Final Report
Means Testing Pilot Project
for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Boston, MA
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2015, MBTA staff, in consultation with advisory groups, began
developing a pilot project designed to further understand the economic characteristics of RIDE
users, and to evaluate the feasibility of using participation in existing means-tested social service
programs as a basis for implementing means-based fares. The key principles guiding program
development were: financial sustainability, equity across both RIDE and all MBTA customers,
and easy implementation.
Pilot Project Design
The six month Pilot Project began on July 1, 2015 and included 600 participants in The
RIDE program who are also registered users of one or more of 18 income based public benefit
programs. These programs all served customers that were at 300% of the federal poverty level or
below. This design included both ADA and Premium trips (non-ADA). ADA trips are booked
by 5:00 pm the previous day and begin and end within ¾ mile of a bus/subway route or station
and must be offered in accordance with federal law. Premium trips include both same day service
and those that exceed the ¾ corridor.
All trips received a $1 discount. This equates to a 33 percent discount for ADA trips that
normally cost $3 and a 20 percent discount for Premium trips (normally $5).
Pilot Project Implementation
The Means Testing Working Group developed a schedule of tasks and activities to be
completed in order to implement the Pilot Project as of July 1, 2015. The Pilot Project tasks are
presented below.




Initial Pilot Project Survey
Selection of Pilot Project Participants
Pre-Pilot Administration
Pilot Project Execution
The organizations that comprised the Pilot Project Working Group included: MBTA’s
Office of Transportation Access (OTA); Massachusetts Senior Action Council (Mass Senior
Action); Access Advisory Committee (AACT); the Edward J. Collins, Jr. Center for Public
Management at the University of Massachusetts Boston (Collins Center); and Pierlott &
Associates, LLC (PALLC).
Pilot Project Evaluation
The Pilot Project evaluation rests on the assessment of three goals. These included the
following:

Feasibility – the first goal of the Pilot Project was determine its feasibility. There are two
components of this goal – operational and administrative.
- ii -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
– Operational feasibility was examined to determine whether a means-based
reduced fare could be implemented under the current operational and business
model employed by The RIDE and support MBTA Fare Policy.
– Administrative feasibility was examined to determine whether a means-based fare
program could be effectively administered by the MBTA.

Benefits – this goal was to determine to what extent a means-based fare would be
beneficial to low-income customers of The RIDE.

Costs – this goal was to determine what the financial impacts of implementing a meansbased fare on The RIDE would be to the MBTA.
The results of the evaluation relative to each of these goals is discussed in more detail
below.
Goal 1: Feasibility – the Pilot Project should address the operational and administrative
feasibility of implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE.
Operational Feasibility
The first step in determining the operational feasibility of implementing a means-based
fare was to determine how the reduced fare could be incorporated into The RIDE’s trip
scheduling system in order to ensure that participants received the appropriate discount. The
MBTA worked with its consultant for the Stratagen software, and was able to incorporate the
necessary modifications to allow for the seamless billing for the means-based fare. This allowed
implementation of a means based to be seamless to the customer.
Administrative Feasibility
The administrative feasibility of a means-based fare is largely a factor of the number of
participants, as well as the practicality of determining the participants’ eligibility. The MBTA
identified more than 24,000 candidates that had taken at least two trips during the previous one
month period. Of these, more than 2,000 eligible applicants (approximately 20 percent)
responded to the MBTA’s solicitation. 577 customers were randomly selected with some
control for geographic area and frequency of travel.
In support of their eligibility for the Pilot Project means-based fare, the participants were
asked to identify their participation in one or more of 18 public benefit programs that met
MBTA’s income criteria. The participants were further asked to provide documentation that
would demonstrate their enrollment in one or more of these programs. The number of unique
documents and the number that were submitted are presented in Exhibit ES-2.
As shown in this exhibit, there were 132 unique types of documents that were submitted
as evidence of eligibility. Such a wide variety of documents presented a challenge for MBTA
staff to verify. Indeed, between privacy issues (RIDE does not currently collect social security
- iii -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
numbers nor maintain any information regarding income) and the range of documents, the
MBTA was initially unable to verify nearly all of the forty-eight applications that were randomly
pulled for verification.
In an attempt to streamline the process, MBTA worked with the Massachusetts
Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), and the Executive Office of Health and Human
Services (EOHHS)/MassHealth to examine more ways to more easily verify eligibility for
means-based fares since these two state agencies are responsible for administering many of the
programs identified by the Pilot Project participants (i.e., 10 of the 18 programs). The work with
DTA and MassHealth resulted in the development of draft procedures to verify eligibility
information for programs administered by DTA and MassHealth. While these procedures could
ensure that a percentage of customers could be verified, this element of the program proved to be
the most challenging to MBTA staff in terms of complexity, time, and accuracy. MassHealth,
for example, updates its client eligibility status on a nightly basis. Accordingly, an expanded roll
out would require that participating agencies take the lead on establishing or verifying eligibility.
Goal 2: Benefits – the Pilot Project should address to what extent a means-based fare
would be beneficial to low-income customers of The RIDE.
The evaluation of the goal related to benefits rested primarily on the results of the prepilot and post-pilot survey. The survey addressed the participants’ overall satisfaction with the
Pilot Project as well as the impact that the program had on their personal financial decisions.
Rider Satisfaction
Rider satisfaction was measured through the pre and post pilot project survey. The
survey included a number of questions related to participants’ perceptions of RIDE fares before
and after the implementation of the Pilot Project. Overall, participants’ perceptions of the Pilot
Project were favorable. For example, participants’ attitudes toward RIDE fares changed
significantly as illustrated in Exhibit ES-3. As shown, 38 percent of the respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that the costs of trips were fair before the Pilot Project. However, 85 percent
agreed or strongly agreed that the cost of trips were fair after the Pilot Project implementation.
Impacts on Personal Financial Decisions
The pre and post pilot project survey asked participants to rate a series of statements
concerning their use of The RIDE as it relates to their personal financial situation. Use relative
to financial situation exhibited a moderate increase between the pre and the post survey, with
participants indicating that their personal budget, and cost of trips influences their use of The
RIDE, providing them with the flexibility to use The RIDE more often. This is illustrated in
Exhibit ES-4. As shown in this exhibit, almost 43 percent of post survey respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that their budget allowed them to use The RIDE as much as they wanted,
compared to 25 percent of pre-survey respondents. Furthermore, the survey showed that
participants were afforded greater flexibility in their spending habits for other household
expenses (e.g., medical, groceries, and personal items) as a result of the savings realized in their
transportation expenses due to the Pilot Project.
- iv -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Goal 3: Costs – the Pilot Project should determine what the financial impacts of
implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE would be to the MBTA.
The financial impact to the MBTA due to Pilot Project encompasses the following
factors:




Administration Costs
Revenue Loss
Cost of Incentivized Travel
Total Cost for Full Rollout
Each of these factors is described in more detail below.
Administration Costs
Based on the level of effort taken to implement the Pilot Project, MBTA staff prepared an
estimate of the annual administrative costs for the Pilot Project. These costs consist of personnel
costs and direct costs (i.e., consultant services, office supplies, production services and delivery
expenses). MBTA estimated the total annual administrative costs for the Pilot Project at
$89,639, which consists of $51,001 in personnel costs and $38,638 in other direct costs. This
cost would increase with a full roll out accounting for additional staff depending on the program
design.
Revenue Loss
In addition to the costs of administration, the loss in fare revenue also would need to be
considered. The revenue loss is equal to $35,976, or $1.00 per trip taken. Taking into
consideration that the Pilot Project was run for six months, the annualized revenue loss (i.e., loss
for the six month pilot project times two) is estimated at $71, 952.
Cost of Incentivized Travel
In support of MBTA Fare Policy to enhance the mobility of passengers, a before and after
analysis of RIDE use by the Pilot Project participants was conducted. The before analysis period
includes trips taken on The RIDE from July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, whereas the
after analysis period includes trips taken from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (i.e., the
duration of the Pilot Project).
A comparison of the trips completed by the Pilot Project participants as well as for all
RIDE customers in 2014 (before the Pilot Project) versus 2015 (after the Pilot Project) is
presented in Exhibit ES-1.
Overall, the Pilot Project participants took 4.6% more ADA trips than they did during the
same time period the previous year. Although other factors clearly help determine ridership, this
percentage was used to estimate annualized costs of the pilot program. Premium trips decreased,
-v-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
thereby indicating that either the 20% discount was not enough to change behavior or factors
other than cost play a larger role in determining Premium ridership. These factors could include
health, weather, quality of service, or availability of alternative services. The additional 1,378
ADA trips cost the MBTA $31 each based on current contract terms.
Total Cost for the Pilot Project
Taking into consideration the administration costs, revenue loss and cost of incentivized
travel, the net cost for the Pilot Project are estimated to be $247,027 in annual terms as shown on
Line D of Exhibit ES-4. Total cost for a full roll out could be determined based on project
design and the number of expected participants.
Conclusions
The following conclusions have been formulated based on the results of the Pilot Project.
The conclusions are organized according to the goals that formed the basis for the Pilot Project
Evaluation.

