivers take a wheelchairtrip before any other—no matter where the trip orig-inates in the city-county area. There are now 45 dual-licensed WAT licenses authorized, all of which wereexpected to be on the road by May 2011.

37

WheelchairAccessible Taxis

ConventionalTaxis

Revenue trips per shift 12.4 16.9

Average distance 6.0 miles 4.3 miles

Average time charge 4.0 minutes 3.0 minutes

Revenue per shift $203 $215

Figure 12 Revenue of wheelchair and conventional taxis.

For the future, the evaluation report recommendedthat each dispatch association (what appears to thepublic as a taxicab company) should be required tohave at least 3% of its affiliated cabs as dual-licensedWATs. Currently all the accessible cabs are affiliatedwith one association, an outgrowth of the demonstra-tion requirement that was intended to ensure goodresponse times. The recommendation was based onthese considerations:

• Each taxicab association has a different operat-ing area in the city and county so each shouldhave WATs to provide equivalent serviceresponse times to individuals in wheelchairs.

• If each taxicab association has WATs, therewill be competition and better service for indi-viduals in wheelchairs.

• Persons in wheelchairs are entitled to a choiceamong taxicab associations just like ablebodied persons.

• If there are no service alternatives, a personin a wheelchair may be intimidated frommaking a complaint to avoid being black-listed.

• All taxicab associations should be required to“give back” to the community in exchange forthe privilege of operating in an industry withclosed entry.

There has been a lot of consideration given to theeconomics of WAT operation in the future. Eventu-ally, the current WAT licenses will be sold to a sec-ond generation of owners, and they will not be freeto those purchasers. Whether the WAT licenses willcommand a lower market value than unrestrictedlicenses is unknown, as is how the price would reflectexpectations of revenue earning ability. The follow-ing are related considerations:

1. To meet their 3% requirement, a taxicab asso-ciation may have to offer incentives to WAT ownersto affiliate with them, for example, reduced or waivedservice fees.

2. Accessible cabs are vans, which are desiredwhen large parties travel together, for example, cruiseship passengers, large families, and so forth. Theyoften get called to the head of the line to provide ser-vice to these groups. By comparison, most taxicabs inSeattle are getting smaller as Ford Crown Victoriasedans are replaced with more fuel-efficient ToyotaPrius hybrids, so the larger accessible vehicles havesome advantages.

The City of Seattle works closely with govern-ment agencies and non-profits that work with wheel-chair users and promotes the use of WAT service.This promotional effort stresses the fact that WATservice is available 24 hours every day throughoutthe entire county, WAT service is offered at taxi-meter rates, and WAT drivers receive training in thespecial needs of persons in wheelchairs. The City’sregulatory staff participate in organizations likethe King County Mobility Commission, the LivableCommunities Committee, and the Eastside EasyRider Collaborative.

Metro promotes the service on its website. Metroalso offers a taxi scrip program under which low-income seniors and people with disabilities can ridetaxis at half price. Participants can purchase up to$60 worth of scrip each month for half the face value.This program has existed for many years but, in thepast, individuals who need to ride in a wheelchairwould not have been able to take advantage of it.

Washington, DC

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Gov-ernments (COG) is conducting a pilot test of wheel-chair accessible taxi service in Washington, DC.While other cities have more accessible cabs or hadthem earlier, Washington’s experience illustrates aunique approach to addressing a particular set ofchallenges.

Overview. Washington has an open-entry system oftaxi regulation leading to numerous very small com-panies and independent operators, many without cen-tralized dispatching. Fares are low compared withmany large cities:15 $3.00 for the first one-sixthmile and $0.25 for each additional one-sixth mile($1.50 per mile). (There are also a variety of usualextra charges, including $2.00 phone requests and$1.50 for each additional passenger except forchildren under the age of 6.) For various reasons, theADA paratransit system operated by the Washing-ton Metropolitan Area Transit Authority does notuse taxicabs for any of its service in the city. In thisenvironment, it would be economically difficult fortaxi companies or drivers to justify the investment inaccessible taxicabs without assistance and it wouldmost likely not be feasible for the District of Colum-bia Taxicab Commission (DCTC) to require com-panies to operate some number or percentage ofaccessible taxicabs.

38

The COG is principally a planning and fundingbody, with limited implementation responsibilities. Inthis case, however, there was strong public supportfor a project and no other public body that was in aposition to implement it. Initially, the possibility wasconsidered of providing funding directly to the par-ticipating cab companies, but after discussions andreview it became clear that there was a need for acoordination function.

Use of grant funds. Twenty Toyota Siennas withrear-door ramps were purchased using a 2008 FTANew Freedom grant and matching funding fromDCTC. Two companies, Yellow Cab and Liberty/Royal Cab, operate 10 of these vehicles each. Origi-nally, a third company was to participate, and therewas to be centralized dispatch function for the acces-sible cabs. The third company had to drop out after itcould not obtain permission to operate in the Districtof Columbia. With only two companies left, one ofwhom would have been the obvious choice to providedispatching because of its more sophisticated capabil-ities, it was decided that each company should do itsown dispatching to create competition and avoid anyperception of favoritism in the dispatching function.

A total of $1,050,000 in grant and matching fundswent to purchase the vehicles and provide driverincentives. A portion of these funds also helps the taxicompanies to maintain the vehicles. Another $130,000is being used by the COG for driver training and mar-keting including a customer satisfaction survey, and$100,000 is being used by the COG for implementa-tion, grant administration, and monitoring.

Using grant funds and the involvement of theCOG resulted in some complications. Title to the vehi-cles is in the taxicab company’s name, with the COGlisted as a lien holder. The companies also sign asecurity agreement with COG for each vehicle. COGphysically holds the titles. The lien goes away oncethe vehicles reach FTA’s definition of “minimaluseful life”: 4 years or 100,000 miles. The COGrequired that the taxicab companies provide a $1 mil-lion umbrella policy to supplement the $20,000 in lia-bility insurance required by the DCTC. (The COG hashoped to have the companies obtain a $300,000 singlelimit policy, but the companies could not find an insur-ance company licensed in DC that would sell thema policy above the DC taxi requirement.) The COG’sagreements with the companies also require them toprovide regular detailed reports about usage of thegrant-purchased vehicles by wheelchair users and

the general public, response times, trip times, andother matters. The most difficult issue to overcomewas a Buy America provision that applied to thegrant funds, for which the COG ultimately obtaineda waiver.

Features and incentives. A key concept in the plan-ning and implementation of the project is that it hadto work for the companies, the drivers, and the users.Part of this was an extensive period of cooperativeplanning. An implementation group met for 1 year.Members included the taxicab companies, the DCTC,the DC Office of Disability Rights, and a DC Coun-cil staff member.

The companies benefit by receiving the vehiclespaid for with public funds with an allowance formaintenance as well.

Each taxi company selected drivers who liked todo this type of work to operate the accessible vehicles.This, plus the newness of the vehicles, helped ensurewillingness on the part of the drivers. To make it workeconomically for the drivers, a portion of the projectfunds is being used to provide drivers with discountson the fees that they pay the taxi companies for dis-patching, vehicle lease, and insurance. In addition, thedrivers receive $2.00 per trip to compensate for lackof tips from passengers. In exchange one of the com-panies requires the drivers to sign an agreement thatwheelchair trips will get priority for service. Thiscompany provides its drivers a bigger discount thanthe other and is also getting more wheelchair trips. (Itis also much bigger than the other company.) Eachdriver also received 6 hours of training from a trainerhired by the COG. About 25 drivers have been trainedof whom three or four have dropped out. Typically,there is only one driver assigned to each vehicle.

For users, the original centralized dispatch con-cept would have made it easy to order a taxi. Withonly two taxi companies participating, it is still easyto order a taxi. Both of the companies have central-ized dispatch services. According to customer infor-mation materials, if a company’s wheelchair taxisare busy that company will transfer a trip request foraccessible service to the other company. Provisionsof the ADA require that the fare is the same as for aconventional taxi ride by a person not using a wheel-chair. In addition, the COG has created a user’s guidedescribing how the service works, including how toorder a taxi, what information to provide the dis-patcher, the need to come out to the curb, and the factthat oversized wheelchairs cannot be accommodated.

