CommercialParatransit in the United States: Service Options, Markets, and Performance Robert Cervero Working Paper UCTCNo. 299 The University of California Transportation Center Umversity of California Berkeley, CA 94720 The University of California Transportation Center The University of California Center activities. Researchers Transportation Center (UCTC) at other universities within the is one of ten regional units region also have opportunities mandated by Congress and to collaborate with UCfaculty established in Fall 1988 to on selected studies. support research, education, and training in surface trans- UCTC’seducational and portation. The UCCenter research programs are focused serves federal Region IX and on strategic planning for is supported by matching improving metropolitan grants from the U.S. Depart- accessibility, with emphasis ment of Transportation, the on the special conditions in California Department of Region IX. Particular attention Transportation (Caltrans), and is directed to strategies for the University. using transportation as an instrument of economic Based on the Berkeley development, while also ac- Campus, UCTCdraws upon commodatingto the region’s existing capabilities and persistent expansion and resources of the Institutes of while maintaining and enhanc- Transportation Studies a~ ing the quality of life there. Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and Los Angeles; the Institute of The Center distributes reports Urban and Regional Develop- on its research in working ment at Berkeley; and several papers, monographs, and in academic departments at the reprints of published articles. Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and It also publishes Access, a Los Angeles campuses. magazine presenting sum- Faculty and students on other males of selected studies. For University of California a list of publications in print, campuses may participate in write to the address below. Universityof California TransportationCenter I08 NavalArchitecture Building Berkeley, Califomia 94720 Tel: 510/643-7378 FAX:510/643-5456 Thecontents of this report reflect the viewsof the author whois responsible for the facts and accuracyof the data presentedherein. Thecontents do not necessarilyreflect the official viewsor policies of the State of Californiaor the U.S. Departmentof Transportation.This report doesnot constitute a standard, specification,or regulation. Commercial Paratransit in the United States: Service Options, Markets, and Performance Robert Cervero Department of City and Regional Planning Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1850 Working Paper January 1996 UCTCNo. 299 The University of California Transportation Center University of California at Berkeley CONTENTS CommercialParatransit in the United States Part I: Service Options, Markets, and Performance Chapter’ One: CommercialParatransit: Past, Present, and Prospects 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Potential Benefits of CommercialParatransit 3 1.3 Potential Drawbacksof CommercialParatransit 10 1.4 Classes of Paratransit 11 1.5 Experiences with Paratransit Deregulation 19 1.6 Report Organization 22 References 23 Chapter Two: Shared-Ride Taxis, Jitneys, and CommercialVans 26 2.1 Introduction 26 2.2 Shared-Ride Taxi Service 26 2.3 Jitneys 36 2:.4 CommercialVans 67 2.5 Traditional Paratransit in Summary 79 References 82 Chapter Three: Ridesharing, Shuttles, and Neighborhood-BasedServices 84 3.I Introduction 84 3.2 Subscription Vans mad Buses 84 2,.3 Employer-SponsoredRidesharing 92 2;.4 Casual Carpools 96 21.5 Feeder Shuttles and Circulators 98 2;.6 Dial-a-Ride Services 106 2;.7 Community-BasedParatransit 110 21.8 Specialized Paratransit in Summary 113 References 113 Chapter Four: Part I Summaryand Conclusion 116 4.1 Paratransit and Policy 116 4.2 Service Delivery and Organization 117 4.3 Markets 119 4.4 Performance 12I References 121 Chapter One CommercialParatransit: Past, Present, and Prospects 1.1 INTRODUCTION Paratransit has the potential to producesubstantial mobility and environmentalbenefits by attracting large numbersof urban trips that otherwise wouldbe madeby private automobile. Experi- mentswith shared-ride taxis and jitney services in Seattle, San Diego,Indianapolis, and several other U.S. cities,, in the late 1970sand 1980sdemonstrated there is a marketdemand for frequent, on-call, and sometimesdoor-to-door services that are cheaperthan exclusive-ride taxis and sometimeseven public 1:ransit (Frankenaand Paulter, 1984;Cervero, 1985). Importantly,these types of services blend the best J[eatures of masstransit (i.e., multiple-occupancy)and the private automobile(i.e., flexible, on-call, point- to-point services). Becauseof allegations of unfair competitionand "cream-skimming,"however, many local and ~tate