Public Sector Transportation for People with Disabilities: A Satisfaction Survey.

In the winter of 1997, a pair of front page articles in The News Journal portrayed a state-run paratransit system under fire from its ridership. `They've taken me places before, and I'd have to wait for more than an hour for them to come back and pick me up,' explained one user (Montgomery, 1997, p. A1). In another article by Montgomery, (1997), others complained about being unable to access the telephone-based scheduling system, the alleged unfairness of the so-called `did-not-go' (DNG) policy, and the apparent lack of concrete rules for both riders and administrators. The message was clear: The system which many seniors and people with disabilities depend on for their basic mobility, one faced with both rising demands and costs, was perceived by many to be unreliable, lacking clear direction on key issues of service, and in dire need of reform.

While the potential effect of such press accounts is undeniable, it must be recognized that the anecdotal information on which they are based is of limited value where issues of policy are concerned. What is required instead is a systematic investigation into consumer satisfaction with paratransit service; one that objectively examines and documents the situation. Such an investigation will provide the basis on which informed public policies can be developed.

The research reported here examined consumer satisfaction of a demand-responsive, call-in-advance, door-to-door paratransit service available in the state of Delaware. The public transit system, operated as DART First State, is a state owned and operated system that includes both fixed-route and paratransit. The State has three counties and a total population of approximately 725,000. At the time of the study, (1997), 110 paratransit vehicles provided slightly more than 336,000 trips per year. The number of trips are twice the number provided in 1991, and are about half of those expected by 2002. The average cost per trip was over $26.00 with a fare box of $2 per trip in two of the three counties in the state. The consumers in the third county only pay $1.00 per trip.

Questions addressed in the study included the following: What constitutes consumer satisfaction of a public service of this nature? What are measures of consumer satisfaction for this population? Are these measures appropriate, given that most consumers almost always want higher levels of service when, in fact, transit providers need meet only the minimum standards prescribed by law? When such extremes exist, is it fundamentally appropriate to use consumer input in the planning and delivery of publicly funded services? If so, how should the information be used in shaping coherent public policies that seek to mollify these two extremes?

Consumer Satisfaction Studies

Jonathan Barsky (1995) asserts that `you can measure how satisfied customers are with your product, service, company, and personnel by considering how well their expectations are being met and what is important to them.' Healthy profit margins, past experience, and even a manager's `gut feeling' are not adequate measures of service quality. `Quality, in the final analysis, is defined by customers' (Murphy & Taylor, 1995). Routine assessments of consumer satisfaction can also alert personnel to potential problems before they become real problems.

There are some researchers, however, whose belief in the utility of consumer satisfaction measures is less absolute. Robert Pasikoff (1997) warns that any organization depending on assessed levels of customer satisfaction to `position a new product line, correct a marketing misstep, or get a jump on the competition ... is asking too much of an instrument that looks through the rear-view mirror rather than the windshield.' To ensure survival, an organization should concentrate less on meeting expectations (satisfaction) and more on exceeding them, which Pasikoff associates with the truest measure of success: customer loyalty.

If not already apparent, it should be noted that the authors previously cited are most concerned with the usefulness of consumer satisfaction studies in the private sector. For members of the National Performance Review -- also known as the task force for `reinventing government' -- the issue is more complex when publicly funded services are the subject of study:

    The quandary for the government is that, with few exceptions, it does not
    sell products, generate profits, or compete in a formal marketplace.
    Therefore, the government is generally unable to use fully the private
    sector's first order metrics (sales, profit margins, market share, and
    cost) to plan and evaluate its performance (National Performance Review,
    1997).

Consumer Satisfaction Studies and Paratransit

Prior to passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and its mandate for complementary paratransit systems, determining levels of customer satisfaction with paratransit services may have appeared to be a luxury. Nowadays, `accurate monitoring, tracking, and responding to performance information on ADA complementary paratransit services are particularly important since the ADA requirements are so specific and have such potent implications if service requirements are not achieved' (Glauthier & Ellis, 1993, p. 37). What used to be an alternative for fixed-route providers looking to transport riders with mobility-impairments is now being reshaped by the federal mandates of the ADA. At a time when basic mobility is more likely to be viewed by the general public as a civil right (Hamburg, Blair & Albright, 1995), transit providers who fail in their paratransit duties, as reflected by low levels of consumer satisfaction and/or failure to meet ADA service standards, are not likely to escape significant damage to their public image and/or their bases of funding.