39

The guide encourages users to reserve their trips 1to 2 hours in advance when possible. The guidealso notes that drivers appreciate tips for good ser-vice. The program is being marketed under thename “Roll DC.”

The COG has a Taxi User’s Group that meetsevery other month to discuss the service with someof the drivers, the taxi company representatives,the DC Office of Civil Rights, and a few consumersof the service. This appears to have avoided com-plaints because users and providers are talking toeach other.

Results. The COG staged an official dedication eventfor the project in May 2011. The period from January2010 until then was considered a testing phase duringwhich there was limited marketing. During the test-ing phase, it was intended that usage would grow veryslowly while vehicles were being brought into ser-vice, drivers were being trained, and issues werebeing worked out. Service began in January 2010with eight vehicles in service and just 23 wheelchairtrips. By July, there were 19 vehicles in serviceand 200 wheelchair trips were provided. In Decem-ber 2010, 287 wheelchair trips were provided.Once the project is officially launched in May, it ishoped that usage will increase.

While the service appears to be working well,there is some concern about what will happen whenthe grant funding, which is used to provide incentivesfor the companies and drivers, ends in June 2012.The companies are seeking local sources of continu-ing funding.

CHAPTER 7—NON-EMERGENCYMEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Medicaid is a jointly financed and administeredfederal/state partnership to provide health care cov-erage for low-income and disabled individuals. Eachstate runs its own Medicaid program differently,often under local names such as MassHealth inMassachusetts and Medi-Cal in California. While thestates have considerable latitude in the design of theirprograms, they all operate within rules established bythe federal government. In particular, federal Medic-aid regulations require all states to “ensure necessarytransportation for recipients to and from providers”and pay the cost of that transportation (42 CFR431.53 and 42 CFR 440.170[a]).

Transportation provided to Medicaid recipi-ents includes emergency transportation and non-emergency transportation, commonly known asnon-emergency medical transportation or NEMT.In many cases, states provide NEMT by means oftaxicabs. The federal government does not publishstatistics about NEMT, but some data is availablefrom a survey conducted by the National Consortiumon the Coordination of Human Services Trans-portation in 2002 and 2003.16 Thirty-one statesresponded with NEMT data, reporting 39 milliontrips, 5.5 million of them by taxicab. The totalreported cost for NEMT was $1.1 billion. The pro-portion of NEMT trips provided using taxicabsvaries greatly—14 of the 31 states that providedNEMT data did not report any trips by taxicab atall. Some states that make extensive use of taxi-cabs include Virginia (81% of NEMT trips), NorthDakota (66%), Massachusetts (65%), and Col-orado (51%). Figure 13 shows the overall averageuse of various modes.

Limited information from the perspective oftaxicab operators comes from an annual surveyconducted by the TLPA. The most recent surveyobtained responses from 51 operators, who reportedreceiving an average of 9% of their revenue fromMedicaid.6

40

Public Transit, 16%

Paratransit van,27%

Taxi, 28%

Volunteer drivers,6%

Mileagereimbursement,

13%

Ambulance orMedical coach, 4%

Other,6%

Figure 13 Modes used for non-emergency medicaltransportation.

Source: Stefl, Gail, and Mark Newsom, Medicaid Non-emergencyTransportation: National Survey 2002–2003, National Consortium onthe Coordination of Human Services Transportation, December 2003.

Kentucky

Overview. Kentucky formerly provided vouchersfor some Medicaid recipients to take taxicabs, butswitched to a system involving brokers who autho-rize trips. Kentucky’s experience illustrates how anapproach that was difficult to monitor has beenreplaced by one that seems to work much better. Thenew system also allows better use of other modes,including public transit, and coordination amonghuman service programs.

Brokers. The State of Kentucky has establishedregional brokers with responsibility for arranginghuman service transportation including MedicaidNEMT. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, thestate DOT, is responsible for overseeing the broker-ages under agreements with several state depart-ments including the State Department of Medicaid.There is a broker in each of 14 regions in the state.The Cabinet also is responsible for aspects of taxicabregulation in the state.

The brokers verify each recipient’s eligibility,assess the recipient’s need, and determine the appro-priate mode of transportation, which can include:private auto or foster parent providers, regular taxiservice, fixed route bus, and non-profit demandresponse bus service. In addition, there are twogroups for whom special arrangements apply: thosewho are ambulatory but disoriented and those whoare non-ambulatory and need physical assistance.

Arrangements for taxicabs. In fiscal year 2009–2010, 877,000 NEMT trips were provided usingtaxicabs, 29% of the total NEMT trips. The averagetaxi trip was 11 miles long and cost about $15. TheTransportation Cabinet sets rates that taxi compa-nies are paid for NEMT based on six criteria whichinclude geographic location and distance to facili-ties. In some cases, the rates are an amount per mile,while in others the rate is a flat rate per trip (usuallyin urban areas where short distance trips predomi-nate). This is a change from an earlier system underwhich the regional brokers set the rates; the earliersystem resulted in inequities.

The broker authorizes each trip and knows themileage and authorized type of service for each one,which is used to verify billings. This replaces an ear-lier system in which patients were issued vouchers.Under the voucher system it was possible to be billedfor inflated mileage and there was no way even to

confirm that a billing was for a trip that actually wasprovided. In one case, trips were inappropriatelybilled at the rate for disoriented passengers.17

While the earlier system created incentives forproviders to bill as much as possible, the current sys-tem provides an incentive for brokers to authorizethe least expensive transportation possible. This is so because the broker is paid a capitated rate per participant, and keeps the difference betweenthose payments and the amounts paid to trans-portation providers. Therefore, it is necessary tomonitor the program for customer satisfaction andinappropriate denials of service. The Transporta-tion Cabinet maintains a statewide toll-free line forcomplaints and conducts monthly phone and ridersurveys that show 96% and 100% customer satisfac-tion, respectively. In 2003, a legislative commissionfound 88% customer satisfaction.

To participate in the NEMT program, a taxi com-pany must be licensed by the state or a local govern-ment. In addition, drivers must undergo drug and alco-hol tests, pass a background check, and have requiredtraining. Vehicles are inspected annually by the bro-kers and the State verifies these inspections. There areno additional insurance requirements beyond thoseordinarily required for taxicabs.

Cost savings. The State credits the current broker-age system with saving nearly $100 million peryear in NEMT costs as of 2010 compared with trendsthat were occurring before the system was changedbetween 1998 and 2004. Much of this change ismost likely the result of having better controls ingeneral rather than just avoiding fraud by taxicabcompanies.

Massachusetts

Overview. Massachusetts administers its Medicaidtransportation program through a statewide coordi-nated body, the Human Service Transportation (HST)Office. The HST Office uses regional brokers to pro-vide trips for a variety of human service transportationprograms, including Medicaid, which is called Mass-Health in Massachusetts. These regional brokers thensubcontract with a variety of transportation providers,or vendors, among which are taxicab companies andother companies whose fleets include taxicabs.

Brokers and vendors. Since the regions includelarge numbers of jurisdictions that may or may not

41

license taxicabs, the only absolute requirement for ataxicab to be a subcontracted provider, or “vendor,”is that the taxicab be registered with the Massachu-setts Registry of Motor Vehicles and meet all safetyand inspection requirements of the Registry. Taxicabsare required to be clean and sanitary, and drivers arerequired to possess a Massachusetts driver’s license.There are no requirements for special equipment ordriver training from the state level of the HST Office.The regional brokers provide limited driver trainingfor specific service requirements, but training is pri-marily the responsibility of the taxicab companies.

