|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 307
APPENDIX ~
EV^LO~ION PUS
Cap ~ jag ~Ha MINI Gaff
OCR for page 308
TCRPB-1A A-2 Dral0FinalRepoff
OCR for page 309
OVERVIEW
This appendix contains evaluation methodologies for reviewing six bans* service
options/enhancements. These include: feecler service; route and point deviation; service
routes; low-floor buses; fare Incentives; and travel training. The first five options were tibe
subject of project case studies. A framework for evaluating travel training is included because
this option was used by several of the transit systems studied.
These frameworks were used to guide the case study evaluations. They are also meant
to guide future research and analysis of innovative transit operations for individuals with
disabilities. For transit managers and planners, they can also assist ~ reviewing key qualitative
and quantitative issues associated with each option and In conducting evaluations of local
programs.
Each framework consists of Me following elements:
(~) Key features and concepts of the framework;
(2) Tabular presentations of issues, analysis methods, and data sources for the
following Tree areas:
.
.
.
(3)
(4)
Cost savings and cost-effectiveness;
Rider impacts, including ridership, ricier options, and the overall effect
on riders' mobility; and
Operational issues, including basic operating measures and, where
appropriate, analysis of operational impacts such as schedule adherence;
A listing of Implementation issues ant! community involvement issues to be
documented; and
A listing of data collections with an outline of the required information from
each data collection.
The frameworks are meant to be comprehensive, In the sense Vat they present how an
evaluation should be conducted assuming that desired data are available. The only limitation
is that no special pre-~mplementation data collection activities are assumed, since evaluations
Epically will be conducted at systems where the integration options are already in operation.
Where it is reasonable to suppose that an agency might have records pertaining to the period
before Implementation, those records are used. As a practical matter, it Is likely that not aD We
desired data will be available or Mat all the desired analysis can be carried out. Reasons
include:
.
The implementing agency may not be willing or able to conduct desired surveys
for reasons of cost, privacy, or the impracticality of locating respondents;
TCRP B-1A A-3 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 310
· Project records may not have been kept with a mind to eventual project
evaluation;
· Specific analyses may be beyond available resources.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
There are certain analytical guidelines and methods which should be applied
consistency in ad the frameworks. Instead of repeating these throughout the frameworks, they
are described here.
Cost Analysis
Costs in every case should be fully allocated costs, including aD labor, fringes, overhead
and capital, including vehicles and equipment. Where the required information Is not
available, it should be escorted and the assumptions used should be documented.
Overhead. Most operators win be able to supply actual or estimated labor costs,
including fringes. Some operators may not have standard overhead rates, or may have rates
used for grant accounting purposes which appear unrealistically low. The basis for calculating
the overhead rates should be established so that corrections can be made to ensure that results
from different evaluations are as comparable as possible. Overhead wiU include the cost of
general administration, general agency accounting, liability insurance, agency training
activities, and similar costs which cannot be tied directly to a particular service. The cost of
facilities may be included In overhead or accounted separately as rent or amortized capital cost.
If amortized capital cost is used, We cost should Include the fuB cost, including costs paid from
federal or state grants or donations. This cost of facilities should be amortized using standard
lifetimes and the long-term cost of funds to the agency. The cost of con~actor-owned facilities
will generally be included in the contractor's charges to We public agency and need not be
separately accounted.
An operator may believe that it is Inappropriate to count certain overhead or facilities
costs on the grounds that the project did not actually require any increase in facilities or
administrative activities. For purposes of this evaluation, In order to ensure comparability, it is
essential Mat Al such costs be Included. Overwise, a comparison between an activity carried
out by a public agency (for which say the cost of its facility is not Included) could not be fairly
compared to an activity contracted out to a private provider which includes facilities cost In its
charges. For the implementing agency's point of view, it may be unnecessary to consider
overhead costs to determine whether there is a budget savings. This agency perspective may
be presented separately.
Vehicles ant! Equipment. lye capital cost of vehicles and equipment should be
converted into equivalent annual costs. The cost of vehicles and equipment should be
amortized over standard lifetimes, using interest rates representing Me cost of funds to the
agency. The cost of contractor-owned vehicles and equipment will generally be included in the
contractor's rates.
