C-Tran’s paratransit service increasingly popular, expensive

Somosot’s day is planned in advance to be as efficient as possible. His passengers made their reservations two days ahead of time. A GPS program plots the most direct path to each stop, but he can reroute if there’s an unforeseen problem.

Paratransit is a small share of C-Tran’s customer base, but it is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the agency’s expenses — and the region’s changing demographics threaten to exacerbate the situation.

Some of Somosot’s riders are middle-aged and mentally disabled. Others are elderly and wheelchair-bound, and some are retired but temporarily too injured to drive. The age of a paratransit rider doesn’t matter, as long as they meet certain medical requirements to use the service.

As the baby boomer generation moves into its twilight years, C-Tran, like other transit agencies around the country, expects many more to need paratransit services, which could quickly become an aggressive drain on the agency’s finances.

Justin Leighton, executive director of the Washington State Transit Association, calls it “the silver tsunami.” Most of the members of his organization expect to be hit by it, and they want to be ready.

“It’s a target, but you don’t know if it’s going to come in four years or 10 years,” he said.

Officials say the agency is considering a wide swath of cost-controlling possibilities. But no clear solution is in sight.

“Paratransit is a civil right under the law; but if nothing is done to make it financially sustainable, it’s going to threaten to cannibalize our fixed-route service,” said C-Tran spokeswoman Chris Selk. “And that’s something we are aware of and want to avoid.”

An expensive service

Federal law requires that transit agencies offer complementary paratransit within three-quarters of a mile of their fixed-route service.

C-Tran’s paratransit services cover Vancouver and its urban growth area, and locations within three-quarters of a mile of the agency’s fixed-route service in the cities of Battle Ground, Camas and Washougal.

Of the nearly 5.8 million rides given by C-Tran in 2015, Selk said, 249,801 of those boardings were for C-Van and C-Van-related services.

For 2015, the agency took in just over $44 million in sales tax revenues, $7.8 million in fares and about $6.6 million in federal and state operating grants. Other revenue, most of which was from advertising on buses, brought in about $350,000.

C-Tran’s net operating expense for 2015 was $46,816,297, with paratransit services representing 23.5 percent of the total.

Another way of looking at is in operating hours. In 2015, C-Tran’s budget allowed for its fleet to operate for 391,000 service hours, and 26 percent of those were used on paratransit service.

“And it’s increasing every year,” Selk said. The 2009 version of C-Tran’s 2030 plan anticipated a 4 percent growth of C-Van; the 2016 update said it’s growing at an annual rate of 7 percent.

Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center at the University of Washington, said transit agencies around the country are doing “an awful lot of moaning and groaning” as they struggle to meet rising paratransit costs. The reasons behind increasing costs are driven by urban planning as much as they are demographic changes.

In the early part of the 20th century, America’s cities were built around public transit. But in the post-war housing boom, the personal vehicle defined decades of development in suburban America.

“We built the vast majority of our communities in urban forms that demand the use of the car. Clark County is a great example of it. You guys — as a community — hate transit, you vote it down a lot and built (cities) with segregated land uses and lots of cul-de-sacs — which is great in terms of quiet communities,” Hallenbeck said, but it simultaneously worsens traffic on arterial streets and disadvantages people who can’t afford to or are unable to drive.

Now, a generation of people who built their lives around driving are losing their licenses, but they continue to live in neighborhoods far from services and public transit routes.

“If you move them, it’s really traumatic. (They say) ‘I’ve lived in this house for 30 years, what are you doing?’ So the alternative is: Fine, we’ll get them transportation, but that’s really difficult because they still live in their houses in cul-de-sacs and those trips aren’t efficiently served by transit,” Hallenbeck said, adding that he’s going through this experience with his own parent.

Some patience required

Somosot picked up 67-year-old Meredith Long around 9 a.m. She started using the service a couple of weeks ago after a foot injury rendered her temporarily unable to drive. As a retired nurse, she was aware of the service because her former dialysis patients depended on it.

After she got injured, she thought about relying on a ride-hailing service such as Uber or Lyft.