Goal 1: Feasibility – the Pilot Project should address the operational and administrative
feasibility of implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE.
– The Pilot Project indicated that operational implementation of a means based fare
could be seamless to both customers and service providers.
– Initial attempts at program eligibility verification proved extremely difficult.
While additional procedures developed by the MBTA to conduct eligibility
verifications may be effective for a certain percentage of applicants, privacy
concerns, the wide variety of documentation, and variances among eligibility
updates all indicate that verification would be more accurately and efficiently
handled by participating agencies rather than the MBTA.

Goal 2: Benefits – the Pilot Project should address to what extent a means-based fare
would be beneficial to low-income customers of The RIDE.
– Participants’ perceptions of the Pilot Project were favorable with an increase in
the percentage of participants indicating that their RIDE fares were reasonable.
– Participants indicated slightly less difficulty in paying their transportation and
non-transportation related expenses as a result of the savings in RIDE fares.
– Participants indicated that the means-based fare afforded them greater flexibility
in using their financial resources to pay for non-transportation related expenses.
- vi -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
– The impact on The RIDE’s ADA capacity (on-time performance, missed trips,
telephone wait times) was inconclusive but any increases to ridership would need
to be monitored carefully.

Goal 3: Costs – the Pilot Project should determine what the financial impacts of
implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE would be to the MBTA.
– The annual administrative costs for implementing a means-based fare assuming
only the same 577 participants is $89,639, combined with an annual revenue loss
of $71,952, and incentivized travel of $85,436 results in a net project cost of
$247,027.
– These costs could be applied to a future program design to determine full roll-out
costs.
1
The Executive Office of Elder Affairs & the Massachusetts Office on Disability study (May
2013) found that 76 percent of Ride customers fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty
level. The percentage has been rounded to 80 percent to reflect the Pilot Project criteria used of
300 percent of the federal poverty level. There are approximately 35,000 RIDE customers that
have taken a trip in the last year and 50,000 over the past two years.
- vii -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit ES-1: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant Use
2014 Trips Completed
Month
Monthly
2015 Trips Completed
Cumulative
Monthly
Cumulative
Difference (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Month
% Change (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Month
Pilot Project Participants - ADA Trips
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
4,731
4,731
5,255
5,255
524
524
11.1%
11.1%
4,728
5,180
5,523
5,025
4,961
30,148
9,459
14,639
20,162
25,187
30,148
5,243
5,333
5,611
4,870
5,214
31,526
10,498
15,831
21,442
26,312
31,526
515
153
88
-155
253
1,378
1,039
1,192
1,280
1,125
1,378
10.9%
3.0%
1.6%
-3.1%
5.1%
11.0%
8.1%
6.3%
4.5%
4.6%
Pilot Project Participants - Premium Trips
July
August
September
October
November
906
901
941
949
844
906
1,807
2,748
3,697
4,541
717
793
732
715
816
717
1,510
2,242
2,957
3,773
-189
-108
-209
-234
-28
-189
-297
-506
-740
-768
-20.9%
-12.0%
-22.2%
-24.7%
-3.3%
-20.9%
-16.4%
-18.4%
-20.0%
-16.9%
December
Total
1,012
5,553
5,553
677
4,450
4,450
-335
-1,103
-1,103
-33.1%
-19.9%
Final Report
- viii -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit ES-2: Summary of Verification Documents
#
Benefit Program
# of
Documents
Total
Submitted
Administering Agency
1.
Mass Health Standard or Careplus
17
149
MassHealth
2.
Mass Health Senior Buy in (QMB)
5
6
MassHealth
3.
Mass Health Buy in (SLMB, QI)
4
7
MassHealth
4.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or State Supplement
Program (SSP)
19
124
5.
Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC)
2
2
6.
Food Stamps; Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
(SNAP)
22
246
7.
Heating Assistance; Low Income Heating and Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)
10
52
8.
Emergency Aid to Elderly, Disabled, and Children
2
4
9.
Head Start
1
1
10
Free and Reduced School Lunch Program
1
1
11.
Mass Veterans Benefits (GLC115)
3
3
12.
Improved Veteran's Disability Pension
2
2
13.
Connector Care Plan (Types I, II A or B, III A or B)
2
2
Mass Health
14.
Health Safety Net Plan (Primary or Secondary)
5
8
Mass Health
15.
WIC (women, infants and children)
1
2
16.
Mass Home Care
6
8
DTA and the Mass.
Commission for the
Blind
DTA and the Mass.
Commission for the
Blind
DTA and the Mass.
Commission for the
Blind
Mass. Department of
Housing &
Community
Development
(administered by
local agencies)
Department of
Transitional
Assistance
Admin. for Children
and Families (ACF);
U.S. DHHS
U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mass.
Dept. of Elementary
and Secondary
Education
Department of
Veterans Services
(Mass.)
U.S Department of
Veterans Affairs;
Department of
Veterans Services
(Mass.)
U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mass.
Office of Health and
Human Services
Mass. Executive
Office of Elder Affairs
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
#
Benefit Program
17.
Full or Partial Extra Help- Medicare D Low Income Subsidy
18.
Prescription Advantage (S0, S1, S2, S3)
TOTAL
# of
Documents
Total
Submitted
24
47
6
28
132
692
Administering Agency
Social Security
Administration
Mass. Executive
Office of Elder Affairs
(ASAP Network)
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit ES-3: Attitudes toward Fares – Percentage of Respondents
Question: I feel that the cost of trips on The RIDE are fair
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Pre Survey
20.0%
Post Survey
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit ES-4: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Percentage of Respondents
Question: My budget allows me to use The RIDE as much as I want
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Pre Survey
Post Survey
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Exhibit ES-4: Estimated Costs of the Pilot (annualized)
Category
Amount
Notes
A. Administration Costs
$89,639
Annualized administration cost for Pilot
Project
B. Revenue Loss (Annualized)
$71,952
Annualized revenue loss for Pilot
Project
C. Incentivized Travel (Annualized)
$85,436
Additional Trips Induced by Lower Fare
*$31
D. Net Project Cost (A+B+C)
$247,027
Sum of administration costs, revenue
loss and incentivized travel
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Table of Contents
Page No.
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Pilot Project Design .................................................................................................................. 1
3. Pilot Project Implementation .................................................................................................... 7
A.
Initial Pilot Project Survey .................................................................................................. 7
B.
Selection of Pilot Project Participants............................................................................... 12
C.
Pre-Pilot Administration ................................................................................................... 14
4. Pilot Project Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 16
A.
B.
C.
Goal 1: Feasibility ............................................................................................................ 19
A.1.
Operational Feasibility .............................................................................................. 20
A.2.
Administrative Feasibility ......................................................................................... 24
Goal 2: Benefits ............................................................................................................... 29
B.1.
Rider Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 29
B.2.
Impacts on Personal Financial Decisions ................................................................. 30
Goal 3: Costs .................................................................................................................... 34
C.1.
Administration Costs ................................................................................................ 34
C.2.
Revenue Loss ............................................................................................................ 34
C.3.
Cost of Incentivized Travel ....................................................................................... 35
C.4.
Total Cost for the Pilot Project ................................................................................. 36
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application .......................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package and Pre-Pilot Project Survey ......................... B-1
Appendix C: Pilot Project Acceptance and Denial Letters ........................................................ C-1
Appendix D: Post-Pilot Project Survey ..................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis ........................................................................E-1
Appendix F: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form ..................................................... F-1
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
List of Exhibits
Page No.
Exhibit ES-1: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant Use ....................................................... viii
Exhibit ES-2: Summary of Verification Documents ....................................................................... i
Exhibit ES-3: Attitudes toward Fares – Percentage of Respondents ............................................ iii
Exhibit ES-4: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Percentage of Respondents ..................... iv
Exhibit ES-4: Estimated Costs of a Means-Based Fare Full Rollout ........................................... iv
Exhibit 1: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for
The RIDE Pilot Program – First Screen .................................................................... 3
Exhibit 2: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for The RIDE Pilot Program –
Second Screen ................................................................................................................................. 4
Exhibit 3: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for
The RIDE Pilot Program – Third Screen ................................................................... 5
Exhibit 4: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for
The RIDE Pilot Program – Fourth Screen ................................................................. 6
Exhibit 5: Pilot Project Implementation Schedule ......................................................................... 8
Exhibit 6: Schedule of Tasks and Activities .................................................................................. 9
Exhibit 7: Query Results of RIDE Database................................................................................ 12
Exhibit 8: Pilot Project Application and Selection Results ......................................................... 13
Exhibit 9: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form .......................................................... 15
Exhibit 10: Pilot Project Evaluation Metrics ............................................................................... 18
Exhibit 11: Sample Average Response Calculation for Pre and Post Survey ............................. 19
Exhibit 12: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus
Non-Pilot Participant Use – All Trips ...................................................................... 21
Exhibit 13: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus
Non-Pilot Participant Use – ADA Trips .................................................................. 22
Exhibit 14: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus
Non-Pilot Participant Use – Premium Trips ............................................................ 23
Exhibit 15: Frequency of Responses by Public Benefit Program ................................................ 25
Exhibit 16: Top Ten Benefit Programs Identified by Pilot Project Applicants ........................... 27
Exhibit 17: Pilot Project Verification Procedures for DTA and MassHealth .............................. 28
Exhibit 18: Attitudes toward Fares – Average Score................................................................... 29
Exhibit 19: Attitudes toward Fares – Percentage of Respondents ............................................... 30
Exhibit 20: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Average Scores .......................................... 30
Exhibit 21: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Percentage of Respondents ........................ 31
Exhibit 22: Personal Financial Impact – Average Scores ............................................................ 31
Exhibit 23: Personal Financial Impact – Percentage of Respondents.......................................... 33
Exhibit 24: Personal Financial Impact for Transit-Dependent Participants – Average Scores ... 34
Exhibit 28: Administrative Cost Estimate for the Pilot Project .................................................... 35
Exhibit 29: Calculation of Revenue Loss for the Pilot Project ..................................................... 35
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
1. Introduction
In July 2012, MBTA increased The RIDE fare for ADA paratransit trips from $2.00 to
$4.00 and also introduced a Premium Fare of $5.00 for trips outside the ADA service boundaries
and for same-day reservations. RIDE use fell by 20 percent, twice the expected amount. Pursuant
to Chapter 132, Section15 of the Acts of 2012, the Executive Office of Elder Affairs (EOEA)
and the Massachusetts Office of Disability (MOD) were charged with conducting a study
examining the impact of the fare increase. Through a survey the study found that many seniors
and persons with disabilities, particularly those with incomes below $2,000 a month, cut back
spending on groceries, medications, and utilities as a result of their increased transportation
costs. The study also found that 60 percent of respondents reported taking fewer trips on transit
after the fare increases. The EOEA/MOD report included recommendations ranging from
expanded use of taxis (set to roll out in early 2015) to increased fixed route accessibility and
training (implemented spring 2014) and reconsideration of The RIDE fare structure, including
exploration of a means-tested fare. In December of 2013, MBTA reduced the ADA fare from
$4.00 to $3.00 per trip and, with the full support of the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) Board, agreed to work towards a means-tested approach to RIDE
fares.
In the spring of 2015, MBTA staff, in consultation with advisory groups, began
developing a pilot project designed to further understand the economic characteristics of RIDE
users, and to evaluate the feasibility of using participation in existing means-tested social service
programs as a basis for implementing means-based fares. The key principles guiding program
development were: financial sustainability, equity across both RIDE and all MBTA customers,
and easy implementation.
2. Pilot Project Design
It was proposed that the six-month Pilot Project begin on July 1, 2015 and include 600
participants in The RIDE program who are also registered users of one or more of 18 public
benefit programs. The following are the design elements that were implemented for the Means
Testing Pilot Project for The RIDE Paratransit Program.