TCRP B-1A AD Draft Final Report
OCR for page 311
Paratransit Service Costs. Depending on the nature of an operator's paratransit service,
it may necessary to carry out calculations of paratransit cost savings separately for various
components of service. For example, an agency may use different contractors for service to
wheelchair users and ambulatory riclers. ~ computing savings from para~ansit trips shifted to
fv~ecl-route service, it may be necessary to take into account the proportion of trips by
wheelchair users and others which have been shifted.
In some cases, most of the paratransit trips which are shifted may be ~ncliviclual, non-
recurring trips, or most might be recurring Hips which would otherwise have been grouped.
The paratransit costs of these two types of service are quite different. If the paratransit provider
does not use separate contracts for these two types of service, then * will be necessary to
estimate the cost per trip, or subsidy per trip for each service type based on estimates of the
productivity of each service type.
Presentation of Results. ^
Host savings are one impact which can be compared across
different types of integration options. The frameworks give steps for computing total cost
savings for each option. Total cost savings is generally equal to total savings to date from
paratransit service not provided minus expenses to date of the project, such as for training,
additional dispatching effort, or new service routes. Since total cost savings win depend to a
great degree on Me total scale of an agency's operation, cost savings should also presented in
the following formats which are more transferable:
Savings Ratio:
Total Savings from Paratransit Service Not Provided
Total Expense Connected with Establishing and Operating the Option
Reduction In Cost of Compliance:
Reduction In Total System Cost (Paratransit and F~xed-Route)
Cost of complementary paratransit
Payback Period
.
Initial Cost to Establish Integrated Service
Annual Reduction In Total System Cost
Rider Impacts
The requirements for measuring rider Impacts are speDed out in detail In the
frameworks. Generally, the analysis determines the number of paratransit trips diverted to
fixed-route, the number of potential paratransit trips avoided, and We number of new trips by
people with disabilities which would not have occurred on either mode. Surveys and focus
groups of riders are used in every case to produce numerical ratings of service features,
perceptions of mobility increases, and quantitative measures of intangibles such as riders' sense
of independence and feelings of dignity.
TCRP B-1A A-5 Draff Final Report
OCR for page 312
KEY FEATURES AND CONCEPTS
option.
This section presents a discussion of unique features involved In the evaluation of each
Service Routes
Service routes involve an adclition of service which supplements both complementary
paratransit and conventional fixed-route service. Of Al Me integration options, service routes
probably have tile highest continuing operating cost. If net cost savings are to occur then total
cost savings must be greater than operating cost. Possible sources of cost savings Include:
Trips shifted from paratransit to service routes. Shifted hips include trips that
actuary used to occur on parakansit (ached diverted Tipsy or trips that would
have added to the grown of parabansit demand if service routes did not exist
(called abridged Tipsy.
.
.
Revenue from new ridership on service routes. New ridership consist of trips
not shifted from paratransit and not shifted from conventional fixed-routes
which are continuing to operate.
Conventional fixed-route service replaced by service routes. Whole routes or
route segments may have been replaced, or service frequency may have been
reduced because of the presence of a service route operating In the same
corridor.
Determining the actual operating cost of service routes wiD be easy only if the operator
has a separate contract for the operation of the service routes, or if they are operates! out of a
separate division. Overwise some form of cost avocation win be necessary.
Even if the service routes turn out not to be saving costs at the time of the evaluation, it
is possible that the potential for cost savings still exists at the case study operator or elsewhere.
The evaluation should determine the level of shifting from paratransit t hat would be needed for
cost savings to begin to occur' and compare that level with the likely f~:`ciLl" l"`,PlC of I
that could be Induced In We future.
-rat ] ~^---·^ ~ no- `~-~-'~Ei~
It is also possible that service routes are beneficial even if they do not produce any net
cost savings. ~ service routes attract significant levels of new ridership, then that is a benefit. If
some amount of total cost savings has occurred as wed, Men Me net cost of serving the added
ridership is smaller than would have been the case. In cases where no net cost savings has
occur, the evaluation should compute the net cost per acIded hip.
The rider analysis should focus on estimating the various ridership shifts and the
amount of new ridership which has been attracted. ~ addition, it should explore how service
levels on service routes, especially travel times, compare to those on conventional fixed-route
service and paratransit. Rider opinions should be sought to determine what features of service
are important In attracting former paratransit riders.
TCRPB-1A A-6 Draft FinalReport
a.