The State’s largest broker is the MontachusettRegional Transit Authority (MART). MART providestransit services in a region of north-central Massachu-setts including the cities of Fitchburg and Leomister,and is the broker for four of the State’s nine HSTbrokerage regions, serving the Pioneer Valley, NorthCentral, South Central, and Greater Boston regions.MART trips in fiscal year 2010 totaled approximately3.9 million across its four regions, making up 70% ofthe State’s 5.4 million total trips. Of these, 1.5 millionwere MassHealth NEMT trips.

The brokers place trips on over 300 private ven-dors across the state. Vendors set their own rates,with allowance for no-shows and deadhead built in.Vendors can change their rates every month. A bro-ker posts trips to the vendor that has the lowest feefor each trip. The vendor checks off which trips theycan do; they may not get all those trips. Vendors canrefuse trips. In regions where the Regional Transit

Authority (RTA) for that area is not also the HSTbroker, the RTA can be a vendor and bid on trips.This model is attractive to vendors and non-brokerRTAs that are providing ADA service and may notalways have capacity.

There are three types of rates that MART ven-dors use, shown in Figure 14. Taxi and dial-a-ridetrips are typically both ambulatory service with dif-ferent types of fares and trip assignment.

MassHealth NEMT. In fiscal year 2010, MART bro-kered 1.5 million NEMT trips across all of its fourregions, costing $17,523,472, at an average of $11.57.Of this total, 1.4 million were ambulatory trips, mostof which were provided by taxi or livery companies.

There are two possible conditions that wouldallow a door-to-door NEMT trip under MassHealthrules:

• No public or private transportation is avail-able, OR

• An explanatory form (PT-1) filled out by adoctor describing the reasons a patient cannotuse public transportation.

The central MassHealth office processes theseforms, and the regional broker schedules the trips.

Vendors are paid based on the rates shown inFigure 14, which include mileage charges and canchange monthly. However, the brokers are paid acontracted per-trip rate, not at the actual cost of thetrips. MART requires that vendors give a minimum

42

Service type Rate type and amount

Taxis Sedans, low pick-up fee, generally no built-in mileage

Average pick-up rate $7.82 per one way trip

Average per-mile rate $1.47

Average mileage included in pick-up rate 2.1 miles

Average shared ride discount 60% of pick-up rate for each additional rider

Dial-a-Ride Sedans, minimum $10 pick-up fee, generally 5-10 built-in miles





Chair car Wheelchair accessible vehicles, high pick-up fee and built-in miles





Figure 14 Massachusetts HST rates.

50% discount for the pick-up rate of a second riderand all subsequent riders. This system gives the bro-kers a strong incentive to control cost.

Issues. In general, there are very few issues thatMART sees with taxi partnerships. The HST Officehas streamlined the payment system well, and thepaperwork is not overly burdensome. Monitoringsystems and penalties such as warnings, fines, andsuspensions work to maintain relatively uniformservice quality, though this varies by company.

For-Profit Broker

A company that provides NEMT brokerage ser-vices throughout the United States was interviewedfor its perspective about use of taxicabs. Ninety-fivepercent of this broker’s business is Medicaid. It alsodoes a lot of Medicare Advantage trips. (MedicareAdvantage plans are offered by private companiesand supplement basic Medicare coverage with addi-tional coverage.)

Barriers. It creates a barrier to working with taxi-cabs if there are strict standards that companiesdo not normally have to meet such as backgroundchecks for drivers, drug testing, and high insurancebarriers. In some cases, $1 million in liability insur-ance is required, which is far more than typicallocal taxi regulations, some of which just require$35,000. These are not necessarily federal require-ments passed down through state level, but ratherare a part of contracts with states looking for rep-utable companies.

In some cases, there are no available serviceproviders that can meet state requirements in a givenarea, especially in rural places. Since the broker is con-tractually required to provide service in all areas forstatewide contracts, it sometimes carries blanket insur-ance for companies that are the only possible providerin a given area. However, these cases are very rare;typically, the broker partners with local councils onaging or other non-profit groups in these areas.

Driver issues. Taxi companies typically have con-tractual relationships with drivers instead of anemployer/employee relationship. This limits the con-trol they can exert over drivers. There are two waysthat the broker deals with the issue of driver control.One is that taxi companies include requirements aspart of the driver contract. Many companies require

drivers to meet certain standards or participate incertain programs in order to be a driver. Second isthat the broker sometimes provides driver trainingdirectly for drivers who will be operating underbroker-sponsored programs.

Many drivers are reluctant to participate becauseMedicaid/Medicare clients are less likely to tip ortip as generously as some other types of customers.Sometimes, guaranteed trip volume is incentiveenough to encourage driver participation in the pro-gram. In some cases, the broker adds a 10% tip to thetrip costs for the drivers to ensure their participation.

In the end, taxi companies bear the onus ofresponsibility for complying with regulations set outby the state or municipal governments and for incen-tivizing program participation among its drivers. InDenver, for example, a cab company may receive anincome of $2 million to $4 million per year by partic-ipating in the broker’s program, so it is worth theowner’s while to encourage driver participation. Notethat, in most cases, a taxi company does not benefitdirectly from NEMT or other government subsidizedtrips, since taxi companies typically make theirincome from lease or dispatch fees paid by drivers.However, by making this additional business avail-able to drivers, companies can increase the numberof drivers from whom they receive lease or dispatchpayments, maintain their existing pool of drivers inlean times, or justify higher fees.

Payment cycles and billing. Taxicab drivers and bro-kers work on a very different basis. Taxi drivers workon a basis of daily cash income. The broker operateson a bill and pay system, usually with a cycle of 2 weeks to 20 days. The taxi companies act as anintermediary. Owners of taxi companies reimbursedrivers daily for brokered trips. To cover the cost ofadvancing payment to the drivers until payment fromthe broker is received, some companies negotiate afee ahead of time with the broker. Other companiescharge a small fee to the drivers. This is similar to thepractice described in Los Angeles case study in whichtaxi companies charged drivers a percentage for tripson which riders paid with City coupons.

Paperwork requirements. Some areas require ahandwritten trip ticket be completed, and othersrequire a passenger signature to validate use of avoucher. If a company is already using vouchers forother programs, less training is needed to ensureproper use of vouchers for NEMT. Many places are

43

pushing for electronic verification instead of paper-based systems.

Quality of service. In the broker’s view, the issue isnot really one of quality of service, but of image. Manyriders have prejudices against taxi companies, andthese prejudices can be very strong in some areas. Insome markets, the broker has worked closely withtaxi companies to improve their images. For instance,in Denver, Colorado, where entry to the taxicab mar-ket is tightly regulated, the broker was having diffi-culty with one company, having received numerouscomplaints from sponsoring agencies and variousfacility managers. The broker began proceedings toallow more taxicab companies into the Denver mar-ket, spurring the cab company into cooperation toimprove its image. The company began attendingmeetings, addressing complaints, and going to variousagency facilities to help improve its image. A similarsituation occurred in Connecticut many years ago, andcab companies now have a much improved image.

CHAPTER 8—GUARANTEED RIDE HOME

Guaranteed ride home (GRH) programs offercommuters who use alternative commute modes atimely and inexpensive way to get home in the eventan emergency or unscheduled overtime makes itinfeasible to use the regular commuter mode. Theseprograms are offered as part of a comprehensiveeffort to encourage transit use, carpooling, vanpool-ing walking, or bicycling to and from work. Theintent of the GRH program is to remove one source of anxiety that deters some from using alternativecommuter modes.

A recent review of GRH programs by the FTA18

provides an overview of how they work, includinguse of taxicabs for the ride home. A case study of alarge program in the Washington, DC, area illustratesa particular approach to overcoming challenges posedby the nature of the taxi industry in that region.

FTA National Review of GRH Programs

FTA’s review, published in 2007, covered GRHprograms sponsored by transportation managementassociations, metropolitan planning organizations,municipal governments, and business associations.To be eligible for a ride home, a participant must usean alternative commuter mode some number of timesper week and, in some cases, have used an alternative

commute mode on the day that the GRH trip isrequested. Depending on the particular program, rideshome may be provided by taxi, rental car, employervehicle, or co-workers. As shown in Figure 15, takenfrom the FTA review, 96% of programs offer trips bytaxicab, including 60% that offer only taxi trips. InSan Francisco, one program offers trips using a car-sharing company, which is another form of car rental.

