Karen Wolf- Branigin Easter Seals Project Action Washington, DC

1. Applying A Travel Training Cost Benefit Model For People With Disabilities 2011 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Washington, DC Michael Wolf-Branigin George Mason University Fairfax, VA Kevin Welch and JD Culver Paratransit, Inc. Sacramento, CA Karen Wolf-Branigin Easter Seals Project Action Washington, DC

2. Applying A Travel Training Cost Benefit Model For People With Disabilities 2011 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Washington, DC Purpose Travel training services exemplify livable communities through accessibility. Public transportation providers agree that solutions must be identified to curb the high cost of specialized services to people with disabilities. Simultaneously avoiding costly ADA paratransit services and increasing the independence and mobility of people with disabilities through travel training services provides everyone with a mutual win. We designed • a budget template with line item expenses • a formula to ascertain distinct travel training costs • A method to determine the benefits of travel training services and ascertain the degree to which travel training services saved or diverted costs for public transportation providers (funders) In this first attempt at applying the replicable model, we sought to understand the costs and benefits of travel training to public transportation providers.

3. Applying A Travel Training Cost Benefit Model For People With Disabilities 2011 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Washington, DC Method Using the method provided by Wolf-Branigin & Wolf-Branigin (2010), three cities receiving travel training services from Paratransit, Inc. were studied. The initial cost/benefit model included methods for estimating a benefit/cost ration and net benefits from three perspectives; the travel trainee, the public transportation provider (funder), and the community. For the purpose of this study, we focused solely on the public transportation provider perspective. The specific calculation included Cost of vehicles and equipment to provide travel training services (a) Cost of travel training personnel (b) Cost of supplies, equipment and occupancy (c) Projected savings to the public transportation provider (funder) (x) Projected trainee taxes (from wages) paid to support local transit agency (y) Cost avoidance (difference in cost of an ADA paratransit trip minus a fixed route trip) (z) Benefit & Cost Calculations – Public Transportation Provider Benefits = (x) + (y) + ( z) Costs = (a) + (b) + (c) ` B/C Ratio = ((x) + (y) + (z)) / ((a) +(b) + (c)) Net Benefit = ((x) + (y) + (z)) – ((a) + (b) + (c))

4. Applying A Travel Training Cost Benefit Model For People With Disabilities 2011 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Washington, DC Results The calculations for the three cities were: CityB/C RatioNet Benefits 1 $389,561/$187,739 = 2.07 $201,822 2 $1,101,817/$760,517 = 1.45 $341,300 3 $589,000/$148,082 = 3.98 $440,918 Conclusions Applying a cost benefit model to travel training services appears to 1) Measure improvements in community livability for people with disabilities 2) Assist public transportation providers improve their decision making 3) Save public transportation providers financial resources 4) Contribute to the sustainability of local transportation systems Given the assumption that the public transportation provider (funder) will garner the lowest benefit/cost ratio, compared to the trainee and community, these findings suggest that travel training services provide an effective and efficient alternative for public transportation providers seeking to reduce or avoid ADA paratransit costs

5. Applying A Travel Training Cost Benefit Model For People With Disabilities 2011 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Washington, DC Recommendations Public transportation providers funding travel training services should • Require that those delivering travel training services submit the necessary information in order to improve decision making • Analyze the data from these internal or contract travel training personnel • Use the results as a decision tool and rationale to expand travel training services, if cost savings are derived • Share knowledge about the benefits of travel training services with other public transportation providers To improve the cost-benefit model for multiple year projections, we suggest • Developing estimates for the proportion of trainees who complete travel training and remain users of the fixed route systems • Including discounting rates into the model • Improving the method for obtaining individual trainee benefits that may include sampling