Text-Only Version Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. Medford, ma and: Planners Collaborative Boston, ma august 24, 2007 contents
|
|  Yüklə 1.11 Mb.
|
Distinctions between requiring lap belt versus shoulder harness use if not all passengers are required to use a shoulder harness. Service Animals and Life-Support Equipment The USDOT’s ADA regulations states that: “The entity shall permit service animals to accompany individuals with disabilities in vehicles and facilities.” and that “The entity shall not prohibit an individual with a disability from traveling with a respirator or portable oxygen supply, consistent with applicable Department of Transportation rules on the transportation of hazardous materials.” The Scope of Work in vendor contracts states that: “Animals are not allowed on board, with the exception of Service Animals as noted in the Customer database.” As part of the eligibility determination process, the MBTA determines if eligible riders use service animals and then includes this information in the customer database. Reservationists will then allow for a service animal to ride with the eligible person if this has been requested and included in the database. The contract language and current policies regarding service animals appear to be consistent with regulatory requirements. Service provider contracts do not, however, appear to contain language concerning the accommodation of portable life support equipment. It is recommended that this be added. No-Show Policy The ADA regulations state that: “The entity may establish an administrative process to suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the provision of complementary paratransit service to ADA paratransit eligible individuals who establish a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips...Trips missed by the individual for reasons beyond his or her control (including but not limited to trips which are missed due to operator error) shall not be a basis for determining that such a pattern or practice exists.” While the MBTA counts and tracks no-shows, it does not appear to have adopted a formal no-show suspension policy and currently does not implement no-show suspensions. MBTA staff indicated that they have been pursuing better technology and operating procedures to be able to show with certainty that missed trips are due to riders (rather than contractors) before considering establishing a no-show suspension policy. We also would agree with the MBTA’s decision to forgo the implementation of a no-show suspension policy until systems are in place to ensure that no-shows are the responsibility of riders rather than vendors. With AVL technology now in place, practices should be able to be developed to accomplish this. If and when the MBTA develops and implements a no-show suspension policy, we would recommend that it establish a policy that considers travel frequency as well as the number and percentage of no-shows incurred. In our opinion, no-show policies should focus on the clear abusers of the service and not be broadly applied to any rider who exceeds a set number of no-shows. Reviews of rider patterns and practices or no-shows really need to be done at an “individual level.” Any policy developed also should give riders notification of some kind after each recorded no-show. If riders are only notified of a history of no-shows at the time a suspension is proposed, they may not remember the causes of or reasons for no-shows that might have occurred weeks or months before. Finally, we would recommend that any no-show policy that might be developed also work with riders on an individual basis to try to identify reasons for and causes of the no-shows and to then try, whenever possible, to make reasonable accommodations (either on the system’s or the rider’s part) to address the problem. 2.3. Public Input Regarding THE RIDE Services As part of the evaluation, public input on THE RIDE services was obtained from several sources. These included:
Following is a summary of input received from each source. Rider Testimony and Correspondence An initial source of information about rider concerns was written testimony and correspondence presented at a recent MBTA Board of Directors Meeting in March of 2004. This correspondence and testimony was reviewed and the issues noted were tabulated. A detailed summary of the concerns expressed is provided in Attachment C. The most frequently cited on-time performance issue had to do with pick-ups for return trips. Concerns about late arrivals for appointments and early arrivals of vehicles for scheduled pick-ups also were significant “on-time performance” issues. Issues with vehicle no-shows, missed connections at pick-ups, and with problems with incorrect trip information (e.g., the wrong day or wrong address) also were mentioned several times by people giving testimony. Problems with long ride times and with circuitous routing were also cited frequently. This testimony also seemed to suggest problems with getting through on the phones was largely related to hold times for dispatchers. Hold times to get through to reservationists was mentioned only by one of the seven individuals that mentioned telephone access as an issue. The most common types of driver issues appeared to be related to general attitude and treatment. Issues with proper securement of mobility aids was also mentioned a number of times. Finally, a few comments were received about driver turnover, adequate staffing by vendors, and issues related to an inexperienced workforce, such as lack of familiarity with the area, or lack of familiarity with service policies and procedures. As the operations were observed and as information was collected and analyzed, each of these areas of concern was considered. MBTA THE RIDE Complaint Records Complaints received and investigated by the MBTA between July 1, 2004 and February 28, 2005 were also obtained and reviewed. During this period of time, a total of 1,425 complaints were reported (Footnote: It should be noted that the 1,425 complaints summarized in these figures and tables include all complaints received from riders – those substantiated in subsequent investigation as well as those not substantiated. Totals are