Project sponsors pay for the rides home usingvouchers (56%), direct payment to the provider(22%), or reimbursement to the traveler (22%). Inprograms that use vouchers, employees receive a sup-ply of vouchers when they register for the program orobtain them from an on-site employee transportationcoordinator on the day of need.

Usually a participant is allowed to ride home withone or more stops on the way at some other locationsuch as an educational facility to pick up a dependant,a pharmacy to obtain a prescription, or a hospital tocheck on a family member. There is usually somelimit on the length of the ride or boundaries withinwhich rides must begin and end. Most programs willpay for four to six rides per year, but a few allow onlytwo and six programs have no limits at all. Eight ofthe 55 programs reviewed require some co-paymentby the employee.

The average trip home costs $37, but GRH pro-grams are still inexpensive to operate because mostpeople who register for GRH programs never usethem. FTA’s data showed the average annual costper registrant in 2005 was only $1.69. These aver-ages include the effect of a few programs with veryexpensive trips, including one with an average cost

44

(55 programs in 2005)

Figure 15 GRH transportation modes.

Source: William B. Menczer, “Guaranteed Ride Home Programs: AStudy of Program Characteristics, Utilization, and Cost.” Journal ofPublic Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2007.

of $114 per claim. The median cost per claim wasonly $30 and the median annual cost per registrantwas only $0.35. Usage rates are low even for pro-grams that have high or no limits on the number oftrips per year that are allowed.

Washington, DC

The Metropolitan Washington COG operates aprogram called Commuter Connections to promotecommute alternatives in the Washington region. Theprogram includes a GRH component that makesextensive use of taxicabs. The GRH program hasbeen operating since 1997. Unlike many other GRHprograms, Commuter Connection’s program is cen-trally dispatched. It also serves a very large region,spanning the District of Columbia and large portionsof Maryland and Virginia. The service was recentlyexpanded to cover the Baltimore area as well.

The decision to centrally dispatch GRH trips wasmade to ensure that goals for a high quality of servicecould be maintained. Elements of this strategy includeselecting specific taxi companies, establishing stan-dards for service, and calling commuters who haveused the service to learn about service issues. TheCOG’s contract with the taxi companies specifies aresponse time of no more than 30 minutes.

At the time Commuter Connections’ GRH pro-gram was developed, there was concern about qualitycontrol issues because of the numerous taxi compa-nies operating in the very large region served by theprogram. In particular, the open-entry taxi system inWashington, DC, results in numerous very smallcompanies of variable quality and dependability. IfCommuter Connections were just to issue vouchers toparticipating commuters or employers, the total num-ber of taxi companies in the entire region would makeit very hard to verify proper use of these vouchers andtroubleshoot quality issues.

Commuters must register with Commuter Con-nections before using the GRH service. To be eligi-ble, the commuter must rideshare, use transit, bicycle,or walk to work at least twice a week and on the daya ride is requested. Registered commuters may usethe GRH program up to four times annually in casesof unexpected personal or family emergency, un-expected illness, or unscheduled overtime. There isalso a “one-time” exception use allowance for theprogram for non-registrants; however, registration isrequired for a commuter to use the remaining threetrips. A participant who needs a ride home calls Com-

muter Connections and receives an authorizationnumber. GRH service is available between 6:00 AMand 10:00 PM, Monday through Friday.

The GRH dispatcher decides what mode is appro-priate for each trip. In most cases, the dispatcherorders a taxi. For some very long trips, usually over40 miles, if there is a gap in taxi service coverage,or if the commuter’s leaving time is uncertain, a rentalcar is arranged. In some cases, the commuter isinstructed to take transit to a point where a taxi willpick them up. In this case, Commuter Connectionsmails a transit reimbursement voucher. If the dis-patcher orders a taxi, Commuter Connections pays forall charges, excluding gratuity, to the destination. It isup to the commuter to tip the taxi driver if desired.The commuter has to give the trip authorization num-ber and the registration ID number to the taxi driveras proof that the GRH trip has been approved. Thedriver fills out a form provided by the taxi company,including the authorization and registration numbers,which the taxi company turns in for payment.

Following each trip, Commuter Connectionscalls the commuter and a company representativeto verify that the GRH trip actually occurred. Thesecalls also determine customer satisfaction, which isbetween 93% and 97%.

In fiscal year 2010, Commuter Connections pro-vided 3,164 free rides home, about 95% of them ontaxicabs at an average cost per trip of $68 on allmodes. The dispatch service costs approximately anadditional $100,000. At the end of FY 2010, therewere 11,701 participants registered for GRH.

The COG issued a Request for Qualifications(RFQ) to select qualified taxi companies for GRHservice. After an initial process, a few companieshave been added. There are a total of ten taxi com-panies being used in the Washington, DC, area.Another RFQ was issued in 2010 to select compa-nies for service in the Baltimore area. Interestedcompanies submit a “work plan” indicating howthey will perform the service; a statement of pro-fessional credentials, expertise and key personnel;rates; references for similar work; and evidence ofall insurance, licenses, and certificates required tooperate as a taxicab.

For taxi drivers, GRH trips are relatively lucrative,since they tend to be long compared with a typical taxiride (59% of participants work in Washington, DC,and 65% reside in Virginia). Since the participants areall employed and use the service infrequently, it islikely that they tip the drivers.

45

CHAPTER 9—STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

Many school districts arrange with taxicabs toprovide transportation for some students to attendschool. According to the TLPA’s member survey,work for school districts accounts for 3% of taxicabrevenue at responding companies. Note that thesearrangements do not involve public transportationagencies and do not use FTA funding, which cannotbe used for school transportation.

Two situations that occur in many school dis-tricts derive from provisions of the Federal No ChildLeft Behind Act.

• The first situation involves schools that fail tomeet the standard for “adequate year progress”that each state is required to establish. When aschool fails to meet adequate yearly progress,the district is required to offer parents ofchildren attending that school the option ofenrolling their child in another school in thedistrict and provide transportation to and fromthat school. In some cases, this results in chil-dren traveling some distance to attend school.

• The second situation involves children who areconsidered homeless under provisions of theMcKinney-Vento Act (which is incorporatedin No Child Left Behind). “Homeless” childrencan include “children and youths who aresharing the housing of other persons due to lossof housing, economic hardship.” When a childbecomes homeless during the school yearthe district must permit the child to continueattending the same school and provide trans-portation to and from school. This may requireproviding trips between locations beyond thedistrict boundaries if that is where the child isstaying. This applies even if the child is livingin another county.

Some districts also use taxicabs to transport cer-tain special needs students, especially those whosebehavioral problems prevent them from travelingwith other students. Taxis are used for purposes ofschool desegregation.

Case studies of New Haven, Connecticut; St. Lucie County, Florida; and Palatine, Illinois illus-trate use of taxicabs based on the requirements of NoChild Left Behind. The New Haven case study and acase study of Cleveland, Ohio, give an example oftaxicabs transporting special needs children, and acase study of St. Louis, Missouri, shows the use oftaxis for school desegregation.

New Haven, Connecticut

Taxi company perspective. Student transportationis a significant part of the business of one large taxicompany that serves New Haven and Bridgeport,Connecticut, and 14 other towns in the same area.Metro Taxi advertises that the company’s 161-cabfleet includes more than 40 vehicles registered asStudent Transportation Vehicles (STVs). Metro Taxidrivers, with additional licensure, transport specialeducation students to their schools and after-schoolprograms. The company’s website mentions trans-porting blind and hearing impaired customers andcustomers with behavioral health needs.