Another concern for paratransit is the product's increasing cost at a time when service demands are growing rapidly, and funding sources are eroding. `Paratransit operating costs,' writes Rosalyn Simon, `are a major barrier to ADA implementation' (Simon, 1996, p. 316; Department of Transportation, 1996, pp. 6-7; Goshko, 1995). As previous work by this researcher has shown (Denson, 1998), even nominal levels of `transitioning' paratransit riders to accessible and much less expensive fixed-route services could save transit providers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. However, that same research also indicates that only a small portion of the current ridership is even willing to consider seriously such a move.

With regard to paratransit consumer satisfaction studies, the main consideration is the importance of knowing the riders' perceptions of the service. The knowledge generated from such studies could also be used to influence greater use of the fixed-route system. For example, analysis of the findings should lead to the identification of positively viewed aspects of paratransit service that can be reasonably duplicated within the fixed-route system and of negatively viewed aspects of paratransit service that work better within the fixed-route system. As more is known about levels of satisfaction among paratransit consumers, more can be done to make the fixed-route alternative more attractive.

Measures of Consumer Satisfaction

If a satisfaction study of paratransit service is undertaken, then one of the first issues is to determine what information needs to be gathered. Several years prior to the passage of the ADA, Pagano and McKnight (1983, pp. 14-15) outlined eight `service aspects,' each believed to represent a `basic overall dimension of quality.'

1. Reliability and On-time Performance: notification of delays or cancellations; wait-times; reasonably on-time (`a few minutes') arrivals; minimal on-vehicle delays.

2. Comfort: guaranteed space; condition and cleanliness of vehicles; smoothness of ride; air conditioning and ventilation; shelter and seating in non-home waiting areas.

3. Convenience of Making Reservations: accommodation to changes; rider-determined or preset pick-up times; shortness of reservation time; ease of procedures.

4. Extent of Service: total hours of availability; distance restrictions; weekend or evening service; low rate of trip denials due to capacity constraints.

5. Vehicle Access: aisle width; first-step height; number of steps; condition of lifts and/or ramps; level of assistance provided from vehicle to destination; assistance with packages; short distance from house/destination to vehicle.

6. Safety: low probability of assault or accidental injury; type of wheelchair tie-down; wheelchair position; safe driver.

7. Driver Characteristics: ability to handle medical emergencies; courteous and friendly; sensitive and knowledgeable about paratransit riders' needs; sensitive to individual needs; level of professionalism; appearance.

8. Responsiveness to Individual: courtesy and friendliness of phone operators; ease of getting clear information on service; responsiveness to complaints and suggestions; follow-up procedures.

These Eight Service Aspects are well-suited to guiding the development of a consumer satisfaction survey which emphasizes qualitative measures (i.e. `How would you rate the drivers?'). In the post-ADA era, with its detailed mandate for complementary paratransit services, the institution of service standards has been utilized as `a means to bridge the gap between regulation and implementation, between a law and a viable, working program' (Mayeda & Menninger, 1993, p. 24). This calls for a focus on more explicitly quantitative data. Consider the following service standards excerpted from a California provider's plan (Glauthier & Ellis, 1993, p. 32):

Untimely Pickups: At least 75 percent of ADA trip pickups for original or return trips shall be made within the 15-minute pickup window provided to the traveling passenger.

Trip Denials: No more than five percent of all requests from ADA paratransit eligible individuals during any month shall be denied.

Missed Trips: No more than two percent of all promised trips to ADA paratransit eligible individuals shall be either intentionally or accidentally missed.

Excessive Trip Lengths: Total trip time from pickup to dropoff, when measured on a sampled basis, shall not exceed 60 minutes for trips by ADA paratransit eligible individuals for more than five percent of ADA trips.

For Glauthier and Ellis, the practical importance of service standards is undeniable. The ADA regulations, they write, `give no guidance as to what constitutes a `substantial' incidence, yet the penalty for violating this directive can be that additional complementary paratransit services be provided by already strained public budgets' (1993, p. 31). Service standards can help prevent a situation in which the initial occurrence of such an incident becomes the `legal trigger' which forces a potentially unnecessary expansion of service.