used here to identify areas of service generating the most rider comment). Figure 2.2 shows the number of complaints by type during this period for all service providers. Table 2.4 shows the frequency of complaints (number of complaints per 10,000 trip requests) for the entire system as well as by provider. As shown in Figure 2.2, the most frequent concern expressed by riders had to do with on-time performance. A total of 508 of the 1,425 complaints received during this period (36%) had to do with the “promptness of pick-ups or drop-offs.” Table 2.4 shows that on-time performance was somewhat more significant an issue with Veterans Transportation Service (VTS) and Joint Venture (JV), and less of an issue with Greater Lynn Senior Services (GLSS) and Kiessling Transportation (Kiessling). The next most significant issues cited by riders were problems related to the scheduling of trips (267 complaints, or 19% of the total) and problems with drivers (224 complaints, or 16% of the total). Scheduling issues tended to be related to the times given in the call-back process and to long on-board ride times. Driver issues tended to be related to driver attitude and job performance. Scheduling issues appeared to be more prevalent in the GLSS area and the JV area than in the other service provider areas. Driver issues appeared to be more prevalent in the VTS area. “Difficulty getting a ride” was noted as an issue a moderate percentage of the time (131 complaints, or about 9% of all complaints). It is important to note that this category captured concerns about denials of “next-day” requests as well as same-day requests and same-day changes. Difficulty getting a ride seemed to be more of an issue in the Kiessling area, and far less of an issue in the VTS area. Other complaints noted with less frequency included problems with dispatcher (7% of all complaints); telephone problems (5%); problems with reservationists (4%); vehicle condition issues (2%); and issues with the comfort of the ride (1%). Figure 2.2. THE RIDE - Rider Complaints, July 2004 through February 2005 All Providers (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: Type of Complaint; Number of people that complained) Promptness of pick up/drop off; 508 Scheduling problem; 267 Problem with Driver; 224 Difficulty in getting a ride; 131 Dispatcher problem; 99 Problem with telephone; 72 Problems with reservationists; 58 Condition of vehicle; 22 Comfort of ride; 16 Other; 28 Table 2.4. Rates of THE RIDE Complaints by Provider July 2004 through February 2005 Complaints per 10,000 trip Requests (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: Type of Complaint; All Providers; Veterans; GLSS; Kiessling; JV) Promptness of pick-up/drop-off; 4.15; 5.17; 2.59; 3.88; 4.97 Scheduling problem; 2.18; 1.41;.3.30; 1.82; 2.43 Problem with driver; 1.83; 2.54; 1.53; 1.67; 0.95 Difficulty in getting ride; 1.07; 0.42; 1.12; 2.24; 0.85 Dispatcher problem; 0.81; 1.11; 0.29; 0.87; 0.95 Problem with telephone; 0.59; 0.35; 0.97; 0.53; 0.53 Problems with reservationists; 0.47; 0.35; 0.44; 0.68; 0.53 Condition of vehicle; 0.18; 0.18; 0.09; 0.23; 0.26 Comfort of ride; 0.13; 0.05; 0.21; 0.15; 0.16 Other; 0.23; 0.32; 0.29; 0.00; 0.21 Total System Complaint Rate is 11.6 complaints per 10,000 trips requested. Public Meetings A series of five public meetings throughout the MBTA service area were held in the Fall of 2005. The main objective of these public meetings was to get feedback on the effectiveness of accessible fixed route and paratransit services and to identify the major accessibility issues in each mode. Meetings were held in each of the four THE RIDE service regions – Lynn (North), Newton (Northwest), Norwood (Southwest), and Quincy (South) – as well as in downtown Boston. A mix of meeting times was used to allow for input from riders who work during the day as well as from seniors and other riders who might be less likely to attend an evening meeting. One meeting was held in the evening (6-8 pm), two during the late afternoon (4-6 pm), and two during the mid-afternoon (2-4 pm). Following the five planned public meetings, one additional meeting was held with agency staff and riders on the North Shore. This meeting was held at the request of the Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann (ILCNSCA), which contacted project staff and noted that some riders in the area had been unable to attend the meeting in Lynn. This additional meeting was held on December 13, 2005. A total of 152 people attended the six meetings. A detailed summary of the comments received regarding THE RIDE service is provided in Attachment C. A brief questionnaire also was developed and distributed to attendees of the public meetings. The questionnaire asked attendees to indicate their experience with THE RIDE service in several key areas. A total of 67 questionnaires were handed in or faxed following the meetings; about half of the attendees turned in a questionnaire. As shown in Figure 2.3, 10 different aspects of THE RIDE service were presented to attendees. The part of the service that was identified as being most problematic was on-time performance. Thirty-two attendees identified late pick-ups as a problem and 30 identified late arrivals for appointments as a problem. Getting information when rides were late was the third most common problem, followed by on-board ride time, getting rides at the times needed, and driver assistance and performance. Issues related to fare payment and subscription service were not identified as major areas of concern (although many attendees may have been occasional riders and subscription service was not something that was needed). The aspect of the operation that was rated as having “A lot of problems” was getting information when rides were running late, followed by late drop-offs and late pick-ups. Figure 2.3. THE RIDE Issues Identified by Public Meeting Attendees (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order) Issue; Number of people who said “A Lot of Problems,” Number of people who said “Some Problems,” Number of people who said “No Problems,” Number of people who said “Not Sure”) Vehicle Condition; 4; 16; 23; 2 Driver assistance and performance; 6; 18; 21; 1 On-board ride time; 9; 18; 