Eligibility Criteria – provide a means-based fare for customers participating in those
programs for which the income criterion is less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL).

Application and Verification – implement a two-step process of application (i.e.,
application followed by documentation) and verify candidate eligibility through sampling
(i.e., percentage of randomly selected applicants).

Eligible Services – implement a means-based fare for both ADA service and Premium
service, excluding same-day reservations. ADA trips are booked by 5:00 pm the previous
day and begin and end within ¾ mile of a bus/subway route or station and must be
offered in accordance with federal law. Premium trips include both same day service and
those that exceed the ¾ corridor.
Final Report
-1-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program

Discount Level – implement $1 reduction for all trips. This equates to a 33 percent
discount for ADA trips and a 20 percent discount for Premium trips.

Program Administration – implement account reimbursements to RIDE customers
eligible for a means-based fare. As such, each month the MBTA would calculate the
difference in fare from the standard fare for ADA and Premium trips taken by each
eligible customer versus the number of means-based fare trips taken, and reimburse the
customer account accordingly.

Pilot Project Participants – it was proposed that the Pilot Project include 600 participants,
each of whom takes two or more trips on The RIDE service per month.

Pilot Project Duration – the duration of the Pilot Project would be for a period of six (6)
months, which is consistent with the timeframe identified in FTA’s Title VI requirements
(FTA C 4702.1B), that allow for a six-month promotional fare without the need for a fare
equity analysis.
The Means Testing pilot used participation in 18 income based (under 300% of Federal
Poverty Level) public benefit programs in order to determine eligibility for a means-based fare
on The RIDE. Although there may be additional criteria for these programs, it is the income
criterion that served as the fundamental component of these programs that was under
consideration for The RIDE means-based fare program. (Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 4).
Final Report
-2-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 1: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for The RIDE Pilot Program – First Screen
Certified
RIDE
Customers
A
A – Population of Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based
Fare
B
B – Population of RIDE Customers Not Eligible for Means-Based Fare
8B
Final Report
-3-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 2: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for The RIDE Pilot Program – Second Screen
Public Benefit Programs
Income
Criterion (a)
Eligible
Programs
MH Senior Buy-In
Head Start
≤ 100%
of FPL
EAEDC
SSI
SNAP
Certified
RIDE
Customers
Veterans Disability Pens.
A
(≤ 300%
of FPL)
C
(state
program
participants)
MH Standard Buy In
≤ 200%
of FPL
ConnectorCare
MH Buy-In
Free/Reduced Lunch
Medicare Low Income
TAFDC
MA Veterans Benefits
B
(> 300%
FPL)
A – Population of Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based
Fare
B – Population of RIDE Customers Not Eligible for Means-Based Fare
C – Population of Pre-qualified Participants of Public Benefit Programs
≤ 300%
of FPL
Health Safety Net
WIC
LIHEAP
Rx Advantage
Mass Home Care
(a) FPL = Federal Poverty Level
Final Report
-4-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 3: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for The RIDE Pilot Program – Third Screen
9B
Public Benefit Programs
Income
Criterion (a)
Eligible
Programs
MH Senior Buy-In
Head Start
≤ 100%
of FPL
EAEDC
SSI
SNAP
Certified
RIDE
Customers
Veterans Disability Pens.
A
(≤ 300%
of FPL)
D
C
(state
program
participants)
MH Standard Buy In
≤ 200%
of FPL
ConnectorCare
MH Buy-In
Free/Reduced Lunch
Medicare Low Income
TAFDC
MA Veterans Benefits
B
(> 300%
FPL)
Final Report
A – Population of Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based
Fare
≤ 300%
of FPL
Health Safety Net
WIC
LIHEAP
B – Population of RIDE Customers Not Eligible for Means-Based Fare
Rx Advantage
C – Population of Pre-qualified Participants of Public Benefit Programs
Mass Home Care
D – Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based Fare, who also
are Pre-qualified Participants of one or more of the eligible Public
Benefits Programs
-5-
(a) FPL = Federal Poverty Level
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 4: Illustrative Example of Means Testing Screening for The RIDE Pilot Program – Fourth Screen
10B
Public Benefit Programs
Selected Pilot
Program
Participants
Income
Criterion (a)
Eligible
Programs
MH Senior Buy-In
Head Start
≤ 100%
of FPL
EAEDC
SSI
SNAP
Certified
RIDE
Customers
Veterans Disability Pens.
A
(≤ 300%
of FPL)
D
C
(state
program
participants)
MH Standard Buy In
≤ 200%
of FPL
ConnectorCare
MH Buy-In
Free/Reduced Lunch
Medicare Low Income
TAFDC
MA Veterans Benefits
B
(> 300%
FPL)
Final Report
A – Population of Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based
Fare
≤ 300%
of FPL
Health Safety Net
WIC
LIHEAP
B – Population of RIDE Customers Not Eligible for Means-Based Fare
Rx Advantage
C – Population of Pre-qualified Participants of Public Benefit Programs
Mass Home Care
D – Certified RIDE Customers Eligible for Means-Based Fare, who also
are Pre-qualified Participants of one or more of the eligible Public
Benefits Programs
-6-
(a) FPL = Federal Poverty Level
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
3. Pilot Project Implementation
The Means Testing Working Group developed a schedule of tasks and activities to be
completed in order to implement the Pilot Project as of July 1, 2015. The overall implementation
timeline is presented in Exhibit 5. These tasks and activities are presented in Exhibit 6. The
organizations that comprise the Pilot Project Working Group include: MBTA’s Office of
Transportation Access (OTA); Massachusetts Senior Action Council (Mass Senior Action);
Access Advisory Committee (AACT); the Edward J. Collins, Jr. Center for Public Management
at the University of Massachusetts Boston (Collins Center); and Pierlott & Associates, LLC
(PALLC).
The status of the phases and activities presented in Exhibit 6 are discussed below.
A. Initial Pilot Project Survey
The first task of the Pilot Project consisted of conducting the initial Pilot Project Survey.
This task consisted of four activities:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Finalize Cover Letter and Application
Selection of Customer Sample
Application Preparation and Distribution
Process and Evaluate Application Data
Throughout January 2015, the Working Group worked on finalizing the cover letter and
application to be used for the initial invitations to participate in the Pilot Project. The group’s
comments and edits were incorporated into the final cover letter and application, which was
completed by the Collins Center on February 27, 2015. The final cover letter and application are
presented in Appendix A.
OTA queried The RIDE database by frequency of use in order to establish a sample
population to whom the Pilot Project application would be sent. The query was run for the
period from September 2014 through November 2014 for customers who used The RIDE service
on average from zero to 10 trips per month. The results of the query, completed on February 4,
2015, identified 10,339 RIDE customers who used the service during that timeframe an average
of two trips per month (see Exhibit 7). It was from this group that the Pilot Project sample was
selected. Each of the 10,339 candidates in the sample population was sent the invitation letter
and application. The applications were distributed to the 10,339 candidates on March 18, 2015.
Pilot Project applicants were asked to return their completed applications by April 6,
2015. As the applications were received, these were transmitted to the Collins Center for
verification and data entry. MBTA received more than 3,300 applications from eligible
candidates.
Final Report
-7-
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 5: Pilot Project Implementation Schedule
20B
Phase/
Task
2015
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
3
4
2016
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
A. Initial Pilot Project Survey
1. Finalize Cover Letter and Application
2. Selection of Customer Sample
3. Application Preparation and Distribution
4. Process and Evaluate Application Data
B. Selection of Pilot Project Participants
1. Screen Applicants for Participation
2. Eligibility Documentation/Pre-Pilot Survey/Agreement
3. Prepare and Distribute Confirmation Letters
C. Pre-Pilot Administration
1. Finalize Billing/Payment Process
2. Prepare Verification Methodology
3. Conduct Verification of 10% Sample
4. Develop Evaluation Plan
5. Coordinate Reservations and Providers