OCR for page 313
Feecler Service
In some cases, there may be substantial start-up costs associated with a feeder service,
for example for transfer site selection or mollification, for nutial pre-trip planking, and for
Neal travel training. The operational cost savings wiU depend on the number of trips
provided by means of feeder service instead of by direct paratransit service. There will a
certain level of additional cost associated with each feeder trip, including the cost of trip
planning, additional dispatch fume, and possible waiting time by the paratransit vehicle at the
transfer point. The cost savings for each trip will depend on the length of the trip; generally the
longer the trip, the more paratransit mileage is avoided. It should be possible to draw a curve
showing savings Der Bin as a function of Din length .C;imil~riv for ret I fries He
~ lo- ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ Am-- -~ J J ~ ~ ~_~ ~t if
_ ~ ~ ~ · . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~
a curve can be drawn showing the number of feeder trips which have to be provided to make
up for the cost of setting up the program.
The analysis of rider impacts takes into consideration that a mandatory feeder program
might have the effect of discouraging readership by people who are required to transfer. Since
the measurement of this effect is expected to be imprecise at best, no attempt has been made to
include it In the cost analysis.
The analysis of rider impacts is mainly concerned with differences in travel time,
convenience, and effort In making a trip using feeder instead of direct paratransit service. It Is
possible that the transfer win result In a longer travel time. Delays and problems at the transfer
points may be a focus of concern, both from Me riders' point of new consicler~ng service quality
and safety, and the operator's considering cost and dispatching and problem-solv~ng effort.
Route and Point Deviation
A single framework has been prepared covering both of these options, since the issues
associated with them are similar. This option is unique in that it involves the possible
elimination of paratransit and conventional fixed-route and their replacement with a new
mode. A cost comparison needs to be made to separate services which no longer exist.
Depending on circumstances, the evaluation may need to be based on comparisons to
conventional fixed-route service which existed prior to cleviation service, conventional fixec3-
route service which is still operating In a similar service area of We same operator, or the cost of
fKed-route service In similar service areas of over operators.
A key issue Is whether deviations are available only for passengers with disabilities or
for the general public. The first case can only occur with route deviation; in the case of point
deviation there is no defined route between the checkpoints. A route deviation service which
deviates only for disabled passengers is acting as the operator's complementary paratransit
service for ADA compliance. As such it will need to meet the ADA requirements regarding
lack of capacity constraints. Therefore a distinction is macle between: I) the characteristics of
the service at the time it is evaluated, when it is possible Bat a significant number of dewation
requests might need to be turned down In order to meet the vehicle's schedule; and 2) the
projected characteristics of the service at some time before 1997 when aD deviation requests are
being served. In this case, Be "psychological availability" of service needs to be considered as
well, since riders with disabilities may be reluctant to delay over passengers by requesting a
deviation, or may refrain from ricking because they do not fee! welcome. The framework
adciresses Be feelings of bow riders with disabilities and non-disabled riders.
TCRP B-1A A-7 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 314
Depending on the operating circumstances, a deviation service may result In an overall
unprovement or an overall deterioration of service compared to separate services. From the
research so far, it appears that dev~abon service works at low demand levels. The framework
addresses whether ride times get better or worse, both for riders win disabilities and non-
disabled riders.
mace deviation service involves the elimination of some separate para~ansit service, it
is almost certain that some cost savings will result. Depending on service characteristics, some
portion of the demand which would have occurred on comnlementarv n~r~h.~n~it Cahill namer
· . . .- ~. . .
~ ~ ram ~~~~
nsreua on one aev~anon service. It is possible that Me demand for deviation service will be less
than the demand for complementary paratransit. The demand that does occur on deviation
service win probably be provided at a lower cost per trip than would have been the case on
complementary paratransit. The cost analysis attempts to quantify this demand difference, and
also attempts to determine what portion of We total cost savings results from the demand
reduction and what portion results from the lower cost per trip.
[ow-Floor Buses
Low floor buses are believed to offer a variety of benefits to the general public as weD as
to riders with disabilities. Evaluations should focus on benefits to riders wad disabilities, and
to former or potential para~ansit riders In particular. ~ comparing low-floor buses to
conventional buses, it is assumed that conventional buses are accessible as wed.