Customer Satisfaction and ADA Compliance

It might surprise many paratransit riders to learn that -- in terms of levels of service many transit providers exceed the ADA's `comparable paratransit' mandates. This is particularly true in areas where there are no extensive fixed-route systems with which a paratransit system can be `comparable.' At a time of rising service costs and demands and, at best, stagnant resource flows, decision-makers and transit providers everywhere are faced with the same question: Will the level of service provided be determined primarily by what riders expect and demand or by what the law requires? While choosing the former could open the door to uncontrollable costs, the latter course of action could spark an equally destructive political struggle on behalf of those who would subsequently be denied paratransit services.

Federal regulators, who tend to view post-ADA paratransit as a mere `safety net for those who are functionally incapable of using accessible fixed-route service,' have let it be known that it is within their power to control costs by simply adhering to the letter of the law (General Accounting Office, 1994).

Method

Survey Instrument

Satisfaction -- the relationship between what people want and what they get -- is a seemingly simple concept, but difficult to measure objectively. Therefore, an original questionnaire was designed to systematically obtain and record judgments about consumer satisfaction with service. A numerical rating scale to quantify descriptive categories of service aspects was used, because rating scales tend to be relatively easy to remember when administered in telephone interviews. In addition, use of numerical scales in the measurement of subjective information can increase reliability and comparability (Fowler, 1993). Furthermore, this researcher successfully pilot-tested use of the rating scale with paratransit riders in an earlier study. Consequently, the overall validity of information is believed to be increased with this strategy.

The questions developed following an extensive review of the literature; receiving input from stakeholders such as consumers, the transit provider, and other professionals; and reviewing unpublished surveys conducted by transit providers. Following a pretest, the final instrument resulted in 77-items with questions pertained to mobility, travel requirements, service aspects, and general social-demographic information. A rating scale was used on which `zero' represented the worst possible rating and `ten' the best. In addition to rating service attributes, open-ended responses were obtained from respondents about what they liked best and least about the service. The open-ended questions encouraged more spontaneous responses and provided riders the opportunity to prioritize aspects of the service. Questions about familiarity with the ADA, experience with travel training, and denial of service were also included. At the end of the interview, each respondent was asked to add any comments.

The Sample and Survey Administration

The study population, provided by the transit provider, consisted of everyone who rode a paratransit bus at least once between July 1, 1996 and January 31, 1997. Only rider identification numbers and telephone numbers were made available to the project. The transit provider sent a letter in advance of the study to each of the 2500 riders describing the project, assuring its confidential nature, and encouraging participation.

Sample selection is a challenge of most research design, and even more so when sampling people with disabilities because of the idiosyncratic nature of disability and how it may effect one's mobility. Consequently, an effort was made to interview as many consumers as possible while a minimum size of 384 respondents was sought to achieve a 95% confidence interval plus or minus five percent. Approximately 50% (N=2500) of the population was reached. Of those reached almost 40% (N=482) completed the interview.

The population data were randomly placed on a master list which was first sorted to identify any telephone numbers shared by more than three riders.(1) University undergraduate student interviewers were recruited, trained, and supervised in survey administration. Respondents were assured confidentiality of information; all relevant materials received approval of human subjects prior to administration.

The interviews were conducted over a seven week period in the Spring of 1997. The calls were made from a supervised central location by eighteen interviewers at various times during days and evenings, seven days a week. The average length of a successful interview was 17 minutes.

Interviewers systematically worked through a given page of the calling list and coded results according to the responses received. Every telephone number was called at least once during the process. If a rider, for any reason, wanted the survey mailed, addresses were requested and surveys were sent. The focus of the study was on obtaining responses directly from the primary users of paratransit. Although several secondary respondents (parents or spouses) completed the interview, their responses were not included in the data analysis.

Data Analysis

Concurrent with the interviewing process, the survey data were prepared for analysis. This required coding of each questionnaire, data entry, and verification of this data treatment. The data entry procedures were also checked for consistency, The analysis was primarily descriptive and yielded frequencies, percentages, and measures of central tendency and variability (where appropriate). Cross-tabulations by selected variables were also conducted.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

There were 482 respondents to the survey. Slightly more than two-thirds (67%) were female. The mean age of all respondents was 59 years old ([+ or -]18) with a range from 14 to 93 years. A bimodal distribution was evident in the age of respondents which is shown in Figure 1. While age did not vary by county, there were distinct differences between the responses from riders 60 and under and those 61 years and older.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Nearly three-quarters of all respondents (73%) were Caucasian. Twenty-two percent of all respondents were African American(2), 2% were Hispanic, and 2% classified themselves as `other.' Asians and Native Americans made up 0.6%. Racial identification did not vary by county.