authorities introducedor tightened regulationsover the past three decadesthat effectively bannedcompetitive, free-enterprise paratransit frommost American cities. In addition, labor protection legislation, suchas the 13(c) provisionof the FederalTransit Act, as well as capital and operatingsubsi- dies to public transit haveplaced private paratransit operators at a competitivedisadvantage, limiting mostto specialized, contract services such as for the elderly anddisabled. Despite these regulatory and economicbarriers, someparatransit entrepreneurs have carved out marketniches that earn themprofits arid provide valuable transportation services. Today,New York City has the largest numberof commutervans of any Americancity -- an estimated 2,400 to 5,000 vehi- cles (seatklg 14 to 20 passengers)operate, bothlegally andillegally, on semi-fixedroutes andvariable sched- ules to subwaystops and as connectors to Manhattan.Surveys show that over three-quarters of New York’scommuter-van customers are formertransit riders whovalue havinga guaranteedseat and speedy, dependableservices. Miamicurrently has the secondlargest paratransit marketin the continental U.S. -- at its height in the early 1990s, around500 vans carried some50,000 riders each weekday(around one- third of Metrobusridership). Manyusers are recent immigrantsfrom Cubaand the WestIndies whofind jitney-vans a morefamiliar and congenialform of travel than bus transit. Surveysshow Miami’s jitneys have successfully carved out an independentmarket niche rather than siphoningcustomers from public transit -- 67 percent of survey respondentssaid they weredrawn to jitneys becausethey got themto their destinations faster arid 23 percent said they wereless expensive(Urban Mobility Corporation, 1992). Following Hurricane Andrewin August, 1992, over 200 independent jimey owner-operators were recruited to provide fixed-route van services to SouthDade County residents. Besides NewYork and Miami,private vans and mini-buses currently provide valuable feeder services to rail stations or bus terminalsin San Francisco,San Jose, San Diego,and other cities. Some serve largely transit-captive markets, such as the San Ysidrojitneys that operate betweenthe Mexican border and worksitesin south San DiegoCounty. Shared-ride taxis that are technically illegal yet toler- ated by public authorities also thrive in poor, minority inner-city neighborhoodsin Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Omaha,and dozens of other U.S. cities, manyproviding on-catl connectionsto supermarkets and shoppingmalls. Otherprivate paratransit services cater mainlyto middle-classor professionalwhite- collar customers-- such as San Francisco’ssole-surviving jitney serving the downtownfinancial district, Berkeley’sracetrack taxi pool, Atlantic City’s jitney vans that parallel the boardwalkand casinos, and Washington,D.C.’s venerable shared-ride taxicabs. The most extensive and popular form of private paratransit serving middle-classAmerica is the airport shuttle-van, whichin the case of the Los Angeles and San Franciscoairports currently handle about 15 percent of all groundoaccesstrips~ Withthe excep- tions of NewYork, Miami, arid a few other large cities, commercialshuttle vans have so far avoidedserv- ing other majoractivity centers -- downtowns,edge cities, shoppingmalls, college campuses,and sports stadia, for example-- becauseof unreceptivemarket conditions, like free parking and competitionfrom subsidizedpublic transit services. Of course, outside of the U.S., free-enterprise mini-buses,jitneys, and three-wheelersply their trade throughoutthe streets of manythird-world megacities, like Jakarta, Bangkok,and MexicoCity. In manyof these places, paratransit is the workhorseof the local mass transit system,carrying over half of all transit trips. This report examinesthe potential for private, free-enterprise paratransit services to providea respectable transportation alternative to the private automobilein U.S. cities. If legalized and allowedto freely competein a non-distorted marketplace,paratransit, webetdeve, could lure hundredsof thousands of commutersand motorists out of their cars each day, producingreal and lasting mobility and environ- mentalbenefits. In manyinstances, paratransit could operate at a lower cost per passenger-milethan conventionalbus transit and without any kind of subsidy support. Competitionfrom private paratransit providers, moreover,could over the long ran induce the kinds of efficiency gains and service reforms that wouldimprove the overall financial health of America’sstruggling public transportation sector. This study also examinesregulatory and economicbarriers that currently stifle commercialpara- transit services in the U.S. in Part II of the report. Regulationsgoverning urban transportation havebeen built