D. Pilot Project Execution
1. Assemble Pre-Pilot Usage Data
2. Assemble Pilot Usage Data
3. Conduct Satisfaction Survey
4. Evaluate Pilot Project Metrics
5. Develop Post Pilot Strategies
6. Prepare Pilot Project Report
Milestones
1
2
5
6
7
8
Meetings
Milestones:
1 - Distribute Initial Survey: March 13, 2015
2 - Initial Survey Response Deadline: April 6, 2015
3 - Project Administration Review: May 15, 2015
4 - Confirmation Letter to Pilot Project Participants: June 15, 2015
5 - Pilot Project Start Date: July 1, 2015
6 - Mid-Pilot Project Update: September 15, 2015
7 - Pilot Project Draft Report: January 22, 2016
8 - Pilot Project Final Report: February 22, 2016
Final Report
Suggested Meetings Dates:
Februrary 4, 2015
July 15, 2015
March 4, 2015
August 19, 2015
March 25, 2015
September 15, 2015
April 1, 2015
October 21,2015
April 23, 2015
November 11, 2015
May 7, 2015
December 9, 2015
May 28, 2015
January 6, 2016
June 15, 2015
February 17, 2016
-8-
Legend:
- Original Task Schedule
- Actual Task Schedule
- Anticipated Task Schedule
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 6: Schedule of Tasks and Activities
Phase/
Task
Task
Revised Task
Activities/Outcomes
Schedule
Status
A. Initial Pilot Project Survey
1. Finalize Cover Letter and
Application
a) Prepare draft cover letter for review and
comment
b) Provide logos for stakeholder
organization
c) Prepare Final cover letter and
Application
January 21, 2015 – January 27, 2015
Completed:
2/27/2015
2. Selection of Customer
Sample
a) Develop list of ~15,000 RIDE
Customers for initial survey
January 21, 2015 – February 6, 2015
10,339
customers
identified:
2/4/2015
3. Application Preparation and
Distribution
a) Prepare mailing and mail-back for
distribution and return
b) Develop on-line survey form
c) Distribute application materials
February 6, 2015 – February 16, 2015
Completed
3/17/2015
a) Process returned surveys and begin
data entry
b) Clean/validate data and report results
c) Query RIDE use for past 12 months for
survey respondents
March 9, 2015 – March 13, 2015
4. Process and Evaluate
Application Data
by February 23, 2015
Completed
4/23/2015
March 13, 2015 – March 27, 2015
B. Selection of Pilot Project Participants
1. Screen Applicants for
Participation
Final Report
a) Proportional distribution of 900 potential
participants based on completed
application response rate by RIDE
Region.
b) Random selection of potential
participants from among applicants
within each RIDE Region.
-9-
April 23, 2015 – May 8, 2015
Completed
5/12/2015
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Phase/
Task
2. Eligibility Documentation/PrePilot Survey/Participation
Agreement
3. Prepare and Distribute
Confirmation Letters
Task
Revised Task
Activities/Outcomes
Schedule
Status
a) Prepare notifications, Pilot Project
instructions and Pilot Project
Agreement
b) Prepare Follow-up Survey
c) Distribute notifications, agreement and
survey to 900 potential participants
d) Receive responses
e) Review documentation submitted
May 8, 2015 – May 12, 2015
Completed
5/12/2015
by May 15, 2015
5/22/2015
a) Develop standard letter for confirmation
of Pilot Project participation
b) Distribute Confirmation Letters
May 8, 2015 – June 5, 2015
Completed
6/12/2015
by June 15, 2015
Completed
6/22/2015
by June 5, 2015
June 8, 2015 – June 12, 2015
C. Pre-Pilot Administration
1. Finalize Billing/Payment
Process
a) Work with MBTA Finance/Accounting to
develop billing/payment process for
means-based fares
January 21, 2015 – April 30, 2015
Completed
5/22/2015
2. Prepare Verification
Methodology
b) Identify key documents for verification
of Benefit Program participation
c) Develop list of agency contacts for
each benefit Program
d) Develop process to verify self-reported
information with external agencies
January 21, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Completed
12/31/2015
3. Conduct Verification of
Sample
a) Contact external agencies to verify
Benefit Program participation for a
sample of Pilot Project customers
b) Evaluate sampling process
August 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Completed
12/31/2015
4. Develop Evaluation Plan
a) Develop draft metrics (qualitative and
quantitative) for Pilot Project
b) Finalize metrics
c) Develop draft satisfaction survey for
review and comment
d) Finalize satisfaction survey instrument
January 21, 2015 – July 15, 2015
Completed
7/15/2015
Final Report
- 10 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Phase/
Task
Task
Revised Task
Activities/Outcomes
Schedule
Status
and process
a) Prepare Pilot Project information
materials for reservation agents and
providers
b) Conduct information sessions for Q&A
February 16, 2015 – June 30, 2015
Completed
6/24/2015
1. Assemble Pre-Pilot Use Data
a) Query RIDE database for use data for
period July through December 2014
(Pre-Pilot Project Use)
b) Prepare use characteristics for Pilot
Project participants: total trips and
average trips per month.
June 15, 2015 – June 30, 2015
Completed
9/29/2015
2. Assemble Pilot Use Data
a) Collect monthly use for Pilot Project
participants
b) Compare Pilot Project use to pre-Pilot
Project use rates
July 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Completed
1/11/2016
3. Conduct Satisfaction Survey
a) Distribute satisfaction survey to Pilot
Project participants
b) Process returned surveys and enter
data
c) Evaluate survey results
December 1, 2015
Completed
1/19/2016
4. Evaluate Pilot Project Metrics
a) Prepare monthly summaries of pre- and
post-Pilot Project use
b) Prepare monthly summary of lessons
learned and recommended changes
July 1, 2015 – January 31, 2015
Completed
1/29/2016
5. Prepare Pilot Project Report
a) Prepare Draft Report of Pilot Project
results
b) Distribute Draft Report for review and
comment
c) Finalize Pilot Project Report
December 15, 2015 – January 6, 2016
Completed
4/29/2016
5. Coordinate Reservations and
Providers
D. Pilot Project Execution
Final Report
- 11 -
December 15, 2015 – December 31,
2015
January 6, 2016 – January 13, 2016
January 13, 2016 – January 29, 2016
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 7: Query Results of RIDE Database
B. Selection of Pilot Project Participants
The second task of the Pilot Project involved selecting the Pilot Project participants from
among the pool of eligible candidates. This task consisted of three activities:
1. Screen Applicants for Participation
2. Eligibility Documentation/Pre-Pilot Survey/Participation Agreement
3. Prepare and Distribute Confirmation Letters
The eligible applicants were first screened based on a number of factors in order to select
the final Pilot Project participants. The criteria included the following:


Step 1: cross reference applicants against RIDE ID for those who were sent an
application
Step 2: screen out anyone who did not check at least one of the Benefit Plans listed
Final Report
- 12 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program


Step 3: screen out anyone who did not sign the application
Step 4: group according to service area and community
As a result of the screening criteria, 2,030 eligible applicants for the Pilot Project were
identified. A group of 900 potential participants were then randomly selected from among the
eligible applicants to receive invitations to participate in the Pilot Project. The results of the
application and selection process are summarized in Exhibit 8. The selection of applicants for
participation in the Pilot Project was completed on May 12, 2015.
Exhibit 8: Pilot Project Application and Selection Results
Vendor
Outside
Potential Candidates
Count
Percentage
Eligible Applicants
Count
Percentage
Pilot Selection
Count
Percentage
165
2%
26
1%
11
1%
Core
3,722
36%
790
39%
348
39%
GLSS
2,978
29%
623
31%
290
32%
NE
1,792
17%
343
17%
152
17%
VTS
1,615
16%
248
12%
99
11%
Total
10,272
100%
2,030
100%
900
100%
The notification package that was sent to the selected applicants included a Pilot Project
Agreement, a request for documentation verifying participation in at least one of the 18 Benefit
Programs, and a follow-up survey designed to collect qualitative data of the pre-Pilot Project
economic impacts of the participants (e.g., impact of fares on frequency of RIDE use, as well as
other economic activity – groceries, rent, medications, etc.). In order to participate in the Pilot
Project, the selected applicants were required to return the signed Pilot Project Agreement and
documentation verifying participation in one of the 18 Benefit Programs. Completion of the
survey instrument was optional. The notification packages were sent on May 22, 2015, with
responses to be returned to MBTA no later than June 15. The final notification package and prePilot Project survey are presented in Appendix B of this report.
The resulting number of returned applications was 579 of the original 900 in the selected
group of applicants. A breakdown of these final applicants is presented below.