Forty-two percent of all respondents were retired, and 21% were unemployed. Nineteen percent were employed either full-time or part-time. One-third of all respondents completed high school. Just under one-tenth completed one to three years of college or technical training beyond high school. Fourteen percent earned at least a Bachelor's degree. Twenty-nine percent did not complete high school. Annual incomes of $15,000 or less were reported by 66% of the respondents.

Thirty-one percent of respondents were single and 29% were widowed. Twenty-three percent were married. The remaining 14% were separated or divorced. Forty-three percent reported living alone, 31% living with a family member, and 19% living with a spouse. The remaining 6% lived with friends, roommates or in other situations.

More than half (53%) of all respondents lived in single family homes. Another quarter (26%) lived in apartment buildings. Nine percent lived in mobile homes, while 6% resided in townhouses and 3% in nursing homes or care facilities.

Type of Disability and Mobility Impairment.

Over half (52%) reported their disability as involving mobility limitation, while 27% reported multiple disabilities, and 21% sight disabilities. In reporting mobility limitations, one-fifth (21%) said they experienced no limitations. However, 35% cited limited walking and standing capabilities, another 20% cited wheelchair use as a limitation, and 17% mentioned problems due to limited sight.

Opinions about what was liked best and least about the service were obtained using open-ended questions. Respondents were asked to `name the three things liked best about the service' and then to `name which is the most important of the three.' Responses were coded into categories for purposes of analysis and are reported in rank order in Table 1.

Table 1 What Riders liked BEST about the Service(a)

                       Percent

Service(b)               34.7
Drivers                  27.9
Door-to-Door             13.7
Promptness/timelines     11.4
Vehicles/buses(c)         5.6
Cost/Price                0.5
Reservation Takers        0.5
Nothing                   0.2
Other                     6.9

(a) p[is less than].0001

(b) Service attributes named included dependability, convenience, availability, effectiveness, areas of service, time, reliability.

(c) Vehicles attributes included cleanness, age of vehicle, safety features, safe transportation, accessibility.

Table 2 reports the results of what people liked least about the system, one-fifth of all respondents had no complaints. The most common complaints were with timeliness and scheduling.

Table 2 What Riders liked LEAST about the Service(a)

                       Percent

Nothing-No complaint     21.0
Promptness(b)            20.8
Scheduling System        17.0
Communication System     11.3
Service(C)               10.4
Vehicles/buses            4.3
Reservation Takers        3.1
Drivers/attitude          2.8
Other                     9.2

(a) p[is less than].0001

(b) Promptness most often referred to wait times for pick-ups.

(c) Service attributes included Did Not Go, (DNG); trip cancellation policies, reliability.

Satisfaction

One intent of the survey was to develop a reliable index of rider satisfaction with the paratransit system studied. To this end, 41 separate items related to the paratransit system were rated by respondents. An eleven-point scale was used, where 0 represented the lowest and 10 the highest level of satisfaction. From these 41 items, a reduced set of indices to evaluate dimensions of satisfaction among paratransit riders was anticipated.

Analysis of how the scale was used indicates that respondents used both variation and variety when rating satisfaction. However, it should be noted that satisfaction was rated highly on each of the items, and the lowest mean rating was 6.5 points ([+ or -]3.5), for information received about the appeal process. Since experience with the appeal process affected only a limited number of riders who had been denied service, there was a low response rate to this question (N=46). Thus, this question will be eliminated from further discussion. After removing this question, making trip reservations by telephone obtained the lowest mean rating of 6.6. The highest rating was 9.4 points ([+ or -].2) for driver operation of the lifts and tie-down equipment on the bus. In terms of the ratings of individual respondents across the 41 items, the mean score was 8.3 points.

The relative ranking of the scores lends insight into rider perception that can be useful to identify future research projects. Table 3 reports the itemized mean rating of satisfaction presented in the order asked during the interview while Table 4 shows the rank order of the items from the highest to the lowest average score.