According to Metro Taxi’s owner, the studentstransported include those who cannot ride with otherson a school bus because of behavioral issues. Some ofthem just need to ride on their own while others mayneed a special harness. Some have severe physicaldisabilities. He estimated that the company providesabout 45 to 50 round trips per day for school districts.Most of the trips go between towns. Metro Taxi keepsthe same driver transporting each student every day,so parents and drivers can exchange telephone num-bers. They have been providing this service for about10 years.

For a vehicle to qualify as an STV, it needs topass an inspection for this purpose. STVs need tocarry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit and musthave a sign with the words “carrying school chil-dren” in black lettering at least 3 inches high on ayellow background. This sign flips down when thevehicle is not being used for school transportation.The State requires daily pre-trip vehicle inspectionsand record keeping. The safety inspection is moredetailed than for a taxicab and includes things suchas measuring the thickness of brake pads.

All the drivers are independent contractors whoseincome depends on the amount of trips they are ableto carry. Becoming certified as an STV driver is a wayof increasing the business that is available for them.Once a driver obtains a regular taxi operator license,certification as an STV driver requires fingerprinting(a second time), a urine test for drugs, and 2 days ofclassroom training. Metro Taxi provides this trainingat its facility. The certification needs to be renewedannually and requires retesting for drugs and 1 day ofclassroom training. The training is offered to driversto take on their own time.

STVs and their drivers also do regular taxi work.The rate for student transportation is commonly thesame as the taximeter rate, but can be higher. In the

46

past, these rates were negotiated with school districts,but most districts now conduct an RFP that deter-mines the rates. The lease rate paid by drivers isthe same for a cab registered as an STV as for othervehicles. Drivers receive the payments from theschool district for the students they carry each day,less some percentage for administration and to com-pensate for the time it takes the company to bill andreceive payment, which is usually around 60 days.

The most significant difficulty of providing stu-dent transportation is the billing process. Recordkeeping is not much more than for other taxi business.Insurance requirements are typically more thanrequired for normal taxi operation. The State of Con-necticut requires only $100,000 in vehicle liabilityinsurance. Some school contracts just require the stateminimum while others require more, up to as high as$5 million, in which case Metro Taxi would carry thetrip in a livery vehicle rather than a taxicab. In somecases, a Medicaid transportation broker, which carriesits own insurance, provides school trips. (Medicaidbrokers sometimes bid on school contracts.)

As background, note that taxicabs in Connecti-cut are regulated by the State. The State sets ratesand establishes rules, but does not actively enforcestandards. It is relatively easy for a new company toget started, and there are numerous small companiesin operation in the New Haven-Bridgeport area,some without central offices or dispatch.

New Haven Public Schools. In the case of the NewHaven Public Schools, taxis are not used for specialeducation students but rather for students consideredhomeless under the federal McKinney-Vento Act. Insome cases, this involves transporting a student fromthree or four towns away so the student can continueattending the same school in New Haven. Only stu-dents in the fifth grade or higher are placed on taxi-cabs, except in the case of younger students who canride with an older sibling. Most of these trips are putout to bid. An exception is made in the case of stu-dents who are in the care of the State Department ofChildren’s Services awaiting a placement in fostercare. These trips change from week to week and areplaced on taxis based on informal bids for each tripfrom vendors that already have proof of insuranceon file with the school system. The New Havenschools have about eight round trips per day on taxi-cabs. It is not always necessary to use a taxicab fora student traveling from another town, since theschool system has bus routes that bring students to

20 magnet schools in the district. The district’sCoordinator of Transportation considers the taxiservice it uses very reliable.

St. Lucie County, Florida

The St. Lucie County School District providestransportation to many of its students as required byprovisions of Florida and federal law. Buses are usedas much as possible, but taxis are used instead whenit would be cost prohibitive to use a bus. The princi-pal cases are students attending a school that is notnear their home because of provisions of the federalNo Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This includes stu-dents offered the opportunity to attend another schoolwhen their original school fails to meet “adequateyearly progress” and students considered homelessunder the provisions of the McKinney-Vento Act.Beyond the provisions of No Child Left Behind, theState of Florida also grades schools and this too canresult in children being offered another school andtransportation. The obligation for a homeless studenttypically continues until the end of the school year butsometimes can continue beyond then. The longest tripthe St. Lucie School District is currently providing is40 miles long.

The fact that a child is attending a school beyondhis or her immediate neighborhood does not necessar-ily mean that bus transportation is infeasible. Floridarequires that school districts provide transportation forall students who live more than 2 miles from school.The District operates a zone-based school choice sys-tem such that many students attend school more than2 miles from home. The County is divided in threezones, and parents can request any school within theirzone, although they are not guaranteed their firstchoice. The District also runs bus routes to bring chil-dren to and from magnet schools that serve the entirecounty. At one time, these magnet schools wereoffered as an alternative for children whose schoolfailed to make adequate yearly progress, since busroutes to these schools were already available. How-ever, this practice led to complaints and was endedbecause the transferred students were jumping a wait-ing list for the magnet schools.

The District operates 320 bus routes bringingstudents to approximately 40 schools. By compari-son, there are only a few taxis providing studenttransportation. As of April 2011, there was one taxiroute, but there have been up to ten. Each taxi routemay serve up to five or six students.

47

The District issues an RFP for taxi service.Regarding vehicles, it just specifies that vehicles mustbe approved as taxicabs. Drivers, however, need tomeet the same requirements as school bus driversincluding background reports, driving record, anddrug testing. In the past, the District contracted directlywith a local taxi company. However, for the past 2 years, the District has contracted with a nationaltransportation management company (AmericanLogistics Company) that works through taxi compa-nies and screens and trains drivers, provides hand-held communication and tracking devices, makeshome visits, and introduces the driver to the parents or guardians. The management company assumesresponsibility for meeting the District’s standards. TheDistrict’s Director of Transportation finds that thisarrangement is very satisfactory and provides muchmore reliable service than directly contracting with ataxi company, with less work to supervise and trou-bleshoot problems, albeit at a somewhat higher price.

The rates paid for taxi transportation are estab-lished through the RFP process. The current rate is$30 per route per day (morning or afternoon) plus $1per student plus $2.50 per mile. These rates exceedprevailing meter rates. There is an added charge of$25 for transporting a student in a wheelchair.

Palatine, Illinois

Community Consolidated School District 15 is thethird largest elementary district in Illinois, serving adiverse population of all or part of seven suburbancommunities northwest of Chicago. The District oper-ates 15 elementary schools, 4 junior high schools, and 1 preschool early childhood center and alter-native public day school. The District serves about13,500 students of whom about 10,600 receive trans-portation. State law requires free transportation for stu-dents who live at least 1.5 miles from school; parentscan pay for transportation if they live closer than that.

The District provides most transportation usingits fleet of 162 buses. However, for a small portion ofstudents, it is more cost effective to use taxicabs. Themost common use of taxicabs is for students consid-ered homeless. These students began the school yearliving in the district attending a neighborhood school,but then had to move to a shelter or with relatives,sometimes in another school district. The federalMcKinney-Vento Act and state law require the Dis-trict to provide transportation so these students cancontinue attending the same school. If the student

lives in another district, the two districts share thecost of the transportation. Occasionally, this trans-portation is provided for a special education student,but generally this is not the case.

Rather than pay meter rates, the District pays abid rate based on competitive procurement. The cur-rent rates were established as the result of a compet-itive procurement initiated in January 2011. The win-ning company bid $8,220 per month to provide dailytransportation to and from school for 14 students, oran average of $14.68 per one-way trip. Since the tripsmay be grouped, these rates cannot be directly com-pared with taximeter rates.

The taxi company is required to maintain vehicleliability insurance with a combined single limit of$5 million. This is much more than the $250,000 inliability normally carried for taxicabs in this area,according to the taxicab company. Drivers and vehi-cles are required to comply with state rules for schoolbus drivers and vehicles. The vehicles must beinspected twice per year and drivers must be certifiedfor school transportation. The drivers must take an8-hour safety class and have 2 hours of refreshertraining each year. They also need to undergo a phys-ical examination and a criminal background check.The taxi company designates specific drivers for thisservice. The District hopes to have the same drivertransport a given student each day, although this can-not be guaranteed. The taxi company also designatesspecific vehicles that have been certified as meetingthe contract requirements.