12; 1 Paying fares; 3; 8; 26; 2 Getting information if my ride is late; 16; 13; 7; 2 Getting to my appointments on time; 12; 18; 14; 1 Picking me up on time; 10; 22; 10 Getting call-backs with pick-up times; 4; 18; 18; 1 Getting subscription service; 4; 3; 10; 7 Getting rides at the times I need; 9; 18; 16; 1 Focus Groups Five focus group meetings also were facilitated. At least one meeting was held in each THE RIDE service zone (North area – Lynn; Northwest area – Waltham; Southwest area – Natick and Norwood; South area – Quincy). An additional meeting was held in downtown Boston. These meetings were specific to THE RIDE service. Riders and staff from agencies whose participants used THE RIDE were invited to attend. The primary purpose of the focus groups was to get riders and agency staff to discuss their experiences using THE RIDE. Eighteen questions were developed in advance and were used to guide the discussion. Riders were encouraged to discuss other issues and experiences, though, so that at the end of each meeting we had a good sense of the major issues that each group had in using the service. A summary of input received from all five meetings is provided in Attachment C. Summary of Public Input Received While rider testimony and correspondence from 2003 and 2004 noted trip denials, input from the public meetings and focus groups indicated that trip denials were no longer a major concern in 2005. While several people noted issues with getting same-day trips or changing scheduled times on the day of service, only a few people indicated that they occasionally were not offered rides when they placed requests a day or more in advance. Many people indicated concerns, though, about the scheduled times they were given. The most significant issue appeared to be very early pick-up times for going trips when trips were requested based on an appointment time. In some cases, riders appeared to have unrealistic expectations of the service (citing pick-ups an hour in advance as being too early). In many cases, though, people noted scheduled times that were 90 minutes or more before appointment times for trips that were relatively short. Problems with very early arrivals were also cited by several people. This suggests that some very early pick-up are not required due to the travel time or ride-sharing. In general, these comments seem to indicate a need for: (1) better public understanding of total travel times in a shared-ride service; as well as (2) further refinement of computer system parameters (particularly travel times and allowances for grouping) and manual scheduling clean-up to avoid very early pick-ups and drop-offs. Public input also raised additional issues related to the automated call-back process. While previous reviews of phone records indicated a highly reliable system, and many people indicated no problems with call backs, several people noted continuing problems. These included: lack of compatibility with some answering machines; a long delay when first answering the call, which could cause people answering the phone to think the call was in error and hang-up; and a lack of clarity of the automated messages. Several people also expressed a desire to have names rather ID number used in the call-backs. Comments also confirmed that there are very long hold times in the evenings, when many people call to inquire about scheduled times given in the call-back process. On-time performance also was a major concern. Very late return trip pick-ups, and performance during the afternoon peak hours and in the evenings, seemed to be particular concerns. In general, riders who participated in the focus groups reported a lower percentage of on-time trips than what is suggested by recent service statistics. Several riders also noted that scheduled pick-up times sometimes would change without notice. Some of the public’s sense of poor on-time performance appears to be caused by a lack of understanding of the pick-up window. Very few riders who participated in the focus groups knew how on-time service was defined. This suggests a need for more rider education about on-time performance and the pick-up window. It also suggests, though, that the MBTA should carefully monitor whether dispatchers sometimes might adjust scheduled pick-up times on the day of service (particularly when trips are running late). Many people also were dissatisfied with the information provided by dispatchers when they called to inquire about late rides. Hold times in dispatch were also an issue and rude treatment by dispatchers was noted. These comments seem to confirm the need for additional dispatch staffing, customer service training for dispatchers, and ways to lessen pressure on this part of the operation. Arriving late for appointments was a significant issue. Several riders noted that they had begun to give appointment times that were 30 minutes earlier than actual appointments to help ensure that they would be on-time. Circuitous routing also was a significant concern of riders. Several people felt that add-ons were a cause of both late arrivals and circuitous routing. These comments emphasize the need for the MBTA to establish an on-time arrival performance standard so that schedulers and dispatchers focus on appointment times as well as pick-up times. Comments seem to indicate that service providers are giving priority to pick-ups, since this is the performance measure with potential liquidated damages. This excessive focus on pick-ups might explain both late drop-offs and circuitous routing. While many riders felt that most drivers were good, there were several comments about driver professionalism and performance. The most common comments were that new drivers did not know the service area, which resulted in poor on-time performance. Other common comments were that drivers did not always provide door-to-door assistance or other needed assistance; that some drivers had poor English language skills; that securement of wheelchairs was sometimes not done correctly; and that some drivers are insensitive and rude. Several people also commented that some drivers did not seem to want to bother dispatch or seek dispatch assistance. A few people also commented on the long hours worked by