579 willing applications received (100%)
570 participant agreements (98%)
575 surveys returned (99%)
468 sent with documentation indicating participation in a means tested program (81%)
An acceptance letter was prepared, confirming applicants’ participation in the Means
Testing Pilot Project. Once the list of Pilot Project participants was finalized, each was sent an
acceptance letter confirming their participation along with basic instructions as to how the
program functions.
Final Report
- 13 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
A denial letter also was prepared, which was sent to those applicants who were not
selected as candidates, as well as those candidates who did not submit a signed agreement by the
deadline. The acceptance and denial letters are presented in Appendix C of this report.
C. Pre-Pilot Administration
In order to effectively implement the Pilot Project, a number of activities were conducted
prior to start-up. These included the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Finalize Billing/Payment Process
Prepare Verification Methodology
Conduct Verification of Sample
Develop Evaluation Plan
Coordinate Reservations and Providers
The Pilot Project concept is to ensure that the Pilot Project participants are charged $2.00
for standard trips, and $4.00 for premium trips. Since The RIDE billing system was only capable
of charging fares for trips based on origin/destination, and time-of-day (i.e., $3.00 for standard
trips, and $5.00 for premium trips). As such, for each trip scheduled, the system places the
amount for the trip into a “reserve” account until the trip is taken. If the trip is cancelled, or if
the customer does not show up, the reserve amount is credited back into the customer’s RIDE
account. Also, the system does not allow trips to be scheduled if there is $0.00 or less in the
account. For example, if a customer has $2.00 in their account and schedules a trip that costs
$2.00, their account balance will drop to $0.00 when they complete their trip. The customer is
unable to schedule another trip until they replenish their account. However, if a customer has
$1.00 in their account and schedules a trip that costs $2.00, their account balance will drop to
negative $1.00 when they complete their trip, and they will be unable to schedule another trip
until they replenish their account. As long as there is some money in their account, even if it
does not cover the fare for the trip, customers are able to schedule a trip.
In order to address the limitations of the billing system, MBTA worked with their
consultant on the Stratagen system and developed a modification to the software that will permit
Pilot Project participants to schedule trips at the means-based fare discounted levels. The
modifications to the software were completed in May 2015.
In order to validate the use of Public Benefit programs as an approach to providing a
means-based fare to low income customers, an initial effort called for identifying key documents
and a list of agency contacts for the various Benefit Programs that were included in the Pilot
Project. Once identified, the appropriate agency was contacted in order to verify the
participation of a sample of Pilot Project participants in at least one of the Benefit Programs.
This task was originally scheduled to be completed by June 15, 2015. However, due to privacy
limitations, fees, or the wide variety of documents submitted, it was determined that this
methodology would not be feasible for the MBTA to implement for the pilot, much less on a
larger scale should the Means-Based fare be permanently adopted.
Final Report
- 14 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
To address this issue, the MBTA worked with the Massachusetts Department of
Transitional Assistance (DTA), and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services
(EOHHS)/MassHealth to examine ways to more easily verify eligibility for means-based fares.
The work with DTA resulted in the development of a form to be used by eligible customers to
have their eligibility information for programs administered by DTA transmitted directly to
MBTA. It was found that MassHealth has its own form whereby clients can grant permission for
MassHealth to release information directly to another party via the Permission to Share
Information (PSI) Form. These forms are presented in Exhibit 9, and presented in their entirety
in Appendix F.
Exhibit 9: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form
MassHealth PSI Form
DTA Release Form
Final Report
- 15 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
While these documents would assist with verification for a full roll out, the overall
difficulty of accurately determining eligibility (MassHealth updates their client status on a
nightly basis, for example) assuming a wide variety of programs, along with privacy concerns,
suggests that eligibility verification should be left to participating agencies to handle with more
efficiency and accuracy, rather than undertaken by the MBTA.
The Pilot Project Evaluation Plan also was developed as part of the Pre-Pilot
Administration task. The Evaluation Plan provides qualitative and quantitative metrics to
determine the success of the project. The Evaluation Plan was presented to MBTA and the
Working Group on July 15, 2015. The results of the evaluation are presented in the next section
of this report.
Since The RIDE customers interact with one or more of MBTA’s service providers in
order to schedule trips, it was important to brief the service providers and their staff on the Pilot
Project process in the event that participants called with questions. As such, the participants
could then be directed through the proper channels for any Pilot Project related questions and/or
concerns. The briefing with the service providers was completed on June 24, 2015.
D. Pilot Project Execution
The Pilot Project began on July 1, 2015 and was run through December 31, 2015. The
following activities were conducted, or begun during this stage of the project:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Assemble Pre-Pilot Use Data
Assemble Pilot Use Data
Evaluate Pilot Project Metrics
Conduct Satisfaction Survey
Prepare Pilot Project Report
These activities served as the basis for the Pilot Project Evaluation. As such, the
discussion of these activities and the results of the analyses associated with them are contained in
the following section of this report.
4. Pilot Project Evaluation
The Evaluation Plan identified three goals to be assessed for the Pilot Project. These
include the following:

Goal 1: Feasibility – the Pilot Project should address the operational and administrative
feasibility of implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE.

Goal 2: Benefits – the Pilot Project should address to what extent a means-based fare
would be beneficial to low-income customers of The RIDE.
Final Report
- 16 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program

Goal 3: Costs – the Pilot Project should determine what the financial impacts of
implementing a means-based fare on The RIDE would be to the MBTA.
Both quantitative and qualitative metrics were developed to be utilized in the evaluation
of each of these goals. The table in Exhibit 10 identifies the evaluation metrics.
Final Report
- 17 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 10: Pilot Project Evaluation Metrics
Goal/Objective
Measure
Description
Before and after use analysis of
RIDE trip data
Measures the change in trip patterns
resulting from the implementation of
the means-based fare
# of pilot participants
This measure counts the number of
pilot project participants
# of means tested public programs
pilot participants participate in
(average)
Identifies the extent of participation in
means tested programs
Ranking of the top 3 means tested
public programs according to pilot
project participation
Identifies programs that may serve as
proxies for means-based fare eligibility
# of applicants who send in complete
verification documents as requested
Measures the degree of compliance
with pilot program requirements
Administrative processes
Examines the practicality and
transferability of processes required to
determine eligibility.
Customer
Satisfaction
Pre and post pilot project rider
behavior survey questions
Measure the qualitative impact on
customer perceptions of the meansbased fare
Personal Financial
Impact
Pre and post pilot project rider
behavior survey
Measures the qualitative impact on the
affordability of RIDE services
Goal 1: Feasibility
Operational
Feasibility
Administrative
Feasibility
Goal 2: Benefits
Goal 3: Costs
Administration &
Operating
Costs
# of staff hours designated to
screening and determining eligibility
for pilot project participants (per
week)
Total cost of non-staff resources
necessary to implement pilot project
fare reduction
Difference in Fare Revenue
collected among Pilot Project
Participants
Cost of additional trips
Final Report
- 18 -
Measures the staff burden for pilot
program administration
Measures the cost of resources such
as mailing supplies, software,
accessibility processing, etc.
Measure the revenue collected during
the six months of the Pilot Project
versus the same six month period in
the previous year.
Measures the cost of additional trips
induced by the means-based fare
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
The quantitative measures relied mainly on trip data for Pilot Project participants as well
as all RIDE customers. Additional data was collected related to administrative resources (i.e.,
staffing and costs) required to implement the pilot project.
The qualitative measures were obtained through survey data gathered from participants
prior to the Pilot Project implementation and survey data gathered from participants at the end of
the Pilot Project. The survey was conducted by MBTA and the results were analyzed by the
Collins Center. The post-Pilot Project Survey is presented in Appendix D and the full analysis
conducted by the Collins Center is presented in Appendix E of this report. Participants were
asked to indicate their level of agreement with several statements using a scale as follows:





Strongly disagree = 1
Disagree = 2
Neither agree nor disagree = 3
Agree = 4
Strongly agree = 5
Based on the number of respondents’ ratings for each statement, a weighted average was
calculated by multiplying the number for each response by the points assigned as shown above,
and dividing by the total score for all responses as shown in the example below in Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 11: Sample Average Response Calculation for Pre and Post Survey
Number of
Respondents
(N)
Points (P)
Score (N*P)
Strongly disagree
13
1
13
Disagree
30
2
60
Neither agree nor disagree
5
3
15
123
4
492
263
5
1315
Agree
Strongly agree
TOTAL
434
Average
(Total
Score/Total
Respondents)
4.4
1895
The exhibits presenting the survey data in the following sections consist of tables
showing the average scores for various statements from the pre and post surveys, as well as
column charts illustrating the percentages of respondents’ selections along the scale.
A. Goal 1: Feasibility
The goal of feasibility includes objectives related to use of the RIDE by the participants,
and the administrative processes required to implement a means-based fare. The first objective,
RIDE use, is assessed using quantitative measures related to trips. The remaining objective is
measured based on the practicality of conducting eligibility determinations for the pilot project
as well as the transferability of these processes to a larger scale implementation of a means-based
fare program.
Final Report
- 19 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
A.1. Operational Feasibility
The first step in determining the operational feasibility of implementing a means-based
fare was to determine how the reduced fare could be incorporated into The RIDE’s trip
scheduling system in order to ensure that participants received the appropriate discount. The
MBTA worked with its consultant for the Stratagen software, and was able to incorporate the
necessary modifications to allow for the seamless billing for the means-based fare. This allowed
implementation of a means based to be seamless to the customer.
A before (i.e., July through December 2014) and after (i.e., July through December 2015)
comparison of the ADA trips completed by the Pilot Project participants versus non-Pilot
Participants is presented in Exhibit 13.

The Pilot Project generated a 4.6 percent increase in the number of ADA trips.
Participants completed 1,378 additional ADA trips as compared to the same timeframe in
the previous year.

Non-Pilot RIDE customers also increased their ADA use (2.2 percent), less than half the
rate as compared to the Pilot Project participants.

ADA use for all RIDE customers also increased (2.3 percent), although at half the rate as
compared to the Pilot Project participants.
Final Report
- 20 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 12: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus Non-Pilot Participant Use – All Trips
2014 Trips Completed
Category
Monthly
Cumulative
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
5,637
5,629
6,121
6,472
5,869
5,973
35,701
5,637
11,266
17,387
23,859
29,728
35,701
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
154,160
151,645
159,313
170,607
152,744
162,602
951,071
154,160
305,805
465,118
635,725
788,469
951,071
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
159,797
157,274
165,434
177,079
158,613
168,575
986,772
159,797
317,071
482,505
659,584
818,197
986,772
Final Report
2015 Trips Completed
Difference (2014 to 2015)
Month-toMonthly
Cumulative
Cumulative
Month
Pilot Project Participants - All Trips
5,972
5,972
335
335
6,036
12,008
407
742
6,065
18,073
-56
686
6,326
24,399
-146
540
5,686
30,085
-183
357
5,891
35,976
-82
275
35,976
275
Non-Pilot RIDE Customers - All Trips
164,309
164,309
10,149
10,149
157,258
321,567
5,613
15,762
162,182
483,749
2,869
18,631
171,030
654,779
423
19,054
158,008
812,787
5,264
24,318
163,633
976,420
1,031
25,349
976,420
25,349
All RIDE Customers - All Trips
170,281
170,281
10,484
10,484
163,294
333,575
6,020
16,504
168,247
501,822
2,813
19,317
177,356
679,178
277
19,594
163,694
842,872
5,081
24,675
169,524
1,012,396
949
25,624
1,012,396
25,624
- 21 -
% Change (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Month
5.9%
7.2%
-0.9%
-2.3%
-3.1%
-1.4%
5.9%
6.6%
3.9%
2.3%
1.2%
0.8%
6.6%
3.7%
1.8%
0.2%
3.4%
0.6%
6.6%
5.2%
4.0%
3.0%
3.1%
2.7%
6.6%
3.8%
1.7%
0.2%
3.2%
0.6%
6.6%
5.2%
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.6%
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 13: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus Non-Pilot Participant Use – ADA Trips
2014 Trips Completed
Category
Monthly
Cumulative
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
4,731
4,728
5,180
5,523
5,025
4,961
30,148
4,731
9,459
14,639
20,162
25,187
30,148
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
136,602
134,440
140,924
151,019
134,350
144,042
841,377
136,602
271,042
411,966
562,985
697,335
841,377
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
141,333
139,168
146,104
156,542
139,375
149,003
871,525
141,333
280,501
426,605
583,147
722,522
871,525
Final Report
2015 Trips Completed
Difference (2014 to 2015)
Month-toMonthly
Cumulative
Cumulative
Month
Pilot Project Participants - ADA Trips
5,255
5,255
524
524
5,243
10,498
515
1,039
5,333
15,831
153
1,192
5,611
21,442
88
1,280
4,870
26,312
-155
1,125
5,214
31,526
253
1,378
31,526
1,378
Non-Pilot RIDE Customers - ADA Trips
145,696
145,696
9,094
9,094
138,893
284,589
4,453
13,547
142,715
427,304
1,791
15,338
151,089
578,393
70
15,408
137,430
715,823
3,080
18,488
144,211
860,034
169
18,657
860,034
18,657
All RIDE Customers - ADA Trips
150,951
150,951
9,618
9,618
144,136
295,087
4,968
14,586
148,048
443,135
1,944
16,530
156,700
599,835
158
16,688
142,300
742,135
2,925
19,613
149,425
891,560
422
20,035
891,560
20,035
- 22 -
% Change (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Month
11.1%
10.9%
3.0%
1.6%
-3.1%
5.1%
11.1%
11.0%
8.1%
6.3%
4.5%
4.6%
6.7%
3.3%
1.3%
0.0%
2.3%
0.1%
6.7%
5.0%
3.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.2%
6.8%
3.6%
1.3%
0.1%
2.1%
0.3%
6.8%
5.2%
3.9%
2.9%
2.7%
2.3%
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 14: Comparison of Pilot Project Participant versus Non-Pilot Participant Use – Premium Trips
2014 Trips Completed
Category
Monthly
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
906
901
941
949
844
1,012
5,553
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
17,558
17,205
18,389
19,588
18,394
18,560
109,694
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
18,464
18,106
19,330
20,537
19,238
19,572
115,247
Final Report
2015 Trips Completed
Difference (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Monthly
Cumulative
Cumulative
Month
Pilot Project Participants - Premium Trips
906
717
717
-189
-189
1,807
793
1,510
-108
-297
2,748
732
2,242
-209
-506
3,697
715
2,957
-234
-740
4,541
816
3,773
-28
-768
5,553
677
4,450
-335
-1,103
4,450
-1,103
Non-Pilot RIDE Customers - Premium Trips
17,558
18,613
18,613
1,055
1,055
34,763
18,365
36,978
1,160
2,215
53,152
19,467
56,445
1,078
3,293
72,740
19,941
76,386
353
3,646
91,134
20,578
96,964
2,184
5,830
109,694
19,422
116,386
862
6,692
116,386
6,692
All RIDE Customers - Premium Trips
18,464
19,330
19,330
866
866
36,570
19,158
38,488
1,052
1,918
55,900
20,199
58,687
869
2,787
76,437
20,656
79,343
119
2,906
95,675
21,394
100,737
2,156
5,062
115,247
20,099
120,836
527
5,589
120,836
5,589
- 23 -
% Change (2014 to 2015)
Month-toCumulative
Month
-20.9%
-12.0%
-22.2%
-24.7%
-3.3%
-33.1%
-20.9%
-16.4%
-18.4%
-20.0%
-16.9%
-19.9%
6.0%
6.7%
5.9%
1.8%
11.9%
4.6%
6.0%
6.4%
6.2%
5.0%
6.4%
6.1%
4.7%
5.8%
4.5%
0.6%
11.2%
2.7%
4.7%
5.2%
5.0%
3.8%
5.3%
4.8%
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
A before (i.e., July through December 2014) and after (i.e., July through December 2015) comparison of the Premium trips
completed by the Pilot Project participants versus non-Pilot Participants is presented in Exhibit 14.

There were 1,103 fewer Premium trips completed by Pilot Project participants between 2014 and 2015, a decrease of nearly 20
percent.

Conversely, Premium trips completed by other RIDE customers between 2014 and 2015 increased 6.1 percent as compared to
the 20 percent reduction among the Pilot Project participants.

Premium trips completed by all RIDE customers between 2014 and 2015 increased nearly five percent as compared to the 20
percent reduction among the Pilot Project participants.