The evaluation should investigate whether Were are sigruficant additional costs for low-
floor buses, as wed as wheffter there are any significant cost savings. Possible sources of
additional costs include the cost of the bus, a possible need to increase service frequency to
compensate for low seating capacity, and higher maintenance and repair costs. Possible
sources of cost savings are lower maintenance costs for accessibility features (i.e. ramps instead
of lifts), a reduction ~ We number of buses need to meet a schedule because of faster boarding
and alighting times, and shifting of trips from complementary paratransit. It is also possible
Mat low-floor buses may attract additional general public ridership.
by_ rip
The rider analysis should attempt to measure the various ridership shifts needed for the
cost analysis. Riders with disabilities should be Interviewed to determine if they perceive
significantly easier boarding and alighting, and whether they feel more at ease using low-floor
buses because they are less concerned about delaying other passengers. An attempt should be
made to measure the actual reduction in boarding and alighting times. On-board observations
win be Me best means for measuring Me change for actual passenger profiles. It is likely that
on-board observations win not include a sufficient number of boardings by wheelchair users to
yield mearungful results. Therefore it win be desirable to conduct separate tests of wheelchair
boarding and alighting on low-floor and conventional lift-equipped buses using volunteers.
~.
Key implementation issues include marketing and planning considerations; how the
decision was made on where to deploy Me low-floor buses; whether reduced clearances,
reduced seating capacity, and a step up in Me back have created problems; and how the
community has been involved.
TCRP B-1A A-8 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 315
Fare Incentives
The evaluation of fare incentives is based on measuring Me various ridership changes
ant! associated revenue changes Mat result from fare incentives. The evaluation wiD be
somewhat different depending on whether an operator has reduced fares for aD riders with
clisabilities (below Me previous discount fare) or only for ADA paratransit eligible riders. The
size of the shifts (and the difficult of measuring ~em) will depend and how low the pre-ADA
discount fare was and how high paratransit fares are. If discount fares were already very low,
or if para~ansit fares were at Me ADA maximum, Men fare incentives are likely to produce
relatively minor ridership shifts. The evaluation treats the following riders~h~p shifts:
.
.
.
.
Diverted Hips: Trips which used to be taken on paratransit and are taken on
fixed-route transit after application of fare incentives. This shift result In
decreased paratransit costs. It is assumed there is no additional fixec3-route cost.
New trips: Trips which were not previously taken on fuced-route transit or
paratransit. These may be trips which would not otherwise have been taken at
all or trips which were forrr,~rlv mace hv tither mnrlao ~ ~ rime I; [~m ~-
----7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ _-~- ^~= VV1~L 1~L~O ~1
relatives. If the discounted fare is not zero, then Mere is a small revenue gain.
Continuing trips by paratransit riders: Trips previously taken on fixed-route by
people who were registered for paratransit, but were able to use transit for some
of Weir trips. These trips result In a revenue loss because of the deepened fare
discount.
Newly eligible trips: Trips by people who did not previously use paratransit at
all, but who obtain ADA eligibility mainly for the purpose of enjoying the
additional fixed route discount. This category only emus In the case where the
discount depends on ADA eligibility. It results In a revenue loss and a cost for
Increased levels of certification applications.
A fare incentive program based on ADA eligibility win presumably involve some
enhanced ADA eligibility screening to m~niniize He number of newly eligible trips. Other
implementation issues Include the marketing efforts undertaken to educate the public and
whether a travel training program was implemented In conjunction win fare incentives.
Travel Training
With travel training the tradeoff between Anal cost and later cost savings is
continuing, occun~ng each time a person is trained. The extent of cost savings depends not
Only on the effectiveness of the training at encouraging a mode shift, but also the length of time
that each person trained would have continued to ride paratransit In the absence of training.
Riders would normally tenet to stop riding for a variety of reasons including declining health,
availability of other options (for example due to acquiring a mo~lifiecl van or the retirement of a
spouse), moving out of He area, completion of training, and many others. The effectiveness of
training at encouraging a mode shift may also be time-limited by a tendency for He training to
"wear off." Trainees may be motivated to ride fixed-route transit In the period immediately
following the training, but could become discouraged by negative experiences over time.
TCRP B-1A A-9 Drays: Final Report
OCR for page 316
Parents ant! caretakers may also react to negative experiences. Changes In a rider's health or
mobility, as wed as changes In travel needs may also cause shifts back to paratransit unless
refresher trading is provided. The evaluation shout attempt to measure these effects.
Even given the limitations just discussed, a truly effective travel training program may
result In substantial savings extending wed Into the future. However, for the reasons just
discussed, these future savings are much less assured that the savings Mat can be documented
over the time period since the training began up to the date of the evaluation. Therefore the
evaluation distinguishes between these known cost savings and the long-tenn cost savings that
win accrue In the future.