District 15’s Director of Transportation, who hasbeen in his position for about 1 year, indicated thatthere have been some startup issues, especially withtimely pickups, but not many problems that couldnot be resolved quickly. Apparently, there were con-cerns in the past about trips being billed that neveroccurred. The current system provides better con-trols to ensure that the District only pays for taxiruns and trips that actually were provided.

The taxi company that provides transportationfor District 15, American Taxi Dispatch, Inc., hasbeen providing service for over 20 years for variousschool districts, according to the company’s website.The company’s website also lists over 30 municipaltaxi subsidy programs for seniors in the Chicago areain which the company participates.

The company’s school transportation managerindicated that about 150 drivers are currently schoolcertified out of a total of about 900. The school tripstake longer than other work. Some of the drivers

48

who do these runs also do regular taxi work, and somedo not. Not all drivers like transporting students, soit is necessary to pick and choose who gets theseassignments. Drivers pay a flat rate per week to thecompany (i.e., a lease or dispatch service fee), andreceive all or part of the payment from the school dis-trict. He indicated a preference for charging some-what above the regular meter rate for school service,but noted that that it is not always possible. In thiscase, the company’s winning bid was 24% less thanthe next lowest bid.

Cleveland, Ohio

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District,known for most of its history as the ClevelandMunicipal School District, has a more than 50-yearhistory of providing transportation for its studentswith special needs. These students have been classi-fied as having a disability, either physical or psy-chological in nature, that prevents them from beingable to ride in a standard district school bus with therest of the student population.

This program is totally outsourced to local trans-portation providers. Contracts are awarded to ven-dors in response to an RFP process, and each contractis awarded for 1 year with the possibility of 2 addi-tional years added. Currently, the District contractsfor this transportation with three local cab companies(Yellow Cab, Americab, and United Cab) and also anumber of van services. Students who can be multi-loaded with other students due to address proximityare routed in vans. Students whose locations makemulti-loading difficult are routed into cabs. Noneof the cabs are multi-loaded. Americab, with about35 cabs assigned to this program, is the currentlargest taxicab vendor. A fourth taxicab company,Ace Taxi, was involved in the program for manyyears but no longer is involved. About 500 studentsper day are transported. Some students require wheel-chair accessible transport.

Drivers are often faced with students manifest-ing their behavioral issues while riding to and fromschool. Due to these and other reasons, the vehiclesrequire a higher insurance level than normal, and thedrivers go through an advanced training program aswell as having to pass a rigid certification process.

The taxicab companies and van services all main-tain $1 million of insurance coverage, which is higherthan they are normally required to have. Some of thevan services are such small operations that they can-

not get such an insurance policy on their own. Thesecompanies become sub-contractors to another vancompany and then purchase their insurance throughthat company.

All drivers undergo criminal background checks,a physical examination at a physician’s office, adriving history records check, and drug testing. Theyalso go through passenger assistance training andtraining specific to the needs of these children. Thedrivers must pass a certification requirement fromthree separate entities: the State of Ohio, the City ofCleveland, and the school District. In the past fewyears, video training has been added to the trainingcurriculum.

The General Manager of one of the taxi compa-nies provided a taxi company perspective. He joinedthe company 47 years ago as a driver who transportedspecial needs school children. The company currentlytransports about 10 students round-trip per dayalthough that number has been much higher in thepast. The operational end runs relatively smoothly.There are, however, some occasional problemsinvolving students with behavioral issues.

All drivers involved in this program are indepen-dent contractors who turn in charge voucher slips inorder to be paid. Fares, which mostly range from $25to $35 each way, are not charged by meter, but insteadare charged as a flat rate based on an estimated figurethat is slightly reduced from what the fare would nor-mally be. Essentially, the fare is set at what it wouldbe under the best of conditions, with no waiting timeor route detours. For example, a metered fare thatwould normally run between $31 and $32 is set at$30, a fare only achievable under the best of condi-tions. The drivers don’t object to this system, since a$30 trip will yield $300 per week (two trips per day,five days per week) for 10 months per year. Each par-ticipating driver is assigned one round-trip per dayconsisting of one student each. Most drivers stay onthis program year after year.

St. Louis, Missouri

Taxicabs and school desegregation.19 School part-nerships with taxicab companies started in 1984 aspart of court-ordered school desegregation in theSt. Louis metropolitan area. Students were allowedto transfer between schools in St. Louis and thesurrounding suburbs. Taxis were used from thebeginning and were always used in conjunctionwith buses, which served the denser areas. About

49

6,100 city students are transferring to participatingsuburban school districts and about 170 county stu-dents are transferring to magnet schools in the city.(At the height of its enrollment, the program servedabout 14,600 transfer students.)

The desegregation program is managed by thenon-profit Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation(VICC) (formerly the Voluntary Interdistrict Coordi-nated Council). VICC provides transportation for par-ticipating students who meet certain eligibility crite-ria. At the start of the 2009–2010 school year, 305 busroutes and 93 cab routes were scheduled. About4% percent of the students ride in cabs. Students arescheduled to ride cabs if there are fewer than eightchildren attending a school from a specific area as itis more cost effective to run up to two cabs rather thana single bus. This tends to be the case in less denseperipheral areas. Ride time guidelines also factor intothe decision to schedule a child in a cab.

Although the priority is to transport students bybus, the number of cab routes has been increasing inrecent years due to the combined effect of a growinghomeless population, an increased number of relo-cated students who could not be placed at a school inthe proper attendance area, and the impact of highwayconstruction.

Taxi regulation. Taxis in the St. Louis area areregulated by the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission(MTC). The MTC was created in 2003 to marry exist-ing City and County ordinances into one regional sys-tem, with uniform enforcement and improvementof the regulatory system overall. There are a total ofnine licensed general “on-call” taxicab companies,not counting seven airport taxicab companies.

School contracts. The General Manager of St. LouisCounty Cab described his company’s contracts forschool transportation. One is a contract with VICC.This office oversees eight school districts in the area.This contract is bid every 3 years through a competi-tive RFP process. This process greatly increases pres-sure to lower proposed rates. County Cab has lost thiscontract a few times over the years, but has alwaysbeen asked to step in later in the contract to help out.VICC contracts out the transportation planning ser-vice to Transpar Group, a school transportation com-pany, which makes the determinations about whichtrips to put on buses and which in taxis.

County Cab also contracts directly with threeSt. Louis area school districts. Much of this work is

for students traveling some distance to school becauseof No Child Left Behind rules. These are contractsthat are renewed regularly, and rates are negotiatedwith the school district headquarters.

Vehicles and drivers. There are no special vehiclesused by County Cab for school transportation. Thecompany’s perception is that MTC standards for vehi-cles are high enough that the school districts accept thevehicles for school transports. Staff of MTC expressedsome concern that there is room for more steps toensure vehicle safety for school transports, and,despite the steps described below, to screen drivers.

Drivers must be designated as school transporta-tion drivers. To acquire this credential, drivers musttake a separate written test at a state DMV for studenttransportation, and a special designation is placedon their state-issued driver’s license. In addition,the school districts and VICC require that all driversbe fingerprinted and go through an FBI backgroundcheck.

Drivers are independent contractors. About two-thirds of County Cab’s vehicles are company-owned,and the drivers lease from them. The other one-thirdare individually owned and operated. These inde-pendent drivers pay weekly dues to be affiliated withCounty Cab. Because the drivers are not employees,the company has limited ability to enforce require-ments. However, the computer dispatch systemsends trip requests for school transportation only toqualified drivers. Some drivers do not want to par-ticipate in the program because they want to keeptheir cabs clean and in good condition, and they seethe students as a barrier to this. Presumably, someother drivers fail to meet the standards set by the dis-tricts or VICC.

