Ana səhifə

Text-Only Version Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. Medford, ma and: Planners Collaborative Boston, ma august 24, 2007 contents


Yüklə 1.11 Mb.
səhifə14/22
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü1.11 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   22

Initial 2005 Evaluation
To check on the availability of telephone service at the four vendor sites, the review team gathered information in 2005 about the phone systems in use – the number of lines and stations and the system structure. The team also looked at staffing in the reservations and dispatch areas to handle incoming calls. The team also observed call-handling in each area of operations (reservations and dispatch) for several hours at each vendor site. Finally, the team requested phone performance reports for a sample week and reviewed hold times.
The primary observations and recommendations regarding telephone access made in 2005 were:


  • JV appeared to be staffed adequately during the regular reservation hours to handle the call volume. After hours, though, when calls are routed to dispatch, there were some long hold times. This seemed to be related to calls received right after the call-back process. With only 1-2 dispatchers on duty during the off-peak hours, there appear to be hours in the early evening when staffing may have difficulty handling calls in a timely manner. It was recommended that JV consider scheduling additional staffing for this evening call peak.

  • The MIS reports used by JV were not set-up to capture information about calls transferred from the reservationists to the dispatchers. It was recommended that JV revise its reports to provide separate information about calls received in reservations and calls received in dispatch (including calls internally transferred). This type of reporting by call group is currently in place at other contractor sites (see VTS).

  • It was noted that the operating practice at JV of channeling all calls through the reservationists during reservation hours meant that riders ended up being put on hold twice when they need to get through to dispatch. They were initially on hold to reach a reservationist, and were put on hold a second time when transferred to dispatch. Even though our observation was that initial hold times were very short, being put on hold a second time is not a good customer service practice. In some systems, instead of having reservationists handle “routine” same day calls, systems have created the position of “dispatch assistant.” Same day calls are allowed to go directly to dispatch and the dispatch assistant handles any routine issues. The dispatch assistant is physically located in the dispatch area and then also communicates directly with dispatchers for “Where’s my ride?” information. This keeps callers from being placed on hold twice and also frees dispatchers from directly handling calls from riders (which allows them to focus on managing runs and handling same day incidents).

  • For most of the calling day, VTS appeared adequately staffed to handle calls in a timely manner. It was recommended, though, that additional staffing be considered during peak operating hours and during times when there is a pattern of spikes in calls due to call-backs.

  • KTI appeared to have adequate phone capacity and staffing to handle calls in a timely way. This could not be confirmed, though, through regularly prepared phone MIS reports. It was noted that KTI needed to work with their phone system company to set-up their MIS system to capture information about hold times by hour of the day so ongoing monitoring of phone service can be done.

  • It was noted that GLSS had adequate staffing to handle calls in a timely way during many hours of the week. An issue appears to exist, though, when a full complement of reservationists were not available. It was recommended that if reservationists are out sick or otherwise not available, GLSS should make sure that it has sufficient backup staff, especially during the peak call volume periods.


Recent Efforts and Observations
Following the initial evaluation in 2005, several actions were taken by the service providers to address the issues identified. JV added a dispatch assistant position to provide help with calls to that area. VTS also added dispatch capacity. GLSS also addressed issues with reservationist coverage and back-up.
Telephone hold times were closely monitored by the MBTA staff and hold time information was gathered from each service provider from September 2006 through February 2007. The latest phone hold time observations are presented below in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5. THE RIDE Phone Performance, December 2006 – February 2007

% of Call Periods with Average Hold Times less than 2 minutes and 30 seconds

(Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: Provider; December Reserv.; December Dispatch ; January Reserv.; January Dispatch ; February Reserv.; February Dispatch. Data for JV shows combined percentages for both reservations and dispatch)