The travel training evaluation also devotes considerable attention to benefits to riders
apart from actual mode shifts. These include improvement in mobility skins (both measured
and perceived), increased ability to use fixed-route transit for trips which were not previous
taken on paratransit, and an increased sense of personal independence and opportunities.
Trnplementabon issues to be Investigated include methods used for recruitment, how the travel
training program is tied into the ADA elig~bilibr screening process, and efforts used to
encourage a cooperative and positive affltucle by parenh; and careg~vers.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORKS
Following are Me deviled evaluation frameworks as discussed above for each service
option/enhancement.
TCRP B-1A A-10 Draft Final Report
OCR for page 317
eo
cD
· -
co
on
at
· -
cn
cD
l -
By in
Aid
Wo _ ~ 2, c .
BLt~
BI~ Jo
--
- ~ - ~ - ~ a~
~ CD Cal O ~ ·t CU
~ ~ `~ ~ -~ ~ ~ · ~ -
~_ CO
at ~ -
e~ L:: ~
·~
OCR for page 350
~ - ~
cO
o -
c ~-
cO
co
~ ee'
_ ~L
cn
co
o
o ~
- ~
cO x
ec,
- -
~ c
o
- · -
~ - ~
~· -
r~
c~
cD =:
~ Ct5
cO ~
cO .,4_
- : o
c~
o
a,
E
C .C
C ~
._ ~
C~
C',
tv E .=2 ~ ~-
~ ~E =,.
E oo
o,
~ C CO
., ~,_
CO ~o ~
C ~ C
_ cn
CO + C,.) ~
CO _ o
.- ~re'
CO ~·- C~
o ~·~ o
C~ o _ C~
_ ~_ _
,
o
I_
C~
E
o
CtS
o
cn
a ~=- 1
oE o) ~ a,
, r . · ., ~ ~
~. f~1
O
CO
o
._
cn
._
· _
o
en
E ~
_ ._
o ~
U'
O
e~
~ o
a, ~
C~
·m
__#
._~
._~
~ C
_ ~ ~
CL) .V, . X
CU X ' 1
ce,~
CL)
O -
C~-
O CO {es
~ CO
o
C~
·_C ~ ·_
O
C ~ ~
·_ 03 _ CO
. -
X ~ C~
L~ ~ ~ ·=
C`.
e~
8
._
O)
._
CO ~
_ .
O
t_ ~
~:
CO
._
C~
O
C ~
CO
C O
-
o
CO
C~
cn
C
o
._
_~
C~SCL,
~_
~8
~.
O._
-
._
CO
C
CO
a'
ce'
CO
C
~:
C~
OO
'1~
o
CO
o
.8,)
._
C_
_._
~w. _
~_8
CD.U~
__'
C~-
· _
·~
E
o
c
C
-
C~
-
C~
_
~C
C ~
C
CO
E C
._
._
c E C
~ce' ·-
8 0~ rEL
C ~,, em
CO ,
C _
C~
,,, _
_
_ . _
C ~ ~
o ~
·_ ea
`.
Co Co _ ~
~ ~C~ ·-
C~ ° '~ ~
I ~3: co
· ~
~:
OCR for page 351
· -
cO
If
lo ~
Ct5 A, Cal
c ~cO
· - . ~· -
- co
~ - Is,
~ ~ - ~
C`.0 8
O
.m C C
O ·- C`
Cbe, o C
C, ~ 3 ~C
Clot~ ·_ ~allCal
E3 ~C- CO
~O to ._
~con ~'33
.Eit, ~`', ~c
~E ~'a ~cat
,=. _ . ~c_
cSO _ CcC
C .- 8~-C
C Cal-Cal
~n~ - ~e·~
· _~ CO - ~.~-
c,~ ce ~. {oa~~
~ ~C
'=~ · a,~_. -
~c~ cn _- ~. C
_~C ~O
e ~-=ce E
=,._ ~0 ~O c
0~
~o, w ~ ~ e '~ c'' 0 c
%_ c ~ ~ c _ ~
i ~a ~G j ~2 ~ ~ ~ ~ Kr~ ~ 2~
c
c~
CL)
o
~:
·~
LO
~:
OCR for page 352
~e
~ _
CD
~_
CO
t~e O
O C~
~e
~ e
C ~e_
_ ~ CO
CO C~ C~
"e e ~C~
C ~CO ~e
e~
C
Ct5
_ ~_
._ e_ e_ e_
CO C ~CO C~
C ~-e C C
ce~ c~ ce~ ce~
3_e 3_e ~e
~ ~ _# ~_
CD CD C~ ~
e'_e "e -_e ~ e
C~ CO C~ W
~e e~e e~e ~ele
e~e
CO
C~
e"
CO
3
c~e.