drivers and on the difficult schedules given to drivers. All of these comments appear to support the need to continue to focus on issues related to driver turnover, compensation and training. More adequate training in map reading, longer on-the-road training to get a better knowledge of the service area, more thorough testing of English language skills, and better instruction in how to utilize dispatch assistance seem to be areas for additional training. Efforts to lower driver turnover and develop a more stable workforce also seem to be needed. Several riders also felt it would be advantageous to have service providers keep the same drivers on group subscription runs. Others felt that an effort should be made in scheduling to keep drivers in areas they are familiar with. Several riders noted that detailed information about their pick-up locations didn’t always seem to make it to the drivers, which caused delays and missed connections. Some people noted that information seemed to be entered into the “going” trip file but not in the return trip file. Others felt there were problems relaying the special instructions to drivers via the MDTs. These comments suggest a need to further investigate this issue to be sure that special instructions are handled correctly by reservationists, are being transmitted via the MDTs and that drivers are trained to know how to access the information on the MDTs. While it seemed that many riders were becoming more familiar with the new fare payment system, the major continuing concern was for better information about account balances. It was suggested that the automatic call-back technology be used to give riders information about their accounts or to alert riders when balances are low. There also seemed to be a need for additional public information about the new fare system – many riders still were not aware that credit cards could be used or that balances could be checked on-line. Several focus group participants noted issues with the automatic cancellation of subscription trips on holidays. This seemed to be a particular issue for riders going to dialysis centers. The idea of customizing the policy by type of agency should be explored. For example, most dialysis centers only seem to close for one holiday (Christmas) while others may close for more holidays. Input from agency staff representatives also suggested that a closer working relationship between THE RIDE service providers and agencies in their areas would be beneficial. There were some comments that service providers sometimes provided incorrect information about service policies. These comments indicate a need for general, random monitoring of service provider phone recordings to identifying if and when service providers are providing incorrect information about scheduling policies, fare policies, or other policies. Finally, several riders expressed concerns about securement straps being left on the floors of vehicles. Others noted that comment cards and late ride fare refund cards are often missing from vehicles. These comments suggests that additional random on-the-road spot-checking by MBTA contract monitors might be helpful. 2.4 THE RIDE Service Evaluation The second major task related to THE RIDE service was to collect service performance information and conduct on-site visits with each of the four service providers. Each part of the operation was observed at each provider operations center during site visits conducted during the week of April 25-29, 2005. This included observing and collecting information on:
Managers, operations staff, and drivers also were interviewed at each provider location. In addition, information on key service quality performance measures was reviewed. This included information on:
Technical Memorandum #3, prepared as part of the evaluation and submitted to the MBTA in August of 2005, contains detailed information about the service provider reviews. The key observations and recommendations made at that time are provided in this section of the final report. Observations and recommendations for each part of the operations are first provided. General observations about overall service design and structure and the impacts of the current structure on operations and performance are then provided at the end of this section. Following the initial evaluation, the MBTA staff worked with service providers to address many of the findings and recommendations. The TranSystems team also worked with the MBTA staff and service providers to implement additional monitoring activities to track key operations issues. These efforts were successful in addressing most of the initial evaluation findings. Monitoring in 2006 and 2007 indicates that service quality has improved since the initial evaluation. In each of the sections below, key efforts to address operating issues and the latest service performance information is also presented. It is important to note that most of the findings and recommendations that were made as part of the initial review have since been addressed by MBTA and contractor staff. Actions taken to address the 2005 recommendations are noted in each section. It is also important to note that this review was conducted shortly after several significant changes were made to THE RIDE operation. In November and December of 2004, the MBTA negotiated new contracts with the four service providers. Part of these new contracts called for the implementation of a new software system, the additional of mobile data computers and automatic vehicle locator technology, new telephone systems, and automated call-back process, and a new fare collection system. These changes were made to give operators improved tools for managing the service and to implement technologies that improve the MBTA’s ability to closely monitor all aspects of the operation. While these new technologies and the new contracts will improve operations in the long-run, it is likely that some of the issues observed and summarized in this report are related to the transition to these new systems. Some implementation issues with the new software, new phone systems, and the new fare collection system were still being resolved at the time of the on-site visits in April 2005. Telephone Access |