3. Summary of Results

In this section, the five service options will be compared in financial, customer service, and other terms. This will be followed by discussion on long-term considerations and SURTC's paratransit service option recommendation for MAT.

3.1 Comparing the Service Alternatives

The alternative service options have relatively small impacts on ridership and savings as most MAT paratransit trips originate and terminate within three-quarters of a mile of fixed-route service where service is required by federal law. Table 7 presents a side- by-side comparison of the five service alternatives whose estimates are based on moderate assumptions.

Table 10. Service Options Comparison

Relatively significant financial savings of $21,953 are estimated for paratransit service limited to three-quarters of a mile from existing MAT fixed-route lines. This comes at the cost of a sizable decrease in trips delivered, 1,768. Implementation of a two-zone paratransit service policy is expected to have less pronounced affects with a decrease in annual trips of 707, resulting in a $2,794 decrease in fare revenue and a $11,946 reduction in operating expenses. Three-city service results in 468 fewer trips delivered per year compared to 988 for three-city-two-zone service with an estimated savings of $5,811 and $12,268 respectively.

Given the tradeoffs that exist between financial cost and other factors, it is not possible to objectively determine which of the service options best meet the needs of MAT's customers and the communities it serves. For example, while the three-quarter-mile service option yields the greatest savings it is also the least politically palatable as residents of Dilworth, Fargo, Moorhead, and West Fargo will be denied service, based on the location of their ride origin or destination. For the two-zone options, the concept of economic fairness is addressed as trips that begin or end in areas away from the geographic center of the metropolitan area are significantly more costly than those that are not. Finally, the current service policy provides the highest level of customer service, but at a significant financial cost.

Table 11 presents service availability, fare, and the local cost of providing service for each of the five service alternatives and eight areas. Each of the four cities is divided into two areas, those within and those beyond three-quarters of a mile of current MAT fixed-route service. The cost of providing service is the cost paid by each of the four cities. Once again it should be noted that the source of these funds vary by municipality. Fargo and Moorhead receive federal, state, and local funds to provide public transportation service. West Fargo receives service as the result of a contract with the city of Fargo, currently at a cost of $12 per ride to the city. Dilworth makes no local contribution.

Table 11. Service Option Quality Measures

3.2 Metropolitan Area Growth and Long-Term Considerations

The service options were studied given current MAT fixed-route and paratransit service. Because of the interrelated nature of the two transportation types, which arises as a consequence of ADA regulations, the impact of future fixed-route expansion should also be considered when deciding upon paratransit service options in the near term.

One issue is the fare box recovery ratio, which MAT, like many other transit agencies would like to be .15 or higher. ADA regulations limiting paratransit fare limited to twice that of fixed-route service for those rides within three-quarters of a mile of fixed-route lines constrains MAT from reaching this goal. Given rising operating costs for both the fixed-route and paratransit services provided by MAT, fixed-route and paratransit fares are likely to be a focus of much attention of MAT's 2007 Transit Development Plan.

Given the rapid growth of southwest Fargo and West Fargo, the addition of fixed-routes to MAT's current service in the future is plausible. In light of this, the alteration or elimination of paratransit service becomes less pragmatic. To change service in these ways, only having to change it back a short period later after the addition of fixed-route service in these areas, would impose a number of costs on MAT both financially and in terms of service quality. This is especially true as the upcoming 2007 Transit Development Plan will consider expanding fixed-route service to Dilworth resulting in the need for complementary paratransit service for the entire city.

3.3 Additional Service Alternatives

Though this study looked specifically at the impacts of various service alternatives where either flat fares or zonal fares are used, there are other, possibly viable alternatives, for MAT's paratransit service/fare structure. One option, touched on briefly in this paper, is the implementation of per-mile charges for those trips outside the three-quarter mile service area similar to that used by Bis-Man Transit in providing rides to outlying rural areas.

3.4 Service Policy Considerations & Recommendations

The value of MAT supplying uniform paratransit service was discussed in the first section of the paper. For MAT to continue to provide the uniform, high quality paratransit service equitable funding in the form of fares and municipal support is important. This could include, but is not limited to, finding a mechanism for Dilworth to contribute local dollars for the public transportation provided to it by MAT. An issue related to equitable funding by community is that of charging special fares for rides booked by social service agencies. This agency rate alternative has been considered before and was the subject of a 1998 Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments study.

As part of the study, SURTC was asked to provide a paratransit service recommendation to MAT. In light of the analysis, it is SURTC's recommendation that, if possible, MAT maintain its current metro service policy and high level of customer service. The potential benefits of the alternatives, which in essence scale back the level of service, impose significant non-financial costs on communities in the form of forgone paratransit rides. The cost of changing service, especially in the case of the two zone alternatives, does not appear to justify the benefits.