Drivers receive training for student transportationthrough the cab company, in addition to what is cov-ered in standard driver training for all cab drivers.There are state guidelines for student transportationoperators that they must learn (issued through theState Department of Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation). The cab company holds a few special train-ing sessions per year and publishes rule updates aboutvarious procedures. For instance, there is an incidentreport form that drivers must fill out if something hap-pens during the trip.

Trips and trip types. County Cab serves severaltypes of school trips. Some are along scheduledroutes for students who are not placed on bus routes.

50

Some are same-day or urgent trips, such as for studentillnesses or suspensions. Drivers can sign up for dedi-cated routes that they drive each day, as is convenientfor their schedule. In these cases, the same driver picksup the same students every day, which is very benefi-cial for both the driver and the student, and there arefewer disciplinary incidents on these trips.

County Cab averages about 200 to 250 one-waytrips per day. There are 65 scheduled round-triproutes every day, and the remainder are miscella-neous trips, including same-day or urgent trips.

Rates and billing. The MTC sets rate caps, but therules allow that written contracts for service can havehigher rates than the capped meter rates. Rates forschool trips vary. Some school districts use flat ZipCode to Zip Code rates. In these cases, the rates couldend up above or below the equivalent metered ratesfor the trip, depending on where in each Zip Codethe trip begins and ends. Some districts base rateson mileage. This has gotten a lot easier since theInternet allows them to confirm mileage before atrip occurs. There is an instantaneous transactionwith the school districts: when a district calls torequest a trip, the cab company can determine thetotal fare immediately.

County Cab bills the school districts monthly, butdrivers can get paid after every trip. Some driverseven come to the offices twice in 1 day to get pay-ment. This creates an accounts receivable burden, butthe company is large enough to accommodate this.Reportedly, some other companies that hold schooldistrict contracts do not pay drivers until they arepaid by the school districts.

Barriers. There is a lot of paperwork for schooltransportation. The company takes on most of thisadministrative burden; for example, driver criminalrecords and extra motor vehicle checks all have to bedone twice per year. The drivers must fill out a formfor each trip, like any other voucher system, which ismatched to a system code given to them by the com-puter for that trip.

The company considers the paperwork a majorburden, but sees it as worthwhile to participate inthe program and keep the company’s drivers busy.Keeping the drivers busy is essential to maintain-ing a large group of drivers that will lease the com-pany’s vehicle fleet.

Aside from the paperwork and downward pricepressure created by competitive bidding, the com-

pany does not have many issues with the structure ofthe school transportation contracts and system.

There are a few potential conflicts between schoolrequirements and MTC requirements. For instance,the MTC requires that drivers undergo an annualphysical, which must occur within 60 days of theirannual license renewal. However, school districtsrequire that drivers undergo a physical within 60 daysof the start of the school year. The MTC has alloweddrivers to hold off on license renewal to synchronizethe two required physicals so drivers only have to getone physical per year.

There are no insurance or special equipmentissues. The schools accept the state and MTC require-ments for insurance, which is $200,000 combinedsingle limit.

Helpful factors. From County Cab’s perspective,one key item that helps the school transportationprogram in particular and the taxi industry in generalis that the MTC has taxi industry representatives onthe commission. These industry representatives arecommissioners, and this allows them input andpower in the decision-making processes. Over time,trust has developed between the regulators and theindustry representatives, and they have been able towork together on issues. There has been significantcontroversy and litigation between MTC and somedrivers who object to the rules and enforcement;many drivers believe the regulations are a burdenand question how the system helps them. CountyCab’s manager is one of the MTC commissionersand believes that sharing equal seats on the Com-mission has really helped with communication andtrust from both sides.

CHAPTER 10—911 TRANSPORTS

One example was found of taxicabs being usedto provide transportation for people who call the 911emergency number.

Houston, Texas

The Harris County Healthcare Alliance operatesthe Tele-Health Nurse Triage (THN) program inconjunction with the Houston Fire Department’s911 system. It is designed to provide a solution torequests for non-emergency, but frequently urgent,medical needs coming into the 911 emergency lines.

51

Prior to the THN program, ambulances were fre-quently being sent in response to calls to 911 that didnot require an ambulance. The taxicab transportationprogram is a recent add-on to the THN program. Thereare five categories of calls that are potential candidatesfor diversion to THN: abdominal pain, sick person,allergic reaction, headache, and pediatric. Diversion isalways optional: if the person insists on an immediateambulance, he or she gets one.

The initial program, which at that time did notinclude an alternative transportation program, beganin June 2008. The goal is to provide telephone assis-tance to callers to resolve medical issues, includingreferring non-emergency calls to alternatives to ambu-lance and emergency room treatment, thus reducingcosts. Non-emergency callers are identified by the 911operator and transferred, with the caller’s permission,to experienced nurses who then evaluate the caller’ssymptoms, using the McKesson call-center triageprotocols. The nurses also have the ability to scheduleappointments with the area’s 13 Alliance-membercommunity clinics. (These clinics are all FederallyQualified Health Centers, “FQHCs,” which meansthat among other requirements, the clinics must use asliding fee scale with discounts based on patient fam-ily size and income in accordance with federal povertyguidelines, and the clinic must be open to all, regard-less of ability to pay.)

The initial program identified access to trans-portation as a major barrier to diverting significantnumbers of callers to the alternative treatment modes.Of the 79% of calls transferred back to 911, 51% weretransferred back due to lack of transportation or trans-portation-related issues. Thus, in November 2009, the“alternative transportation” pilot was introduced.Now nurses have access to scheduling a one-waytaxicab ride, which is free to the patient, to one of theparticipating clinics, or to an area emergency room.Trip reservation information is immediately enteredinto a special web page designed by taxicab con-tractor, Greater Houston Transportation Company(doing business as Yellow Cab). On the web page,custom fill-forms with drop-down menus providefor rapid data entry for trips to potential hospital orclinic destinations.

With the introduction of the taxicab alternative,the number of diversions from ambulances imme-diately doubled, and remained at the higher levelsthrough the next program expansion, as shown inFigure 16. In April 2010, the program was againexpanded, to allow referrals from emergency medicalpersonnel in the field. In the three months of experi-ence with the field referral program, diversions fromambulance increased another 40%.

The alternative transportation program is con-sidered very successful. The estimated total savings

52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jul-0

8

Aug

-08

Sep

-08

Oct

-08

Nov

-08

Dec

-08

Jan-

09

Feb

-09

Mar

-09

Apr

-09

May

-09

Jun-

09

Jul-0

9

Aug

-09

Sep

-09

Oct

-09

Nov

-09

Dec

-09

Jan-

10

Feb

-10

Mar

-10

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Nu

mb

er o

f C

alle

rs

Ambulance Transport No Ambulance Transport

December 2009: 'See ED Immediately' added as an option for taxi transportation

November 2009: Alternative Transportation Pilot launched

Figure 16 Transport outcomes of calls to tele-health nurse dispatch and field calls.

during the most recent year of the program was $1.9 million net to the Houston Fire Department ($3 million gross less program costs). These savingsreflect the difference between the estimated average$1,750 cost of an ambulance ride compared with$28 for a taxicab. The savings increase to $2,310 percall if the cost differential of emergency room treat-ment versus other treatment options is considered.As a result, there is an additional $1 million in sav-ings to the health system overall. Because the twomost recent program enhancements were imple-mented during that year, future savings should bemuch higher. The program was briefly interrupted inthe first part of 2011 over budget issues, but is nowback in startup.

The transportation contract with Yellow Cab isadministered by Harris County Rides, an agencythat also manages other transportation contracts inthe area, including a taxicab voucher program forpeople with disabilities, elderly riders, and low-income riders. That taxicab voucher program haseight participating cab companies in it. The 911 pro-gram was merely added onto the existing contractwith Yellow Cab Company, simplifying administra-tion. Yellow Cab was chosen partly because of itssuperior response time (it is the county’s largest cabcompany), and also due to its ability to deliver thetrip reservations web portal. That portal also ensurestrips are only dispatched to eligible locations. Thecontract does not have any special requirements forinsurance or training, because the current local taxi-

cab regulations are deemed suitable. Yellow Cabalso offers wheelchair accessible taxicab service,but there have not been a significant number ofrequests for this service.