VTS; 99.6%; 99.8%; 99.6% ; 99.8%; 98.7%; 100%

GLSS; 98%; 95%; 98%; 96%; 98%; 95%

Kiessling; 100%; 100%; 100%; 100%; 100%; 100%

JV; 95.3%; 93.4%; 95.8%


As shown, recent telephone performance has been very good. Average hold times have been below two-and-a-half minutes 95% of the time at most providers. Average hold times of less than 2:30 fell below 95% only during the month of January and for only one provider. Detailed daily information for January 2007 was requested from JV and reviewed by the MBTA staff. This analysis revealed that on January 18, from noon until 9:00 p.m., there was a significant telephone backlog (only 59% of the calls answered within 2:30). During that time they were experiencing telephone line problems that resulted in the backlog. If that nine hour period of time is removed, performance for the month was 97.8%.
Recent monitoring indicates that a few issues remain in this area. JV does still tend to occasionally experience phone issues. The JV phone system still does not capture information about secondary holds when riders are transferred from the reservations area to dispatchers. Finally, even though overall telephone performance appears to be very good at KTI, reports that break-out hold times by hour of the day still need to be developed. It is recommended that the MBTA staff continue to work with JV and KTI to address these remaining telephone system issues.
Trip Reservations
Initial 2005 Evaluation
Rider comments indicated moderate difficulty with the trip reservations process. This included trip denials as well as getting trips scheduled at the desired times. To review this issue, the consulting team first examined service statistics related to the trip reservation process. The number of trip denials reported by the MBTA and its contractors was examined. In addition, as part of the on-site visits, review team members sat with several reservationists at each contractor site. The handling of trip requests was observed for several hours at each site during the week of April 25-29, 2005 and any instances of denying trip requests was noted. Finally, the review team reviewed final trip booking records to see if the times offered during the call-back process were within a reasonable period of time from the requested time. Instances of trips scheduled more than 30 minutes from the requested time (the MBTA policy) were noted.
In addition to checking for trip denials and inappropriate trip time offers, the review team also considered the operating practices in the reservations areas of each contractor. This part of the review considered the way that trip requests were handled and focused on capturing key information and accurately entering trip request information. Opportunities for improvements in the handling of trip requests were identified where appropriate.
Trip Denials Statistics
Trip denials reported by the contractors and the MBTA for recent years (called “not availables”) were reviewed. Table 2.6 below summarizes trip denials for FY03, FY04, and for July through February of FY05. Trip denial information is shown for each contractor
As shown, a total of 2,122 trip requests could not be accommodated in FY03. This amounted to 0.13% of all trips requested. Trip denials were reduced significantly in FY04, with only 161 denials recorded (or 0.01% of all trip requests). Through February of FY05, trip denials were reported to have been eliminated in all carriers but JV. And in the JV area, with the exception of the software transition month of December 2004 when ten trips could not be accommodated, only six requests were denied since July of 2004.
Table 2.6. Reported Trip Denials By Vendor, November 2004 – March 2005

(Editor’s note: Data in the table shows the number and percentage of trip denials by service provider for Fiscal Year 2003, Fiscal Year 2004, and then monthly from July 2004 through February 2005. Data is is presented in the following order: Year or Month and Year; GLSS; VTS; JV; KTI; TOTAL)

Fiscal Year 2003 (July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003); 900 (0.19%); 20 (0%); 756 (0.32%); 446 (0.14%); 2,122 (0.13%)

Fiscal Year 2004 (July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004); 151 (0.03%); 2 (0%); 4 (0%); 4 (0%); 161 (0.01%)

July, 2004; 0; 0; 4 (0.02%); 0; 4 (0.0%)

August, 2004; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0

September, 2004; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0

October, 2004; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0

November, 2004; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0

December, 2004; 0; 0; 10 (0.04%); 0; 10 (0.1%)

January, 2005; 0; 0; 1 (0%); 0; 1 (0.0%)

February, 2005; 0; 0; 1 (0%);0 ; 1 (0.0%)