This indicating that either the 20% discount was not enough to change behavior or factors other than cost play a larger role in
determining Premium ridership. These factors could include health, weather, quality of service, or availability of alternative
services.
As an operator of fixed-route public transportation service, MBTA has a legal obligation under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) to provide services via complementary paratransit service to persons with disabilities who are unable to use the fixed-route
system. Any changes in ADA ridership would need to be planned for and monitored closely in order to avoid violations of the ADA.
A.2. Administrative Feasibility
The administrative feasibility of a means-based fare is largely a factor of the number of participants, as well as the practicality
of determining the participants’ eligibility. The MBTA identified more than 24,000 candidates that had taken at least two trips during
the previous one month period. Of these, more than 2,000 eligible applicants (approximately 20 percent) responded to the MBTA’s
solicitation. 577 customers were randomly selected with some control for geographic area and frequency of travel.
In terms of the feasibility of determining eligibility, it has already been noted that MBTA worked with the Massachusetts
Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS)/MassHealth to
examine ways to more easily verify eligibility for means-based fares. As shown in Exhibit 15, DTA and EOHHS/MassHealth,
encompass nine of the 18 programs that were identified to establish eligibility for the means-based fare. Furthermore, the programs
administered by these agencies were the most frequently identified by the Pilot Project applicant candidates, as further shown in
Exhibit 16. As such, using the program administered by DTA and MassHealth offered an opportunity for MBTA to develop processes
Final Report
- 24 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
to verify eligibility for a means-based fare program. MBTA also examined the possibility of using information provided by the Social
Security Administration. However, this was determined to be infeasible since requests for information required a $38 fee for each
individual request. As such, the costs of such a process would be prohibitive.
Exhibit 15: Frequency of Responses by Public Benefit Program
Response
Count
% of Responses
% of
Applicants
Rank
1. MassHealth Standard or CarePlus
538
21%
60%
1
MassHealth
2. MassHealth Senior Buy In (QMB)
26
1%
3%
11
MassHealth
3. MassHealth Buy In (SLMB, QI)
23
1%
3%
13
MassHealth
4. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or State
Supplement Program (SSP)
470
18%
52%
3
DTA and the Mass. Commission for the Blind
5. Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (TAFDC)
16
1%
2%
15
DTA and the Mass. Commission for the Blind
6. Food Stamps: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)
514
20%
57%
2
DTA and the Mass. Commission for the Blind
7. Heating Assistance: Low Income Heating and
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
164
6%
18%
6
Mass. Department of Housing & Community
Development (administered by local agencies)
8. Emergency Aid to Elderly, Disabled and
Children (EAEDC)
32
1%
4%
10
Department of Transitional Assistance
9. Head Start
5
0%
1%
19
Admin. for Children and Families (ACF); U.S.
DHHS
10. Free and Reduced School Lunch Program
18
1%
2%
14
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mass. Dept. of
Elementary and Secondary Education
11. Mass. Veterans Benefits (GLC 115)
24
1%
3%
12
Department of Veterans Services (Mass.)
Benefit Program
Final Report
- 25 -
Administering Agency
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Response
Count
% of Responses
% of
Applicants
Rank
12. Improved Veterans Disability Pension
13
0%
1%
16
U.S Department of Veterans Affairs;
Department of Veterans Services (Mass.)
13. Connector Care Plan, Types I, IIA, IIB, IIIA,
IIIB
6
0%
1%
18
Mass Health
14. Health Safety Net Plan (Primary or
Secondary)
62
2%
7%
9
Mass Health
15. WIC – Women, Infants, and Children
7
0%
1%
17
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mass. Office
of Health and Human Services
16. Massachusetts Home Care
115
4%
13%
8
Mass. Executive Office of Elder Affairs
17. Full or Partial Extra Help - Medicare D Low
Income Subsidy
238
9%
26%
4
Social Security Administration
18. Prescription Advantage (S0, S1, S2, S3)
147
6%
16%
7
Mass. Executive Office of Elder Affairs (ASAP
Network)
198
8%
22%
5
2,616
100%
(b)
Benefit Program
Other Programs (a)
TOTAL
Administering Agency
(a) Respondents who identified a program not on the list.
(b) Multiple responses possible, percentage is based on the number of applicants (N=900).
Final Report
- 26 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 16: Top Ten Benefit Programs Identified by Pilot Project Applicants
70%
60%
60%
57%
52%
50%
40%
30%
26%
18%
20%
16%
13%
10%
7%
4%
3%
Emergency Aid to
Elderly, Disabled
and Children
(EAEDC)
MassHealth Senior
Buy In (QMB)
0%
MassHealth
Standard or
CarePlus
Food Stamps:
Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)
Supplemental
Security Income
(SSI) or State
Supplement
Program (SSP)
Full or Partial Extra Heating Assistance:
Prescription
Help - Medicare D Low Income Heating Advantage (S0, S1,
Low Income Subsidy
and Energy
S2, S3)
Assistance Program
(LIHEAP)
MassHealth or DTA administered program
Massachusetts
Home Care
Health Safety Net
Plan (Primary or
Secondary)
Administered by other agencies
Note: chart includes the top ten among the 18 Public Benefit Programs on the MBTA list.
Final Report
- 27 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 17: Pilot Project Verification Procedures for DTA and MassHealth
Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA)
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Customer
sends DTA
Release Form
sent to MBTA
MBTA emails
Release
Forms
to DTA
DTA emails
verification of
eligibility to
MBTA
Verification
Complete
MassHealth
Final Report
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Customer
submits
Permission to
Share
Information
(PSI) form to
MassHealth
MassHealth
sends letter
verifying
eligibility to
MBTA
MBTA verifies
customer’s
eligibility
based on
MassHealth
letter
- 28 -
Verification
Complete
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
The work with DTA and MassHealth resulted in the development of procedures to verify
eligibility information for programs administered by DTA and MassHealth. These procedures
are illustrated in Exhibit 17. Based on the procedures developed, MBTA determined that
approximately 54 percent of the Pilot Participants could have been verified through the DTA
process and approximately 41 percent could have been verified through the MassHealth process.
Furthermore, there is overlap among the Pilot Participants for these programs as well as with
Social Security. The remaining five percent of the participants identified other programs, some
of which are verifiable such as Self-Help and through local housing Authorities.
Again, although the procedures to verify eligibility through DTA and MassHealth offered
a partial fix, their effectiveness is limited to only those programs administered by these two
agencies, and additionally are not transferable to a larger scale beyond MBTA’s RIDE program.
Indeed, the overall difficulty of accurately determining eligibility (MassHealth updates their
client status on a nightly basis, for example) assuming a wide variety of programs, along with
significant privacy concerns suggests that eligibility verification should be left to participating
agencies rather than undertaken by the MBTA.
B. Goal 2: Benefits
The benefits of the Pilot Project is measured by examining the pre and post Pilot Project
survey data to evaluate the participants’ overall satisfaction with the means-based fare, as well as
the personal financial impacts of the program to the participants’ spending decisions.
B.1. Rider Satisfaction
Rider satisfaction was measured through the pre and post pilot project survey. The
survey included a number of questions related to participants’ perceptions of RIDE fares before
and after the implementation of the Pilot Project. The table in Exhibit 18 presents the average
scores for participants’ attitudes towards RIDE fares. As shown in this exhibit, participants
viewed RIDE fares more favorably after implementation of the Pilot Project. The average score
to the question of whether participants thought that the cost of trips on The RIDE was fair
increased from 3.1 to 4.3 points. In concordance with this result, the average score to the
question of whether participants thought that the cost of trips was too expensive dropped from
3.4 to 2.2 points.
Exhibit 18: Attitudes toward Fares – Average Score
PreSurvey
PostSurvey
Change
I feel that the cost of trips on The RIDE
are fair
3.1
4.3
1.2
I feel that the cost of trips on The RIDE
are too expensive
3.4
2.2
-1.2
Survey Question
Final Report
- 29 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
The percentage of respondents against each rating to the question whether they felt that to
cost of trips on The RIDE were fair is presented in Exhibit 19. As shown, 38 percent of the
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the costs of trips were fair before the Pilot Project.
However, 85 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the cost of trips were fair after the Pilot
Project implementation.
Exhibit 19: Attitudes toward Fares – Percentage of Respondents
Question: I feel that the cost of trips on The RIDE are fair
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Pre Survey
20.0%
Post Survey
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
B.2. Impacts on Personal Financial Decisions
The pre and post pilot project survey asked participants to rate a series of statements
concerning their use of The RIDE as it relates to their personal financial situation. The table in
Exhibit 20 presents the average scores for the pre and post surveys for these questions. It terms
of RIDE use, the respondents’ scores did not change between the pre and post surveys, with most
participants indicating that the RIDE is either their primary, or only source of transportation.
However, use relative to financial situation exhibited a moderate increase between the pre and
the post survey, with participants indicating that their personal budget, and cost of trips
influences their use of The RIDE, providing them with the flexibility to use The RIDE more
often.
Exhibit 20: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Average Scores
PreSurvey
PostSurvey
Change
The RIDE is my primary source of transportation
4.3
4.3
0.0
The RIDE is my only form of transportation
3.8
3.8
0.0
My budget allows me to use The RIDE as much as I want
2.6
3.1
0.5
Survey Question
Final Report
- 30 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Survey Question
I would/have used The RIDE more if it were less
expensive
I have restricted my travel due to a lack of money for The
RIDE
I plan to continue to use The RIDE
PreSurvey
PostSurvey
Change
4.1
3.8
-0.3
3.4
2.6
-0.8
4.7
4.7
0.0