Table 3 Satisfaction Ratings

How do you rate...                                        Rating
  the availability (days and hours) of service?             7.90
  the availability of rides when you request them?          8.30
  the process of applying for paratransit?                  7.52
  the ease of buying tickets?                               8.25
  the cost of tickets?                                      8.54
  making trip-reservations?                                 6.64
  changing or canceling trip reservations?                  6.80
  the way DART responds to your phone calls?                6.66
  on-time pick-ups at your point of origin?                 7.62
  on-time arrival to your destination?                      7.90
  on-time pick-ups for return trip?                         7.37
  on-time arrival back at point of origin?                  7.58
  ease of getting on and off the bus?                       9.02
  how safe you feel while riding the bus?                   9.00
  DART's responsiveness to your needs?                      8.17

How do you rate the bus drivers on...
  courtesy?                                                 9.20
  personal appearance?                                      9.34
  sensitivity to needs of riders?                           8.99
  handling emergencies?                                     9.06
  knowledge of the paratransit system?                      8.91
  driving skill and safety?                                 9.16
  operating the lifts and tie-downs on the bus?             9.36
  providing door-to-door service?                           9.31
  reliability?                                              8.78
Overall, how do you rate the drivers?                       9.17

How do you rate the buses on...
  cleanness?                                                8.87
  comfort?                                                  8.32
  adequate and comfortable space?                           8.57
  temperature?                                              8.82
  smoothness of ride?                                       7.79
  reliability of lifts, tie-downs, and other equipment?     9.16
  Overall, how would you rate the buses?                    8.75

How do you rate the reservation-takers on...
  courtesy.                                                 8.67
  sensitivity to needs of riders?                           8.42
  responsiveness to complaints and suggestions?             7.10
  helpfulness when changing or canceling a trip?            8.15
  helpfulness when you have a question?                     8.19
  knowledge of the paratransit system?                      8.15
Overall how do you rate the reservation-takers?             8.33

How do you rate the quality of information
given when you...
  applied for paratransit?                                  8.38
  called with a question or complaint?                      7.09
  filed an appeals                                          6.48

TABLE 4 Satisfaction Ratings in Rank-order

Service Aspect                                         Mean Rating

1. Drivers: operating the lifts and tie-downs on the       9.36
   bus.
2. Drivers: personal appearance.                           9.34
3. Drivers: providing door-to-door service.                9.31
4. Drivers: courtesy.                                      9.20
5. Drivers: (overall).                                     9.17
6. Drivers: driving skill and safety.                      9.16
7. Buses: reliability of lifts, tie-downs, and other
   equipment.                                              9.16
8. Drivers: handling emergencies.                          9.06
9. Ease of getting on and off the bus.                     9.02
10. How safe you feel when riding the bus.                 9.00
11. Drivers: sensitivity to needs of riders.               8.99
12. Drivers: knowledge of the paratransit system.          8.91
13. Buses: cleanliness.                                    8.87
14. Buses: temperature.                                    8.82
15. Drivers: reliability.                                  8.78
16. Buses: (overall).                                      8.75
17. Reservation-takers: courtesy.                          8.67
18. Buses: adequate and comfortable space.                 8.57
19. Cost of tickets.                                       8.54
20. Reservation-takers: sensitivity to the needs of        8.42
    riders.
21. Information given when you applied for paratransit.    8.38
22. Reservation-takers: (overall).                         8.33
23. Buses: comfort.                                        8.32
24. Availability of rides when you request them.           8.30
25. Ease of buying tickets.                                8.25
26. Reservation-takers: helpfulness when you have
    a question.                                            8.19
27. DART's responsiveness to your needs.                   8.17
28. Reservation-takers: knowledge of the paratransit
    system.                                                8.15
29. Reservation-takers: helpfulness when changing or
    canceling a trip.                                      8.15
30. Availability (days and hours) of service.              7.90
31. On-time arrival to your destination.                   7.90
32. Buses: smoothness of ride.                             7.79
33. On-time pick-ups at your point of origin.              7.62
34. On-time arrival back at point-of-origin.               7.58
35. Process of applying for paratransit.                   7.52
36. On-time pick-ups for return trip.                      7.37
37. Reservation-takers: responsiveness to complaints.      7.10
38. Information given when you've called with a question
    or complaint.                                          7.09
39. Changing or canceling trip reservations (by phone).    6.80
40. Way DART responds to your phone calls.                 6.66
41. Making trip-reservations (by phone).                   6.64
42. Information given when you filed an appeal
    trip-reservations (by phone).                          6.48

The consistency of these satisfaction ratings prevents us from analyzing the factor structure of these items since each item is highly correlated with every other item. The absence of a reduced factor solution prevents us from creating a reliable index. In attempts at selecting individual items to include in an index, this researcher found that the results showed that any single item could be substituted with any other item without affecting the overall reliability and score of the index. Therefore, no general index of satisfaction can be created from these results because the statistical grounds necessary for selecting any set of items over another are not present.