These statistics suggest that trip denials had all but been eliminated in THE RIDE service by the time of the on-site evaluation.
Scheduled Versus Requested Trip Times
The ADA allows transit systems to negotiate actual trip times with riders so that trips can be grouped together in a shared-ride system. As noted in Section 2.2 of this report, the MBTA allows contractors to only adjust requested trip times by 30 minutes. This is a tighter standard than is allowed by the ADA, which says scheduled times can be negotiated up to 60 minutes. In addition, the contractors are instructed to adjust return trips on the “late side” (e.g., up to 2:30 p.m. for a 2:00 requested pickup), and adds 30 minutes on the “early side” for “going” trips. This helps to avoid situations where offered times on returns are earlier than riders can actually leave and issues on the “going” trips where the rider might get to their appointment late. This more restricted adjustment of requested times is important given the “batch scheduling/call-back” method of operation currently used for THE RIDE.
In other ways, though, the current MBTA operating policies are not “customer-friendly.” While the scheduling window used by the MBTA is only 30 minutes, there is no “negotiation” with the rider. The time is simply set and the rider gets a call-back stating the scheduled pick-up time. Also, it was noted that THE RIDE Guide and other public information describing the service does not mention this possible change to requested times, or what the amount of time change might be in the scheduling process. For longstanding riders, the practice may be known. For newer riders, this may be a cause of frustration or misunderstanding of how the service works.
As part of the on-site review, copies of “Posted Route Reports” (the reports that list all trips requested and provided) were obtained for each of the four contractors for the randomly selected sample day of March 16, 2005. The “Requested Times” and “Promised Times” on these reports were then compared to verify that trips were scheduled within a reasonable period of the requested times. For three of the contractors (KTI, JV and VTS), this review indicated that all trips listed on these reports had “Promised Times” that were within 30 minutes of the requested times for return trips. And, “Promised Times” for going trips seemed to be reasonable given the total travel distances and the allowed 30-minute scheduling window. A few instances were noted where “Promised Times” were 31-35 minutes after the requested times (e.g., 4:32 p.m. for a 4:00 p.m. requested pick-up), but these adjustments appeared to be minor expansions of the scheduling window.
For “going trips,” it was observed that the “Promised Times” were sometimes very close to the appointment times for short trips. In many cases, the “Promised Times” were less than 30 minutes before the appointment times. Given an on-time “pickup window” of up to 30 minutes, this creates a situation where the pickup could be considered on-time, but be made at or after the appointment time.
For one contractor – GLSS - the review of March 16 “Posted Trip Reports” indicated that “Promised Times” were sometimes more than 30 minutes after the requested times for return pickups. Forty-one trips on March 16 had been scheduled more than 30 minutes after the requested times. In four cases, the promised times were more than 60 minutes after the requested times and would be considered “denials” under ADA guidelines. Most of the instances where times were promised more than 30 minutes after the requested time were during the afternoon. It appeared that these trips were manually placed on the schedules after the automated “batch” had been run and that these times were probably the only realistic times given the afternoon peak demand and the system’s capacity.
It also was noted that the Posted Routes Report did not include “Promised Times” for trips that had been cancelled or No-Showed and then rebooked. These trips were listed at the front of the reports and showed only the requested times. It is our understanding that when trips are cancelled (either at a rider’s request, or by a dispatcher as part of a rebooking process) the ADEPT system automatically deletes the “Promised Time” from the database field used in the scheduling and dispatching process and in the creation of primary reports. The information still appears to be in the system, but it is not easily accessed as part of the standard reporting process.

Comparing Requested and Promised Times for trips that are cancelled or no-showed and rebooked is important because it is possible that these are the trips where the times offered don’t work for riders (resulting in the cancellation or no-show).


To address these issues, the following recommendations were made following the 2005 evaluation:


  • It was recommended that the MBTA work with GLSS to expand afternoon capacity, which seemed to be when most trips scheduled more than 30 minutes after the requested times were taking place.

  • The MBTA work with StrataGen to enable the ADEPT system to easily report requested and promised time for trips that are cancelled or no-showed and rebooked. At that time. the standard system reports did not seem to show original promised times once trips are cancelled or rebooked.


