Text-Only Version Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. Medford, ma and: Planners Collaborative Boston, ma august 24, 2007 contents
|
|  Yüklə 1.11 Mb.
|
Recent Efforts and Observations On-time pick-up performance is continuously tracked by the MBTA. Table 2.10 shows more recent on-time pick-up performance by service provider for the period from July through February 2007. As shown, on-time performance averaged 92.2% systemwide and ranged from 91.0% at VTS to 93.8% at GLSS. And, of the 7.8% of trips performed late, only 1.3% of total trips were performed more than 30 minutes after the scheduled pick-up time. This level of performance is relatively good for a large paratransit system operating in an urban environment with both traffic and weather challenges. The on-time performance of GLSS and KTI is particularly good. The actions taken by the MBTA and the service providers since the initial evaluation in 2005 appear to have been effective in improving on-time pick-up performance. Table 2.10. On-Time Performance for THE RIDE Pick-Ups: July-February, 2007(Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order: On-time category; JV; VTS; KTI; GLSS; Combined) % On-Time or Early; 91.4%; 91.0%; 92.6%; 93.8%; 92.2% All Late Trips; 8.6%; 9.0%; 7.4%; 6.2%; 7.8% 16-30 minutes; 7.0%; 7.7%; 6.2%; 5.1%; 6.5% 31+ minutes; 1.6%; 1.3%; 1.2%; 1.1%; 1.3% While performance has improved, the following recommendations from the initial evaluation re still made for the MBTA’s consideration:
On-time drop-offs also have been monitored since the initial review. Information about on-time drop-offs was collected from December 2006 through February 2007 as part of the implementation of the monitoring plan. Table 2.11 shows on-time drop-off performance for this period. As shown, on-time drop-off performance continues to be well below pick-up performance for three of the service providers. GLSS’ performance of 90 to 91% was well above the other providers whose performance during this three-month period ranged from only 76.3% to 84.7%. Performance for VTS, JV and KTI also declined each month during this period. Table 2.11. On-Time Performance for THE RIDE Drop-Offs, December, 2006 - February, 2007 (Editor’s note: Data in the table shows the Percentage of Drop-Offs Performed On-Time (before appointment time) for December 2006 through February 2007, for each service provider. Data is presenteed in the following order: Month and Year; JV; VTS; KTI; GLSS) December, 2006; 78.5; 84.7; 84.4; 90.0 January, 2007; 77.6; 83.9; 83.9; 90.0 February; 76.3; 80.1; 81.2; 91.1 Recommendations initially made in 2005 regarding on-time drop-offs therefore still appear to be relevant. Specifically, it is recommended that the MBTA consider establish an on-time arrival standard, communicate this to riders and making it a part of the service provider contracts. A standard of not arriving after the appointment time and up to 30 minutes before the appointment time is typical in the industry. In the short-term, before a formal standard is adopted and fully-implemented in operations, the MBTA could encourage service providers to focus on appointment times in dispatching of services and when making same-day changes and add-ons. Early pick-ups and drop-offs have not been tracked since the initial evaluation in 2005. Since it is possible that the issues noted in 2005 could still exist, it is recommended that the MBTA periodically track early pick-ups and drop-offs, work with the service providers to ensure that dispatchers always note when riders request time changes, and then monitor very early pick-ups and drop-offs not specifically requested by riders. Travel Times Initial 2005 Evaluation Long ride times and illogical or circuitous routing was cited by 15 of the individuals who provided testimony on THE RIDE services at the March 2004 MBTA Board of Directors meeting. To analyze these concerns, the review team examined regulatory requirements and MBTA service standards in this area. Actual ride times recorded for a random sample of 609 trips also were reviewed. Finally, a detailed analysis of a sample of the longest rides in this sample was conducted. This analysis compared these long rides with ride times that could be expected for a similar trips made on the fixed route system. The following observations and recommendations were made regarding on-board travel times:
Recent Efforts and Observations On-board ride times were again tracked from December 2006 through February 2007 as part of the implementation of the monitoring plan. Table 2.12 shows the results of this more recent monitoring of travel times. As shown, a relatively small percentage of one-zone trips have travel times of more than 60 minutes. At GLSS, only 1.3 to 1.5% of all trips are more than 60 minutes. At JV, about 1.7 to 2.0% of single-zone trips are more than 60 minutes. At VTS, about 2.4 to 2.6% of one-zone trips take more than one hour. Kiessling had a slightly higher percentage of single-zone trips that are over 60 minutes, 3.5 to 3.7%. Table 2.12. One-Zone Trips Taking More Than 60 Minutes, December 2006 to February 2007 (Editor’s note: Data in the table shows the number of total one-zone trips completed, the number completed in more than 60 minutes, and the percentage of trips completed in more than 60 minutes by month for December 2006 through February 2007. Data is presented separately for each RIDE service provider. Data for each provider is presented in the following order: December; January; February) VTSVTS;;; Total Trips Completed; 46,458; 47,445; 42,864 One-Zone Trips greater than 60 Min.; 1,147; 1,138; 1,130 % greater than 60 Min. Trips; 2.5%; 2.4%; 2.6% GLSSGLSS;;; Total Trips Completed; 39,273; 39,114; 35,307 One-Zone Trips greater than 60 Min.; 607; 499; 490 % greater than 60 Min. Trips; 1.5%; 1.3%; 1.4% KiesslingKiessling;;; Total Trips Completed; 23,201; 23,363; 21,595 One-Zone Trips greater than 60 Min.; 867; 810; 802 % greater than 60 Min. Trips; 3.7%; 3.5%; 3.7% JVJV;;; Total Trips Completed; 20,163; 19,926; 18,146 One-Zone Trips greater than 60 Min.; 341; 355; 356 % greater than 60 Min. Trips; 1.7%; 1.8%; 2.0% The MBTA also developed a new report for more closely monitoring travel times. This report compares the direct travel distance and time to the actual trip distance and time. The report allows the MBTA to identify trips where the actual on-board ride time was excessively long relative to the direct travel time. It also shows the day and time of the trip, which allows for consideration of traffic and weather issues. It is recommended that the MBTA use the new “Monitoring Trip Schedules Report” to randomly check the appropriateness on on-board ride times for THE RIDE trips. General Observations and Recommendations Observations in the preceding sections are very focused on each of the areas of operations examined. Numerous recommendations are made that are very specific to each area of operation. At the “macro” level, there appear to be five more general, “big picture” issues that also should be considered by the MBTA. These macro issues include:
Each of these is discussed below. It is important to note, though, that these are issues that the MBTA should consider in the future. Major changes to the current service design are not recommended at this point in time. As noted in Section 2.6 of this report, “THE RIDE Service Performance,” service effectiveness and quality in most areas is quite good. The one exception is on-time drop-offs, which can be addressed with changes within the current service design. With strong service monitoring in the past two years, the MBTA has been able to improve service quality and operate an effective service within the current structure. The issues noted below, though, could pose service problems in the future and should be considered by the MBTA as needed. Design of the Service Paying service providers for variable costs on a per trip basis, while leaving reservations, scheduling and dispatch within the contractors’ control is a model that is not typical in the industry. The issue is that payment per trip creates an incentive for the contractors to attempt to provide as many trips as possible with as little vehicle capacity as possible. This is how contractors maximize their profit. While in theory it is efficient, it has proven to typically result in service quality problems. A very tight monitoring process that looks at everything done in scheduling and dispatch is required (along with tough penalties for poor performance) to offset the profit incentive created. And it has proven very difficult to determine exactly what is done in daily operations that might cause poor performance – particularly where contractors have full access to almost all features of the system in order to do reservations, scheduling and dispatch. Other transit systems have found that they have had to either pay per vehicle hour (and then monitor productivity – which is easier), or centralize the reservations, scheduling and dispatch functions and remove them from the contractor’s responsibility. Many systems have actually done both – centralized R/S/D and changed to a per hour method of payment. This is not to say that the current model cannot work. If payment per trip is continued, though, it suggests that the MBTA may need to focus additional efforts and resources on the monitoring of service quality and will need to strictly enforce service quality standards. Method of Scheduling The MBTA also is atypical in the way it handles reservations and scheduling. The vast majority of systems do “real-time scheduling,” which