3_e
CO
~e
e~
C~
3
e~
._e
CO
O CD
cD C
_~e
C~
e ~
C~
E
~e
_e
~_
e"
C~
C~
._e
C~
eQe
E
C~
tn
·_e
~_
C~
e e~Ce
e _
C
C~
~e
C~
e~
CO
t~e
o
~_
C~
e~
e_e
C~
CO
~_
3
~e
~e
o
e - .
~_
e=e
e~e
~_
CO
CO
C~
C~
ces
CO
CL)
3
o
._e
e t~e
~_
C! S
C~
-
CO
-
_.
~_
C
e
~_
~es
e
ea
Qe
~ee
o
~ee
CO
e~
.4_e
o
C~
.E
~_
e
e~J
c~e
CL,
e~
O c~e
E e"
o
E
C~
CO
Q,
3
CO
C~
C
CO
~_
C~
~ ~ E
·O CO _
3 3 ~
~e
C~
_C c~e.
~ E
o
C~
eo
e~
eo
e~
OCR for page 353
·c o
a:
c
co ~
·- es
·` co
em ~
co
·
et' 3
c
Cal
C _
CO
·` p:
._
o
CO ,
2
_ _
-
o E
~CO
Ices
Cal ~
C
o ~
~,
to
e ~
~X
~· _
CO
0
._ C
C ._
a, E
~o
C ~
CO ,
CO
r_
I - - ~
c`. ~C 8
~Cal
CO ~=] CO
Cal -
~o
~ _ ~
~ ~ o ._
Q. _ _ ~
_ CO CO
~ ~ ~CO
.. O~ ~ Co ~·~-
~ C a, o
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ 0 C ~0 ~ ~
·_ ~ C~ ,= _' C`,- ~ ~_
~ Co ce~ C~ ~ ._ ~CC oo
0 =_~0 ~ ' O '' O a
_ ~ , = ~S
OCR for page 354
In
~cO
0 a
CO
·
al al C=~ co
:- · - ~ .e
0 0
3 3
3 {~ . _ . ~
E .- a, ~
8
CO ' CO
3 ~ ~ ~
_ , ~ ._
~' eat co
o o ~ I
_ ~ · _
~ _
8 =- 0D E °
o =D
- 3 C
_ . _. = . ~
.= ._ ~
CO
3 ='
CO Ct5
~Cal
=#
·= ·
O ~0
CO Cal
CO Cal
Cal ~
~Cat:
~ =! _ I
_ ~ __ _
C ~ = C, _ | = = ~ e -o | x =, - |
~-~
~-
o ~
==
· - ~
~ o
c~ -
~ co
o ~
-
O CL)
·
)
3
.
_ -_
%_ ~ ~
O ~ Q
='
._ _l, O
eo.^co
~ ce~
==CD
CU o
-
-
O ~
_
·- C7
C~ ~
CO
O
-
O
O
O .~ 3
Ct5 ~ _
=a 03 ~
_ ~ _
%_ ~ ~
O ~ C~
o ._ .,
._ ~ O
ce, .= eo
C~
C~
e~ c~
CL~ ~ Co
- _ ~
~_
00
~:
OCR for page 355
By
c
.o
en
=,
-
Ct5
Ad
c
oD
to
SO
3
Cal
TIC
_.
·~
~ ~_
Ed CO C
~ ~
_ Cal
,_. - 0 0
O
I_ ~
O O
_C _
c 3
o C,,
Cal ~CO
en .C
~ ~_
t:n ~
C ~C
21 c
~ ~CO
Co o ~
I ~Can
C He'
·- Cal t~
~ -
Cal Cal
~_ =, _~
C~
~ . ~C~
X _C °
_
Co c ' ~
3 ~ - ~ O
I_ ~ m O
-
ce,
CO
=!