On-Site Observations
At all four vendor locations, the review team observed the handling of a total of 334 trip requests by several different reservationists over a period of several hours a day from Monday, April 25 through Thursday, April 28. In addition to looking for any evidence of trip denials, the team considered the accuracy and thoroughness with which trip requests were handled. The handling of subscription requests was also considered. The key observations and recommendations from this initial review are noted below.


  • At no time did the review teams observe reservationists telling callers that the schedule was full or otherwise denying the initial request. There also was no negotiation of requested times at this initial trip reservation stage. The exact times requested by riders typically appear to be entered into the system to be scheduled. Occasionally, the reviewers observed reservationists advising callers that the times they were requesting might not allow enough time at their destination or otherwise providing information about shared-ride travel times to allow callers to make more appropriate trip requests. At all times, though, this advice was made to assist the rider with setting a better trip time rather than attempting to limit or deny service.

  • Some of the observed difficulty with getting rides appeared to be related to the new fare payment system. Several riders were observed during the on-site visits to have problems understanding the new fare system or maintaining adequate balances in their accounts to allow trips to be scheduled.

  • It was recommended that the MBTA consider additional vendor and rider education about the new fare payment system. For example, not all vendor staff seemed know that payment by credit card was an option. As a result, this option was not being communicated to riders. It also was recommended that the MBTA consider ways to make it easier for riders to check balances, and consider creating a form to go along with payment to clearly indicate how payment are to be applied (i.e., to one rider or split between two or more riders).

  • It was noted that some difficulties also appear to develop because of the MBTA’s somewhat unique approach to trip scheduling. In most other ADA paratransit systems across the country, trip requests are taken, negotiated and scheduled while the rider is still on the phone. Very few systems simply take requests, batch schedule them the day before the day of service, and then call riders back with scheduled pick-up times. In most other systems, there is an opportunity for the rider to indicate whether the time being offered will work for them. If it doesn’t, most systems will search for alternate times. In the current THE RIDE system, this “give and take” does not exist. Even though trips are scheduled pretty close to the requested times, riders simply get a call-back stating the schedule pick-up time rather than having a time offered and being asked if that time works. We suspect that this batch scheduling and call-back process results in a significant part of the rider dissatisfaction with the current scheduling system. Satisfaction with the current system for scheduling trips and getting scheduled times should be explored further in the next phase of the study (the public input phase). Questions specific to trip scheduling should be developed for rider focus groups and input on this specific issue should be requested at the open public meetings. This also appeared to be a public communications issue. It is likely that riders were not aware that their trip times can be changed up to 30 minutes. And, on “going” trips, the offered pick-up time may actually be well in advance of the appointment time and the riders may not fully understand that this is to allow for travel time as well as a 30-minute “scheduling window.” Times given in the call-back process could very easily be seen as “non-responsive” by riders without a full understanding of both ride times and the “scheduling window.”

  • The review team observed several instances where riders called in to book two weeks worth of trips. This seemed to happen partly because subscription service was not available, and partly because the number of trips per week did not qualify the trip for subscription (less than three times per week). This added to the call volume and the staff time required to process these requests. It also appeared to be an inconvenience for the riders. Further, in the batch scheduling and call-back process, these riders may have their pick-up times change from day to day. And, the exact time would not be known each day until the night before the trip. At best, this would seem to pose a significant personal scheduling issue for riders. There clearly are some riders who travel regularly who want the flexibility of not having a set subscription time. These riders may have schedules that change regularly and they need the flexibility to change travel times day-to-day. Many riders, however, probably would benefit from subscription service and are likely having difficulty managing their day-to-day schedules without consistent daily travel times. It was suggested that the difficulties getting subscription service be explored further with service providers and riders. If there is a sense from riders that the lack of subscription service is posing a problem, it was recommended that: (1) the current subscription policy be changes to allow trips to qualify for subscription as long as they are consistently made once per week; and (2) contractors make a concerted effort to contact regular riders to ask if subscription service is desired and would be appropriate. Further, if this is done, it was recommended that the MBTA consider shortening the advance reservation period from 14 days in advance to seven days in advance. If most riders who need subscription service have it, there would be little need for riders to book trips as long as 14 days in advance. Shortening the advance reservation period could then help with cancellations and no-shows.