However, differences in individual items scored by a number of variables were all statistically significant. The variables include analysis by age, disability, mobility restrictions, and county.

Satisfaction by Age.

Nearly all of the survey items differ by age, with younger respondents (those age 60 and younger) reporting lower satisfaction scores than older respondents. The initial analysis of age was completed using four age groups, divided into roughly equal categories, (persons aged 40 and younger, 41 to 60, 61 to 75, and 76 and over). Statistically there was little difference between the two groups under 60 and the two groups representing riders over 60, therefore, the age variable was collapsed into respondents 60 and under and those over 61. The pattern shows a generally positive relationship. That is, older respondents are more satisfied with all aspects of paratransit service than are younger residents, and the mean level of satisfaction increases from one age category to the next.

Satisfaction by Disability.

There is one difference in satisfaction by type of disability. Respondents differ on the ease with which they can buy paratransit tickets. Respondents with hearing disabilities report the highest satisfaction (Mean Score: 9.0, [+ or -]1.4), while those with sight disabilities report the lowest scores (Mean Score: 7.2, [+ or -]3.3).

Satisfaction by Mobility Restrictions.

In the analysis of ratings by type of mobility restriction some differences have no substantive interpretation. For example, respondents with limited walking capability are less satisfied with the cost of paratransit tickets than other respondents. Respondents with no mobility restrictions are less satisfied with the transit provider's responsiveness to their needs. However, several differences are important.

First, respondents with limited standing capabilities are less satisfied with their ability to get on to and off of the bus. Respondents in wheelchairs are less satisfied with the comfort of the bus, the space allocated to them, the smoothness of the bus ride and with responses to telephone calls. Respondents who ride the bus in wheelchairs, or have other mobility limitations, were less satisfied with bus driver knowledge of the paratransit system, while those without a mobility limitation are less satisfied with the reservation takers knowledge of the paratransit system. Finally, respondents who use wheelchairs are less satisfied with the information they have received when calling with a complaint or question.

Discussion

The Drivers.

Of the ten service aspects specifically relating to the paratransit drivers, none ranked lower than fifteenth out of forty-two categories. This category, in fact, accounts for seven of the top eight rankings. With few exceptions, the respondents were very pleased with the performance of their drivers, who represent the only routine face-to-face contact with transit personnel.

The Buses.

Most service aspects in this category received a relatively high rating. Indeed, the only non-driver related aspects of service which rank in the top fifteen deal with the buses. Of the nine bus-related aspects, the three with the lowest ratings all address rider comfort: adequate and comfortable space, comfort, and smoothness of ride. The highest ratings in this category were most concerned with vehicle accessibility: reliability of lifts, tie-downs, and other equipment, and ease of getting off the bus.

The Trip Reservation Process.

Questions regarding the reservation and cancellation process system employed by paratransit elicited some of the lowest ratings of the entire study. It should be noted, however, that no question which specifically asked respondents to rate the performance of the reservation-takers resulted in a lower rating than those which dealt with the communication and/or telephone system more generally. Overall, a distinction is apparent between how the respondents regard the system of communication and the people who must work within it. Without exception, the people fared better in the eyes of our respondents.

On-time Performance.

Relative to the other service aspects rated by the respondents, on-time performance rated below average. The rating for on-time arrival to destinations ranks 30th among the 42 service aspects rated, making it the highest ranked aspect relating to timeliness of paratransit service. In light of the public complaints of riders who report incidents of being stranded away from home (1,2), it is also interesting to note that on-time service ranks lowest (7.73; 36th) with regard to pick-ups for return trip.

Interpretations

To those who might interpret our results broadly, particularly the overall mean satisfaction rating, as a ringing endorsement on behalf of the ridership, there are several caveats:

Respondents generally least satisfied.