When reservations are entered by the 911 callcenter into the web portal, Harris County Ridesreceives an e-mail with the trip details, including aunique “event ID”; it uses this information to trackclient usage and to approve the invoices from thecab company. Rides also investigates any com-plaints, which are not common.

Historical trip volume is approximately 85 one-way trips per month, at an average cost of approxi-mately $28. The contract pays the meter charges forapproved trips, with this amount going to the taxi-cab driver. It is important to note that payment forrides is one-way only, just as an ambulance wouldbe. The client is then responsible for the return trip.When Rides performs customer telephone surveys,which it conducts on 100% of all trips, it also deter-mines if clients are likely eligible for and interestedin other transportation programs and, if so, it thenforwards information on these programs. Repeatcallers are also referred to caseworkers at the Health-care Alliance for follow-up on health care manage-ment services.

The program surveys users for timely pickup,courtesy of driver, and overall customer and nursesatisfaction with all measures 85% or higher in thepositive. Response time to immediate calls has beenvery fast, typically less than 10 minutes.

53

SOURCES

Interviews for the Case Studies

Organization Name Title

American Logistics CompanyAmerican Taxi Dispatch, Inc.Blue Cab Company (Ann Arbor, MI)Centre Area Transit Authority (State College, PA)Chicago Department of Business Affairs and

Consumer ProtectionCity of Los AngelesCity of Olathe, KSCity of SeattleCity of West HollywoodCleveland Metropolitan School DistrictCommunity Consolidated School District 15

(Palatine, IL)Harris County Healthcare Alliance

David BraunIhsan QadirJohn EtterJudi MinorShellie Riedle

Jeannine BrandsCarroll RamseyerCraig LeisyRon WinraderFred HarperTom Bramley

Jennifer Tsuda

Vice President, Paratransit ServicesDirector of School ServicesOwnerDirector of AdministrationFirst Deputy

Transportation Engineering AssociateHousing OfficeManager, Consumer Affairs UnitTaxi SpecialistRouting SpecialistDirector of Transportation

Health Policy Analyst

ENDNOTES

1. Koffman, D., et al., “Funding the Public Transporta-tion Needs of an Aging Population,” American Pub-lic Transportation Association, March 2010.

2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Volume 1,Part 37, Transportation Services for Individuals withDisabilities (ADA), Section 37.121.

3. Rodman, Will, et al., TCRP Report 121: Toolkit forIntegrating Non-Dedicated Vehicles in ParatransitService, Transportation Research Board of theNational Academies, Washington, DC, 2006.

4. Kirby, Ronald F., and Tolson, Francine L., “Improv-ing the Mobility of the Elderly and Handicappedthrough User-Side Subsidies.” Working Paper: 5050-4-4, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, August1976.

5. Federal Register, August 9, 2001 (Volume 66, Num-ber 154), Page 41996-42036, Federal Transit Admin-istration, 49 CFR Parts 653, 654, and 655, “Preventionof Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in TransitOperations—Final Rule.”

6. Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association,2010 Fact Book, Rockville, MD.

7. Burkhardt, Jon, John Doherty, Joseph M. Rubino,and Joohee Yum, “A Survey on the Use of Taxis inParatransit Programs,” Easter Seals ProjectACTION, December 2008.

8. Mundy, R., et al., “Assessing the Full Cost of Imple-menting an Accessible Taxicab Program,” Center forTransportation Studies, University of Missouri-SaintLouis, for the Taxicab, Limousine and ParatransitAssociation, 2010.

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Office of Transportation Delivery

LogistiCare Solutions, LLC

Maryland Transit Administration

Metro Taxi (New Haven, CT)Metropolitan Washington Council

of GovernmentsMetropolitan Washington Council

of GovernmentsMontachusett Regional Transit AuthorityNew Haven Public SchoolsOrange County Transportation AuthorityPennsylvania DOT, Bureau of Public

TransportationPomona Valley Transportation AuthorityRunning, Inc. (Viroqua, WI)San Joaquin Regional Transit DistrictSchuylkill Transportation System

(Schuylkill County, PA)St. Louis Metropolitan Taxi CommissionSt. Louis Yellow Cab and County CabSt. Lucie County School DistrictSuburban Transit Network, Inc. (TransNet,

Montgomery County, PA)Ann Arbor Transportation AuthorityTMS Management Group, Inc.Wisconsin DOT

Wisconsin DOT, Bureau of Transit, LocalRoads, Railroads & Harbors

Yellow Cab Co. (Cleveland, Ohio)

54

Interviews for the Case Studies (Continued)

Organization Name Title

Jeremy Thompson

Kenneth Hoggard

Lauren Skiver

Bill ScalziWendy Klancher

Nicholas W. Ramfos

Bruno FisherTeddi BarraCurt BurlingameEileen Ogan

George L. SparksRichard RunningJulianne FloresMike Micko

Douglas SchererBasil RudawksyDon CarterPatricia Moir

Chris WhiteNick CambasDavid Lowe

Monique Currie

Richard Headly

Branch Manager

Corporate Director, Provider RelationsGroup

Deputy Chief Operating Officer of CoreService

PresidentPrincipal Transportation Planner

Director, Alternative Commute Programs

Chief Operations OfficerCoordinator of TransportationParatransit ManagerChief of Specialized Transportation

Administrator

Transportation SuperintendentVice President for Public Transportation

ServicesSupervisory Enforcement AgentGeneral ManagerDirector of TransportationExecutive Director

Manager of Service DevelopmentPrincipalLead Worker—Program Finance and

OperationsProgram Manager

General Manager

9. Leisy, Craig, and Diana Toledo, “Wheelchair Acces-sible Taxicab Demonstration Project 2007–2008:Report and Recommendations,” City of Seattle,November 2009.

10. City of San Francisco, Motor Vehicle for Hire Regu-lations, http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xhome/hometaxi.htm. Accessed April 28, 2011.

11. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, “SeniorMobility Toolkit,” Metropolitan Transportation Com-mission, Oakland, California, 2003.

12. Providence Journal, “RIPTA to add wheelchair-accessible taxis,” May 7, 2011. http://www.projo.com.Accessed October 3, 2011.

13. U.S. Federal Transit Administration, “Questions &Answers: Elderly Individuals & Individuals withDisabilities (Section 5310), JARC & New FreedomPrograms,” April 29, 2009.

14. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 37,Section 37.29.

15. Edgeworth Economics, Oral Testimony of Dr. KaraGorski before the Washington, DC, Taxicab Com-mission, June 16, 2010.

16. Stefl, Gail, and Mark Newsom, “Medicaid Non-emergency Transportation: National Survey 2002–2003,” National Consortium on the Coordination ofHuman Services Transportation, December 2003.

17. Burkhardt, Jon, et al., TCRP Report 91: Economic Ben-efits of Coordinating Human Service Transportationand Transit Services, Transportation Research Boardof the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2003.

18. Menczer, William B. “Guaranteed Ride Home Pro-grams: A Study of Program Characteristics, Utiliza-tion, and Cost,” Journal of Public Transportation,Vol. 10, No. 4, 2007.

19. Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation, “Fre-quently Asked Questions” and “Historical Back-ground,” http://www.choicecorp.org. (AccessedMay 2, 2011).

55

Transportation Research Board500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001

These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Personswanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyrightto any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.

Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission isgiven with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporationendorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profituses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

ISBN 978-0-309-21379-0

9 780309 213790

9 0 0 0 0

Subscriber Categories: Public Transportation

Research Results Digest 366 · mary of lessons from the case studies, the balance of this digest...

Documents

Transcript of Research Results Digest 366 · mary of lessons from the case studies, the balance of this digest...