. _
C~ _
o
~ o
_
· - -
CL) ~
~ c
u, cO
cO
c ~
o cO
cO
~ co
c ~
co o
~ ¢~,
. ~
~ - ~
~L ~
~ Ct5
- c
co ~
O
c ~
· -
~ C3
o
el,
~ ._
C~ ~
CO ~
C ~
C
-O ~ 3
e,~ ~ °
~n
~ . _ C,~
~ ~ C~
C O
C
·CO
o . C
~C~
~O ~
r, ·e ~
C~
· _
O
C
CO
CO
C~
~_
-
C~
~C ~
CO 9
CL,
~O
Ct'
~ C~
C~ ~
~ ce,
_ :E _
e~
cn
~:
OCR for page 356
of
to
an
· -
o
Q
Cot
CO -
CtS
_ ._
~ _
._ _
2 co
~ C
._
Cal ~
._ ~
_ _
_ A
jam.= Cot
Co C~ _ ·-
C~ ~eC ~Co
C~.~ ~o
cn e ~
.C
O ~ C ~CO
=' _
O C ~ ~
- CO
C~ ~ ~C~
.E ~.E ~
C
_
3 ~o
_ _ ~C ~C~
4 ~Q ~C~) -
O =,,~° =:
C~ C
ce~ ~ ~,~_ 3 _
O o Ces° ·CO
_
a
E
U.
,
CO
C~
CO
o
._
CO
o
-
-
c
._
CO
-
C~
-
a
~`
C
._
-
c~ E
._
%_ _
o
_
CO ~
o o
C~
_ C~
CD
._ C
~ ._
._ :~
~ C~
e co
E
·_
._
~ s ._
CD ~ U,
~ o
o ~ E
g
o ~ ~
_ ~ s
.= ~ ~
_ ._
eD ~ U,
cn
._
e,9 ·_ ·°
o
_
_
C~
._
_
C~
CO
CO
o
~C ~C
Ca CO
.~ C~
"C ."
C~
C
. ~ ·~
=_
o
· - ~
~ C
CO o
_ ._
X 3
_ _
~o ~ Cc~ ~
~_ _
C~ ~ C~
·~
_ ~ E
,. ~o o
C~ ~C~,
'D X ~ Co t°~)
~ _ .= .= C
E ·-~ E
CCO
om c-c~
_ Q _ _ _
Q
· _
,
._
CO
C~
-
CO
E
o
._
CO
E
en
~ o
_' _
~_%
o" ~
C~
-
E
o
e~
C~
C~
t
OCR for page 357
In- ~g 'it
cO
~c`.
ces a)
~If
c
· -
· -
w
o
it
it
w
c
i
e
e
o
-
-
.
C53
die
·~
OCR for page 358
en
· -
a'
E
A_
._
b
Cal
E
o
Cal
Cal
A_
CO
Cal
CO
· -
CD
c
._
w
A_
lo
Cal
CO
c
._
-
CO
c
w
lo
._
w
CO
Cal
· -
Q.
CO
OCR for page 359
to
lo
k
lo
._
Cal Cal
~ Cal
._ ._
_ ~ _
ret · _
o ~._
·_ CL Do.-
.t= C To
e o~ c,, E
c E ' At a'
° ~ o ~A
CO ~ ~_ ·-
CD ~ C~ ~CO
._ ~ ~ ~ =e, ~o
_ ce' 3, ~ o O
· t~ cI~ ~ O - ~8
. C . ~ O O CO
~ _ ~ Co C ~=L, C]
O O O ~O ~
~ & ~ ~ e.) ~
~ ~ ~ ~ e ~C ~CO
~ E ~ '~ ~ 3 cO
3 3 3 := O CL) C~
Z Z: ~ ~ C~ CC C~
~:
_.
·~
OCR for page 360
lo
o
co
-
o
lo
If
3
to
At:
At=
._
Q
Q.
CO
-
C~
CO
C
C
._
to
E
Cal
o
to
An
Cal
Cal
~n
-
o
ces
-
C~
._
Ct5
c
._
._
C~
e~
o
CO
_#
o
.
_#
e~ . _
~ ·'
-
._
CO
ce~
C~
,
CO ~
CO . _
E
CtS
CO o
c
· _
CO C'
. ~ Ce~
._ . ~
8 - V) o
~ , ~C Cl)
· _ _
O ~O
4_
O
0 ~n 4_ ~
~X
g _ ~ %_
O CO .
~ ~CO
p: ~
_ Q, O O
~ Co
C
_
_ I,_ · _ _
~ O ~_
~ C~ ~ O ·~
~ ~3 ce,
o
. . ~ c
C ~o o
C~ ~
~:
·~
Representative terms from entire chapter:
service routes
