Rich and Strange Aeons

I did a bunch of reading on this yesterday, I think sparked by a NUMTOTS post on yet another microtransit idea. Figured I’d share.

What is paratransit?

In the US, a public transit service for the disabled, particularly those who can’t use regular fixed-route transit. Typically it is delivered via vans with wheelchair lifts, you have had to schedule a ride a day in advance, they have wide windows, and you may have to share the ride. My cursory impression is that UK services have been similar.

How good is paratransit?

Opinions seem to include “it’s great because it lets me leave my house at all”, “it’s terribly inconvenient to schedule and you can’t rely on it for appointments or jobs”, or both. Understandably enough. Wide pickup windows, and trips that can be unpredictably long as you detour for other riders, suck.

Why is paratransit?

In the US, it’s now because of federal regulation, rooted in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act.) You can read the regulations here; they’re fairly readable. Basically, any public transit agency has to also provide the service, for an area 3/4 of a mile from its fixed routes, during its transit hours; it has to provide rides by the next day; it can only charge twice as much as the regular fare; and it has to pick you up within an hour of your requested time (one hour before or after – so a two hour window.) I note no guarantee of when you arrive.

Also note that this is an unfunded mandate: the regulation requires a service, but there’s no automatic funding for it. Which matters because…

How expensive is paratransit?

Very. Wikipedia says ‘the average cost of providing a paratransit trip is “an estimated three and a half times more expensive than the average cost of $8.15 to provide a fixed-route trip’, and gives examples of over $40/trip in 2010 Maryland, $33 in 2008 Boston, $64 for NYC. In 2020, ProPublica said NYC’s MTA was paying $86 per ride. A pilot program let some riders get subsidized taxi rides, at $40/ride to the agency, but costing it more in total because riders used that a lot more.

So why does it suck so much?

When I first heard of paratransit and its “next-day” scheduling requirement, I suspected that we don’t care about the disabled and make only the most grudging accommodations for them. And I wouldn’t rule that out! But on the other hand you’d think that agencies would have some concern for their budgets; if they all have expensive paratransit, maybe it’s just expensive to provide.

And, well, it’s a form of microtransit. Or “demand-responsive transit” or “flexible transit” or a bunch of other phrases. And that’s worth a whole separate post, but basically microtransit inherently sucks.

What about that $40/ride taxi program? Doesn’t that suggest the MTA being deliberately terrible with its regular paratransit to keep demand down? Well, maybe. OTOH I doubt people in wheelchairs were using those taxis. Paratransit has to be particularly accommodating, on top of being microtransit. So it’s not like MTA could entirely replace the vans with taxi rides. And presumably the MTA’s budget is handed down from above; if taxis cost half as much per ride but are used 3 times as much, that’s 50% more money that has to come from somewhere, probably fixed-route transit.

I did a survey on RPG.net (It's on a members-only forum so non-signed up people won't be able to see it) on having and needing cars, in the US or elsewhere. Final results:

I have a car, need it, and live in the USA Votes: 155 42.0%
I have a car, don't need it, and live in the USA Votes: 8 2.2%
I don't have a car, need one, and live in the USA Votes: 11 3.0%
I don't have a car, don't need one, and live in the USA Votes: 25 6.8%

I have a car, need it, and live outside the USA Votes: 59 16.0%
I have a car, don't need it, and live outside the USA Votes: 18 4.9%
I don't have a car, need one, and live outside the USA Votes: 5 1.4%
I don't have a car, don't need one, and live outside the USA Votes: 88 23.8%

Total voters
369

The poll was inspired by memories of a German poster saying that while Germany has a lot of cars they were more of a luxury item, possessed because you want one (country drives, easier grocery shopping) rather than because you need it. This was kind of a test of that, and as you can see the claim is somewhat falsified: the majority of non-US car owners still say they need it. Most respondents everywhere either have a car and say they need it, or don't have one and say they don't need one.

OTOH there are differences. 1/4 of non-US owners do in fact say they don't need it, vs like 5% of American owners. More strikingly, 62% of non-US respondents say they don't need a car, vs. 17% of US respondents; 52% of non-US respondents don't have a car and don't need it, vs. 78% of US respondents having a car and needing it. The difference in societies is quite stark.

The poll technology was primitive, thus clumping all non-US countries together, but based on comments and past polls, the main countries are Canada, UK, Ireland, Germany, and Sweden. The site has a liberal tilt; if you're vocally not okay with feminism or queer rights, you get banned, and 10 years ago even the otherwise conservative US posters generally seemed fine with universal health care. OTOH I don't know if it has any particular urban bias, nor the age distribution -- though I've been around long enough that I can say many of the posters can't be that young any more.

Many of the US comments were along the lines of "transit sucks" and "but how can you even go shopping without a car???", what I'm starting to call "virgins talking about sex" discussions.