For every item except one (Information given when you filed an appeal?), respondents from the state's largest county issued ratings below the mean. This finding is somewhat troubling when one considers that only in this county does the service adhere more strictly to the ADA mandates. If the financial burdens of service provision lead to similar policies elsewhere in the state, lower levels of rider satisfaction could also result.

Younger respondents were less satisfied.

Respondents aged 60 or younger accounted for about half the completed interviews: they routinely gave lower ratings to the service they receive. Keeping in mind that the sample is not the ridership and that this group's proportion of the former may differ significantly from their share of the latter, this finding has definite implications for the future. As those currently under the age of 61 steadily make up more and more of the total ridership, their perceptions of the service they receive will take on even greater importance. Barring a stricter (i.e. letter of the law) interpretation of the ADA by state officials or an unforeseen decline in the demographic and political muscle of older Americans, service demands and expectations of today's 60 and under ridership will shape the paratransit system for decades to come. The perceived success or failure of the system will largely depend on their levels of satisfaction.

Respondents who had more to say tended to be critical.

Of the 176 respondents who volunteered to make comments after completion of the survey, only 25.6% had anything positive to say. Of the 314 separate comments made by this group, about 85% leveled some type of criticism at the service.

Transitioning to fixed-route service.

Using the service aspect ratings as a guide, participants in this study appear to be, on the whole, very pleased with levels of driver performance and vehicle accessibility. These would seem to be areas of service that should be duplicated in the fixed-route system. On the other hand, service aspects that are not part of the fixed-route system, such as making, changing or canceling trip-reservations received the lowest scores among the items ranked. Information such as this can be extremely helpful in the ongoing effort to transition paratransit riders to fixed-route services. In some cases, transitioning can be furthered by emphasizing the service aspects existing in both systems (i.e. well-regarded drivers and accessible vehicles). In others, success may depend on emphasizing the differences which favor the fixed-route alternative (i.e. no reservations by phone). Aspects of paratransit liked by riders should be duplicated to whatever extent is practical. Aspects that are disliked in the paratransit system should be emphasized as benefits of fixed-route travel. For instance, use of the fixed-route bus does not require trip reservations or cancellations.

Limitations

The sample.

Statistically the size of the sample is respectable, although there is no guarantee that the sample is representative, or typical, of the entire population. Lacking the time and resources to make multiple call-backs to riders who were unavailable when called, the callers made contact with about half the population.

One also must consider the negative impact that customer apathy exerts on participation rates in surveys of any kind (Barksy, 1995). In addition, there is a tendency for those who respond to feel positively toward the service. It is also reasonable to question whether the respondents reported their opinions or simply responded to what they believed the interviewers wanted to hear. The sample is a highly specialized segment of the population and any perceived externally influenced change to their transportation arrangements warrants serious examination. As a consequence, respondents may be unwilling to report highly negative feelings about the service due to a fear that their service may change or become unavailable.

Primary reliance on a telephone survey limits participation.

This factor is related to the aforementioned point: Any mode of survey administration has its potential drawbacks. For the method chosen for this study, it was expected that some groups ran a greater risk of exclusion, particularly the communication-impaired (Lave, Rose, & Sugrue, 1992), and those whose living situation precludes a private phone line.

The ridership sample may be too exclusive a sample.

There is much to be learned from those who are no longer riding paratransit. These non-riders were less likely to be included on the phone list and, when contacted, often resisted participation. From the standpoint of improving paratransit, knowing their reasons for not using the service could be vital (Lave, Rose, & Sugrue, 1992).

Conclusion

At this point, it is necessary to consider the lessons of this study from the perspective of what we know to be in store for the future. We know, for example, that the population in the United States is getting older. It is also known that the demand for paratransit services nationwide has been on the increase since ADA's passage, and shows no signs of slowing down in the near future (Simon, 1996). Based on this study's findings with regard to agerelated differences in satisfaction, we might reasonably anticipate that the older riders of the future-the `60 and under' riders of today-will expect more from the service than their predecessors. With regard to mobility and satisfaction, we might reasonably expect that riders with the greatest need for accessible transit will be more critical when the service fails to meet their mobility needs. Clearly, people with the greatest need for accessible transit as addressed in the ADA will demand their rights to access and mobility in the community at a level that is comparable to the general population. Should transit providers fail to accommodate these basic needs, we can expect to see more litigation.