  • It was noted that the scheduling procedures called for all subscription trips to be automatically cancelled on holidays. Riders were required to call-in and request that service on the holiday if their trip was still needed. At the same time, it was noted by riders and local dialysis treatment center staff that dialysis trips typically are still required on holidays. This seemed to be creating some misunderstandings with riders and some unscheduling of trips that were still needed. It was recommended that the MBTA and the service providers explore ways to separate dialysis trips from other subscription trips and to not automatically cancel dialysis trips on holidays.

  • It was observed that the on-time “pick-up window” was not being communicated to riders as part of the trip reservations process. In most systems, where scheduled times are given to riders at the time they place their trip requests, reservationists will typically say something like “remember to be ready five minutes before to 15 minutes after this time.” In some systems, reservationists give a range of time rather than a specific pick-up time (e.g., “Your pick-up time is from 8:55 to 9:00 a.m.”). This constantly reinforces the idea of a pick-up “window” rather than an exact pick-up time. It was recommended that the MBTA consider ways to constantly remind riders about the pick-up window.

  • It was recommended that service provider reservationists begin verifying the types of mobility aids to be used by riders as well as verifying companions/PCAs and other trip information. It also was recommended that reservationists attempt to gather destination phone numbers to facilitate rider contacts should there be return pick-up no-shows.

  • Finally, it was recommended that JV and GLSS reservationists enter trip information directly into the ADEPT system and verify what has been entered into the system. Trip information should not be recorded on paper logs and then entered into the ADEPT system at a later time. Reservationists should end calls with riders only after trips have been entered into the system and verified on the phone with the riders. This way, each trip will be handled completely before reservationists move on to the next call.


Recent Efforts and Observations
More recent monitoring indicates that ADA trips continue to be accommodated and not denied. Several actions were also taken by the service providers to address many of the trip reservations issues identified. GLS expanded afternoon capacity and reviews in 2006 and 2007 indicate that this provider is now consistently providing pick-up times that are within 30 minutes of the requested times. GLSS and JV also eliminated the duplicate paper processes that had been used in 2005 and have begun entering trip information directly into the scheduling system.
The MBTA staff also worked with StrataGen to develop a special report that captures information about trips that are cancelled or no-showed and then re-booked. This report was completed in November 2006 and has been used each month since to monitor trip cancellations and rebookings. MBTA staff randomly select a service day and run the report for each provider. This recent monitoring has indicated that the service providers are canceling and rebooking trips appropriately and are keeping more detailed notes about rider requests for time changes and no-showed trips.
Efforts also have been made to improve rider understanding of the new fare payment system. The initial issues with providers and riders not fully understanding the system and all available options have appeared to have greatly diminished. It is still recommended, though, that the MBTA continue to explore options to make adding funds to accounts as easy as possible. Specifically, the option to allow riders to call and add funds over the phone using credit card information should be explored.
Some efforts also have been made to improve rider understanding of the 30-minute window for scheduling trips and the 20-minute pick-up window. Recent monitoring still indicates, though, rider misunderstanding of these policies. The 20-minute pick-up windo, in particular, does not seem to be clearly understood by some riders. Monitoring of phone calls in 2006 and 2007 indicated a significant number of riders who call to check on a “late ride” if a vehicle has not arrived at the exact scheduled pick-up time. It is therefore still recommended that the MBTA consider additional efforts to better educate riders about the 30-minute scheduling window and the 20-minute pick-up window.
Service providers also re-emphasized with reservationists the need to capture all key trip information, including mobility aids used and destination phone numbers. Recent monitoring indicates that this is being done more consistently.
Finally, it is still recommended that the MBTA consider changes to the subscription trip policy that will allow more trips to be booked on an ongoing basis. It also is still recommended that dialysis trips be separated from other subscription trips and not automatically cancelled on holidays.
Scheduling
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   22


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət