Today’s paratransit model is broken. Why are we doubling down on it?
Introducing One Transit: a new vision for public transit.
Thank you to Christian Kent, Ron Brooks, and Dick Alexander for their thoughtful contributions to this piece.
We can all agree that high-frequency fixed-route transit is the backbone of any public transit network. And, if you’re like most transit agencies, you’ve invested millions into making fixed-route networks accessible with features like low floor buses, accessible bus stops, and priority seating. And yet — the people who benefit most from these investments often can’t get to a bus in the first place.
ADA Complementary Paratransit was created to solve inequity in transit accessibility, but what has actually transpired is the creation of a second transit system (for a brief history lesson, see this study from the U.S. Government Accountability Office). But despite our best intentions, this second-system paratransit service is simply not equitable. This inequity is also incredibly costly to deliver — and it’s only going to increase as the population continues aging in place.
Today’s paratransit model is neither equitable nor cost-effective.
The aspects of this broken model this are well-known and long-standing in our industry (well outlined in this New York Times article from 2013):
Today’s paratransit is inequitable:
- Unequal spontaneity for riders (day-ahead booking instead of 15 minute headways)
- Disenfranchising eligibility procedures (with complex certification processes)
- Unequal fare rules (up to double the fare of fixed-route)
And it is inefficient:
- Duplicative operations structures (often with conflicting internal priorities)
- Distinct fleets (often with distinct labor rules)
- Limited economy of scale (low-capacity trip matching due to trip patterns)
North America’s premier group of leaders in accessible transit, the APTA Access Committee, puts it succinctly: “Paratransit is the only mode where more ridership is a bad thing.” While this is framed in terms of its cost-per-passenger, this truth has led to disenfranchisement (such as deliberately complex certification procedures) that disincentivizes ridership.
Paratransit is the only mode where more ridership is a bad thing.
Instead of finding ways to efficiently connect people with disabilities to the accessible fixed-route network we’re all so proud of, we’ve pushed these riders into a second-rate second system. Then, in response to riders’ pleas for equitable travel outcomes (such as same-day service), we’ve taken one look at the second system’s staggering operating costs, collectively shrugged our shoulders, and said, “Sorry, these are the rules.”
Paratransit riders want and deserve better.
Thirty years ago, network design was radically different: fixed-routes were largely inaccessible, and there was no effective way to connect people with disabilities to the fixed-route anyway. Second-system paratransit was the best solution of its era: a compromise between accessibility advocates and the transit economy. By forcing day-ahead bookings, costs could be somewhat controlled while buying time for fixed-routes to become accessible.
But the landscape is different today. Fixed-route transit is remarkably accessible (which is why the Access Services travel-training program in Los Angeles has a 50% retention rate after 5-years), and their designs are now striving for 15-minute headways on arterial routes. Same-day first/last-mile (“FMLM”) connections with microtransit are prevalent and proven nationwide, and second-system riders are opting into these services (such as in Fairfield CA where up to 50% of riders have converted to cost-effective same-day solutions).
These behaviors prove there is appetite for change. We’vee focused on lowering headway all across the network… except in one mode. It’s time we stop treating paratransit as the “other” mode, and this starts with envisioning a new, cohesivenetwork design (see how Ron Brooks’ astutely lays out the importance of consulting today’s paratransit riders in this network design).
The argument against same-day paratransit is its cost. Second-system paratransit is expensive because trips are often single-occupancy and span several miles. These systems have not benefited from economies of scale like fixed-routes have. Critics of improvement then argue, “Paratransit costs are too high, why should I expand it?”
What we should be asking instead is: “How can I offer my riders a new model of paratransit that doesn’t suffer from today’s inefficiencies?”
It’s time we stop treating paratransit as the “other” mode, and that starts with envisioning a new network design.
Paratransit can be cost-effective. The secret lies in fixed-route.
What if, instead of doubling down on an unscalable second system, we simply found a way to bridge the critical mobility gap? After all, what could be more equitable and cost-effective than a fully accessible single system? (This isn’t a new idea: see Christian Kent’s brilliant take from 2023)
Get Stephen Kuban’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
What if we made accessible fixed-routes actually reachable?
- What if any person with a disability could get to your fixed-route network within 20 minutes?
- What if a rider’s first and last miles were linked to the bulk of the journey through accessible, seamless transfers?
- What if your fleet drove more riders ¾ mile, and fewer riders 10+ miles?
- What if your fixed route fleet and microtransit fleet shared the load?
- And most importantly, what if today’s paratransit riders could opt into this?
Here’s what I predict will happen:
- At least half of today’s paratransit riders would opt into such a service. Spontaneity is worth it.
- As a result, occupied mileage of today’s mobility fleet would drop by 50%.
- Then, the size of the fleet dedicated to traditional second-system paratransit would be halved.
- … opening up significantly more vehicles todeliver spontaneous short-distance trips
- Vehicle productivity will skyrocket, while keeping wait-times low (assuming a strong real-time routing engine)
Ultimately, the cost of paratransit plummets as more riders opt-into same-day intermodal paratransit.
And the clutch: fixed-routes will be better for this. With less spent on second-system paratransit, more funds become available to increase the frequency of arterial fixed-routes:
- Meandering local routes could be streamlined and/or replaced by microtransit service, providing even more vehicle liquidity.
- By commingling mobility and microtransit fleets, both services would become more efficient.
- Thus, it would increase the ridership on fixed-routes, making them more efficient too.
- And finally, non-dedicated fleets such as TNCs would reduce costs and wait-times even further.
Evidence indicates that many paratransit riders will ride fixed-route transit when they can reach it. And when they do, you save a lot of money.
So why do we keep separating our transit?
The cost of paratransit plummets as more riders opt-into same-day intermodal paratransit.
The past was two transits. The future is One Transit.
There will always be a place for today’s ADA Complementary Paratransit, serving riders for whom the general transit network is simply not an option. But I bet that the majority of current and future second-system paratransit riders would jump at the chance to have the same results and outcomes as general riders: high-frequency transit, integrated travel across modes, and a streamlined network.
(Plus, I bet your funding sources would appreciate riders opting into more cost-effective fixed-routes.)
Transforming today’s paratransit will transform all of transit, because all of transit is connected: your funding, your riders, your mission. That’s why I believe that the new model of paratransit is same-day intermodal paratransit. This is One Transit: one intermodal transit network, where all systems work as one.
Def: One Transit.
Noun: A new model for paratransit which proposes to solve the inequity and high cost of today’s paratransit by offering same-day service through intermodal fixed-route connections.
You might be thinking… this sounds great, but what next? The way I see it, there are two steps to get there:
Step 1: Transition your (legacy-based) paratransit operations software to one that is capable of transit mode integration and efficient on-demand scheduling.
Step 2: Transform how you operate: introduce microtransit, commingling, TNCs, intermodal journey planning, same-day intermodal paratransit service.
This opens up OneTransit. Now you can design your network with your proven transformations.
Stay tuned for more from me. There is a lot to flesh out here and we are just scratching the surface.
Do you think this will work? What blocks do you see? Join the discussion and leave your comments below.
This blog was posted with mypermission on The Routing Company’s website: https://theroutingcompany.com/newsroom/onetransit