“But as a female my age, I don’t feel totally comfortable doing that. I don’t know who’s coming and what their background is,” Long said. “And a taxi, of course, is very expensive. I’m on Social Security and … don’t have a lot of leeway, so C-Van is a lifesaver.”

The service isn’t perfect, though. The other day she had to be at the gym for four hours — much longer than desired — before the C-Van could come get her.

“It’s a little inconvenient,” she said. “But I’m not complaining, because without them I’d be stuck home.”

Long paid $1.80 for a one-way C-Van ride, the same as a C-Zone rider on a fixed route. But according to the 2030 plan, Long’s fares covered only about 4 percent of C-Van’s operating costs.

The federal government allows for C-Tran to charge up to double the rate of its fixed-route service.

“C-Tran and our board of directors are very aware that the majority of our paratransit riders are economically disadvantaged,” Selk said in an email. “It is important to us that we don’t add to their burden by escalating their transit costs.”

A combination of expenses

Several factors contribute to C-Van’s costs. Typical bus service can serve a high volume of people because it travels a fixed route at set times in a vehicle large enough to carry dozens of people who can usually get off and on without any help. Many paratransit users, on the other hand, rely on mobility devices such as electric wheelchairs, and they may require boarding assistance from drivers. Also, many require door-to-door service at specific times, which makes it difficult to pick up more than a few passengers in one trip.

Leighton also said federal regulations require paratransit riders to be delivered at a time comparable to typical bus service.

“You can’t haul a passenger around the county for two hours if a bus trip might take 30 minutes,” he said. “The federal standards — we’re not calling them burdensome because they mean good things for users — but they drive up costs,” he said.

While wages and benefits are C-Tran’s biggest operating costs, paratransit drivers earn the same or less than fixed-route drivers — $16.96 to $23.91 per hour, compared with $20.62 to $27.14, respectively.

A service with qualifications

According to the C-Tran website, age and disability aren’t automatic qualifiers for C-Van service. Potential riders are pre-screened based on their abilities to use regular bus services. After an initial screening, potential C-Van riders have to file a formal application. A doctor’s signature is required to confirm eligibility. Then, they may have to participate in a functional evaluation to evaluate their skills for riding a regular lift-equipped bus.

A qualified C-Van rider is also allowed to use regular bus services. In fact, the agency encourages C-Van customers to use fixed routes when possible, because it reduces the agency’s costs and allows riders more transportation flexibility, Selk said. To help facilitate that, C-Tran has a program in which travel trainers teach C-Van users the basics of how to read a bus schedule and map, how to ride a bus, where to wait for a ride, how to pay and how to signal for a stop. According to the 2030 plan, other agencies that embraced the program have seen reduced dependence on paratransit service.

C-Van riders also have to make their reservations two days in advance and an automated system calls to remind them of their rides, which helps avoid no-shows and thus unnecessary driver trips.

Controlling costs, meeting demand

Long, the C-Van rider, said she understands some people might not be able to afford more than the $1.80 to ride paratransit. But for people who might have more room in their budget, people like her, she thought it’d be reasonable to pay more for a ride.

“I would be happy to pay more. I think that would be fair,” she said.

If the 2030 plan is any indicator, as the population and demand for services grows, people like her may have to.

The plan lays out several alternatives for future services and potential tax increases that may have to follow. The plan says the agency may consider charging a higher fare, eliminating monthly passes and potentially integrating taxi services in the future.

Several cost-saving measures are outlined in the plan, but many of them, including incorporating smaller vehicles in the fleet and using GPS technology, have already been implemented.

Selk said agency officials regularly discuss how to rein in rising costs. They want to seek more grants to expand the money-saving travel training program. They’ve even discussed the possibility of incorporating ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft for C-Van and fixed-route services, but that’s still just an idea.

Next year the agency is going to examine ridership on all of its services, not just C-Van, to see what can be improved.

“Obviously, when you look at these numbers, C-Van is a large and important cost of the ridership puzzle. We can’t look at the two separately, in my opinion. You have to look at whole package,” Selk said. “Right now we’re in the idea phase. As things become a little more clear and we can get a good grasp on what’s reasonable and realistic we can put some plans to put place.”