When asked whether their budget allows them to use The RIDE as much as they want,
the average response rose 0.5 points between the pre and the post surveys from 2.6 to 3.1. The
percentage of respondents’ agreement is presented in Exhibit 21. As shown in this exhibit,
almost 43 percent of post survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their budget allowed
them to use The RIDE as much as they wanted, compared to 25 percent of pre-survey
respondents.
Exhibit 21: RIDE Use versus Financial Situation – Percentage of Respondents
Question: My budget allows me to use The RIDE as much as I want
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Pre Survey
15.0%
Post Survey
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The responses to questions specifically related to personal finances are summarized in
Exhibit 22. These results suggest that the Pilot Project provided participants with increased
financial flexibility. Such flexibility may have allowed participants to increase their spending on
non-transportation related categories. As shown in the exhibit, the decrease in the average
responses between the pre and post surveys indicate that, to a limited extent, participants
experienced less difficulty paying for their trips on The RIDE as well as for other household
related expenses.
Exhibit 22: Personal Financial Impact – Average Scores
Final Report
- 31 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
PreSurvey
PostSurvey
Change
The RIDE consumes a significant portion of my household
budget
3.5
3.3
-0.2
I have had trouble paying for The RIDE
3.3
2.7
-0.6
I have skipped/made partial payments for home utility or
TV/internet/phone bills to pay for The RIDE
2.9
2.4
-0.4
Survey Question
The percentage of respondents’ agreement with the statement of whether they had trouble
paying for The RIDE is presented in Exhibit 23. As shown in this exhibit 28 percent of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had trouble paying for The RIDE in the
pre-survey, whereas the percentage increased to 49 percent during the post-survey. As such, the
Pilot Project appears to have had a favorable impact on the participants’ ability to pay for their
use of The RIDE. Furthermore, the percent of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed
that they skipped/made partial payments for home utility or other bills to pay for The RIDE
increased from approximately 45 percent to almost 60 percent between the pre and the post
survey.
In addition to the straight tabulation of responses for all participants, a cross tabulation of
responses was conducted for participants who identified The RIDE as their primary source of
transportation (i.e., transit-dependent) against the personal financial impact questions. The
results are shown in Exhibit 24. As shown in this exhibit, the positive impacts of the Pilot
Project are even more significant for the transit-dependent participants than the Pilot Group on
the whole as indicated by the higher average scores on both the pre and post Pilot survey.
However, the changes between the pre and the post survey scores for each of these questions are
consistent for the transit-dependent versus the overall Pilot group.
Final Report
- 32 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 23: Personal Financial Impact – Percentage of Respondents
Question: I have had trouble paying for The RIDE
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Pre Survey
15.0%
Post Survey
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Question: I have skipped/made partial payments for home utility or
TV/internet/phone bills to pay for The RIDE
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
Pre Survey
20.0%
Post Survey
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Strongly disagree
Final Report
Disagree
Neither agree
not disagree
- 33 -
Agree
Strongly Agree
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 24: Personal Financial Impact for Transit-Dependent Participants – Average
Scores
PreSurvey
PostSurvey
Change
I have had trouble paying for The RIDE
3.4
2.9
-0.6
I have skipped/made partial payments for home utility or
TV/internet/phone bills to pay for The RIDE
3.1
2.8
-0.3
I have restricted my travel due to a lack of money for The
RIDE
3.7
3.0
-0.7
Survey Question
C. Goal 3: Costs
The goal of sustainability is measured by examining the administrative feasibility of
implementing a means-based fare on a full scale for The RIDE, as well as the administrative and
operating costs associated with such an implementation. Furthermore, sustainability is measured
according to the impact that such a program might have on The RIDE’s compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
C.1. Administration Costs
Based on the level of effort taken to implement the Pilot Project, MBTA staff prepared an
estimate of the annual administrative costs for the Pilot Project. These costs are presented in
Exhibit 28. As shown in this exhibit, the total annual costs for the Pilot Project are $89,639,
which consists of $51,001 in personnel costs and $38,638 in other direct costs.
C.2. Revenue Loss
In addition to the costs of administration, the loss in fare revenue also would need to be
considered. Based on the number of regular trips (i.e., ADA trips) and premium trips (i.e., nonADA trips), the revenue loss is calculated as shown in Exhibit 29. As shown, the revenue loss is
equal to $1.00 per trip taken. Due to the split between regular and premium trips, the overall
revenue loss is approximately 30 percent. Assuming a similar trip rate for all potentially eligible
RIDE customers, MBTA could expect a similar revenue loss (i.e., 30 percent) as the result of a
full rollout.
Final Report
- 34 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
Exhibit 28: Administrative Cost Estimate for the Pilot Project
Part A. Annual Personnel Costs
Position
Employee Name
Billable Hourly
Rate
Estimated
Hours
Total Estimated
Cost
Project Manager
TBD
$82.00
368
$30,176.00
Office Staff (intern)
TBD
$35.00
180
$6,300.00
Office Staff (intern)
TBD
$35.00
180
$6,300.00
Office Staff (intern)
TBD
$35.00
235
$8,225.00
963
$51,001.00
SUBTOTAL – Personnel Costs
Part B. Direct Costs/Other Anticipated Expenses
(Including Travel, Facility, Costs, Supplies, Equipment, Start-Up Costs)
Description
Quantity
Unit Rate
Total Estimated
Cost
Stationary, envelopes, postal, printer/mail
services
1
$6,637.68
$6,637.68
Consultant Services
1
$32,000.00
$32,000.00
SUBTOTAL - Direct Costs/Other
$38,637.68
TOTAL PROJECT COST -YEAR ONE (A+B)
$89,638.68
Exhibit 29: Calculation of Revenue Loss for the Pilot Project
Trip Type
Regular (ADA)
No. of
Trips
Fare per Trip
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
Project
Project
Revenue Collected
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
Project
Project
Revenue
Loss
31,526
$3.00
$2.00
$94,578.00
$63,052.00
($31,526.00)
Premium (Non-ADA)
4,450
$5.00
$4.00
$22,250.00
$17,800.00
($4,450.00)
TOTAL
35,976
$116,828.00
$80,852.00
($35,976.00)
C.3. Cost of Incentivized Travel
The Pilot Project resulted in an overall increase in ADA trips that was 4.6 percent greater than it
was during the same period in the previous year. Premium trips did not increase, thereby
indicating that factors other than cost play a larger role in determining Premium ridership. The
additional 1,378 trips cost the MBTA $31 each based on current contract terms.
Final Report
- 35 -
November 2016
Means Testing Pilot Project for
The RIDE Paratransit Program
C.4. Total Cost for the Pilot Project
Taking into consideration the administration costs, revenue loss and cost of incentivized
travel, the net cost for the Pilot Project are estimated to be $247,027 in annual terms as shown on
Line D of Exhibit 30. Total cost for a full roll out could be determined based on project design
and the number of expected participants.
Exhibit 30: Estimated Costs of a Means-Based Fare Pilot (annualized)
Category
Amount
Notes
A. Administration Costs
$89,639
Annualized administration cost for Pilot
Project
B. Revenue Loss (Annualized)
$71,952
Annualized revenue loss for Pilot
Project
C. Incentivized Travel (Annualized)
$85,436
Additional Trips Induced by Lower Fare
*$31
D. Net Project Cost (A+B+C)
$247,027
Sum of administration costs, revenue
loss and incentivized travel
Final Report
- 36 -
November 2016
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application
Final Report
A-1
November 2016
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application
Final Report
A-2
November 2016
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application
Final Report
A-3
November 2016
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application
Final Report
A-4
November 2016
Appendix A: Pilot Project Cover Letter and Application
Final Report
A-5
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package and Pre-Pilot
Project Survey
Final Report
B-1
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-2
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-3
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-4
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-5
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-6
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-7
November 2016
Appendix B: Pilot Project Notification Package
Final Report
B-8
November 2016
Appendix C: Pilot Project Acceptance and Denial Letters
Final Report
C-1
November 2016
Appendix C: Pilot Project Acceptance and Denial Letters
Final Report
C-2
November 2016
Appendix C: Pilot Project Acceptance and Denial Letters
Final Report
C-3
November 2016
Appendix D: Post-Pilot Project Survey
Final Report
D-1
November 2016
Final Report
D-2
November 2016
Final Report
D-3
November 2016
Final Report
D-4
November 2016
Final Report
D-5
November 2016
Final Report
D-6
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-1
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-2
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-3
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-4
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-5
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-6
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-7
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-8
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-9
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-10
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-11
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-12
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-13
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-14
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-15
November 2016
Appendix E: Post-Pilot Project Survey Analysis
Final Report
E-16
November 2016
Appendix F: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form
Final Report
F-1
November 2016
Appendix F: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form
DTA Release Form
Final Report
F-2
November 2016
Appendix F: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form
MassHealth PSI Form (Page 1 of 2)
Final Report
F-3
November 2016
Appendix F: DTA Release Form and MassHealth PSI Form
MassHealth PSI Form (Page 2 of 2)
Final Report
F-4
November 2016