As a larger number of people with disabilities clamor for increased service, paratransit providers are not likely to find salvation in the form of increased federal appropriations (Simon, 1996). In fact, the regulators responsible for overseeing the ADA's transportation mandates have made it clear that the remedy for rising paratransit costs and increasing demands for service is not more federal money. Instead, it is a strict interpretation of `ADA eligible' riders and the transitioning of non-ADA riders to newly accessible fixed-route transportation (General Accounting Office, 1994).

Finally, as we prepare for the service economy of the 21st Century, transit providers wanting satisified consumers must understand the unique needs and composition of their new market -- giving consideration to age, disability, and mobility in the design and delivery of service. To appreciate the difficult situation facing transit providers, particularly those who provided extensive paratransit service prior to ADA, one need only consider the relatively high levels of political organization among their main constituencies: older citizens and Americans with disabilities.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the support for this project from the Delaware Transportation Institute, (DTI). DTI is a multidisciplinary research unit co-sponsored by the University of Delaware and the State of Delaware.

(1) These numbers were used to identify riders living in common or group residential settings. Since it would have been extremely difficult to conduct phone interviews with these riders (approximately 10 percent of the sample, n=261), each facility was contacted to determine if a staff member would agree to receive, distribute, and return the completed surveys. To those who consented, a packet was mailed containing instructions, an appropriate number of surveys, and a postage-paid return envelope. A follow-up telephone call was placed to confirm that the packets were received, answer any questions, and encourage completion of the questionnaire. Of the 112 surveys distributed to ten different group settings, fourteen individual surveys we, re returned. For a variety of reasons, none was usable.

(2) Compared with state demographics, African-Americans are over-represented in paratransit. In 1997 17% of the State population was African-American.

References

Americans With Disabilities Act: Challenges Faced By Transit Agencies In Complying With The Act's Requirements (1994). (Report GAO/RCED-94-58.) Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office,.Montgomery, J. (1997, January 27). Bus system for disabled under fire from riders. The Wilmington News Journal, p. 1.

Barsky, J. D. (1995). World-Class Customer Satisfaction. Illinois:Irwin Professional Publishing.

Denson, C. R. (1998). Transitioning to fixed-route services. Transportation Research Record, 1623, 37-44.

Department of Transportation. (1996). Paratransit forums I & II: final report. Washington, DC: Project ACTION.

Fowler, F. (1993). Survey research methods (2ND ed.). California: SAGE.

General Accouting Office. (1994). Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges faced by transit agencies in complying with the Act's requirements. (GAO/RCED 94-58). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

Glauthier, R. E. & Ellis, E. H.. (1993). Measuring And Tracking The Demand For And Performance Of ADA Paratransit Services. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board: In Solving ADA Paratransit Problems; How to Cope with Reality.

Goshko, J. M. (1995, March 6). Cities worry about paying for paratransit. The Washington Post, p. 1.

Hamburg, J. R., L. Blair & Albright, D.. (1995). Mobility as a right. Transportation Research Record, 1499, 52-55.

Lave, R., Rose, K., & Sugrue, J. Methodology for conducting a transportation survey of persons with disabilities. Transportation Research Record. 1338, 51-59.

Mayeda, T., & Menninger, H. (1993). Professionals and consumers jointly developing standards. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board, In Solving ADA Paratransit Problems; How to Cope with Reality.

Montgomery, J. (1997, February 7). DelDOT is ducking com plaints, disabled say. The Wilmington News Journal, p. A1.

Montgomery, J. (1997, February 27). Bus system for disabled under fire from riders. The Wilmington News Journal, p. A1, A2.

Murphy, J. and Taylor, J.A. (1995, January 28-29). Taking quality as seriously as profits. Industrial Engineering.

National Performance Review, (1997). Serving The American Public: Best Practices In Customer Driven Strategic Planning (PRVP 42.2: C96/3). Washington DC:

Pagano, A. M., & McKnight, C. E.. (1983). Quality of service in special service paratransit. Transportation Research Record, 9334, 14-23.

Pasikoff, R. (1997). The limits of customer satisfaction. BRANDWEEK, p. 117.

Simon, R. M. (1996). Toward accessible transportation. In Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Carol R. Denson University of Delaware

Carol R. Denson, Ph.D., Department of Consumer Studies, College Human Resources, Education & Public Policy, University of Delaware, 314 Alison West, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: [e-mail].