Accessible Public Transit Alternatives

Abstract

Recent changes in Federal requirements for providing public transportation to the handicapped are identified. Accessible fixed‐route service and demand responsive service are evaluated as the two primary alternatives for meeting the Urban Mass Transit Administration's (UMTA) current “special efforts” requirement. The potential for accessible fixed‐route service is evaluated based on early experiences in St. Louis and Milwaukee and more recent data for Seattle. A hypothetical accessible fixed‐route system for Madison, Wisconsin, is developed using Seattle demand data and compared with the existing demand responsive system. A range of demand responsive service alternatives including the user side subsidy option are also evaluated for Madison. The analysis shows that, under ideal conditions and ignoring lift‐related delay costs, fixed‐route service can be nearly as cost‐effective as demand responsive service. Demand responsive service, however, provides for a much higher proportion of the travel needs of the handicapped in terms of both the total number of trips and the number of handicapped users. The handicapped in Madison can best be served at this point by maintaining the current demand responsive service and providing service expansions with the lower cost private taxi service.