means that trip options and pick-up times are discussed and negotiated with riders at the time they call to place their trip requests. In these systems, when riders hang-up after placing a trip request, they have been given and have agreed to a scheduled pick-up time for each trip. Also, in these systems, the runs are built directly as the trip requests are received and then “worked” by schedulers behind the scenes. This way, trip requests that can’t be successfully performed are never accepted. In the current MBTA THE RIDE system, riders call and simply leave the time they would like to travel with the reservationists. No effort is made at the time the trip is booked to see if it can fit on a run or to negotiate times with the rider. Then, the day before the day of service, all of the trips in the system are “batch scheduled,” and the riders are all called back by an automated call back system between 6 to 9 PM. It is only at this time (via a computerized voice) that riders learn of the actual time their trips have been scheduled. If they are not happy with the times given, they call back and either go on a “will-call” list to have their trip “same-day dispatched,” or call dispatch in the morning and ask for their trip time to be changed or to cancel and ask for a same day trip. The current system could, therefore, creates dissatisfaction among some riders with the final scheduling of their requests. It also can result in demand at peak periods that exceed supply (since trips are accepted without knowing exactly how they fit on a run), and places a lot of pressure on the dispatch portion of the operation – with many last minute cancellations, same day trip requests, trips placed on “will-call,” etc.). This method of operation is more likely to work if: (1) there is “flexible capacity” that can be used to meet demand that might exceed supply; and (2) if there is real strong dispatch capability. In the current THE RIDE systems, we discovered that dispatch capacity at some of the carriers did not appear to be up to the task of operating in this way. And, only two of the contractors – VTS and GLSS – had any kind of “flexible capacity.” Public Understanding of the Service Some of the rider dissatisfaction with the service appears to be due to a lack of understanding about how the service works and what level of service to expect. The scheduling process and shared-ride nature of the service may not be fully explained in public information and riders (particularly newer riders) may not fully understand that they are likely to be offered pick-up times that are up to 30 minutes after their requested times or well before their appointment times. They also may not understand that they may often be scheduled to arrive up to 30 minutes early. Similarly, the “pick-up window” is not regularly reinforced in the trip booking process and riders may not understand that vehicles can arrive from 5 minutes before to 15 minutes after the scheduled times. And, there is some inconsistency between the pick-up window communicated to riders in public information (-5, +15) and the window that service providers seem to focus on in operations (0, +30). Also, riders may not fully understand the implications of requesting “will-call” service or asking vehicles to return after a no-show. In these cases, it may be reasonable for service providers to respond in 60 minutes, but riders may feel that the service is poor if it doesn’t respond within 15 to 30 minutes of the time they call. And, there is no differentiation between service standards for pre-scheduled service and same-day, will-call, or no-show return service. Trade-Off Between Same-Day Flexibility and Service Performance The MBTA also appears to be attempting to provide riders with a high level of service. While the ADA only requires “next-day” service, the MBTA encourages same-day trip requests and service providers seem to allow many same-day changes. And, as explained above, the same on-time performance standards are used for same-day as well as prescheduled service. The MBTA is attempting to not only provide same-day trip flexibility, but provide it at a very high level of service (i.e., fast response time). Many other systems limit will-calls, and do little of no same-day service. Systems typically have a “no strand” policy and will never leave a rider stranded even after a no-show, but no-show returns are often the main reason for making same–day schedule changes. If same-day changes or requests are allowed, these are often done on the understanding that response times may be significantly longer than for trips that are prescheduled. Attempting to provide a significant amount of high-quality same-day service puts tremendous pressure of operations (particularly dispatch). To do this well requires significant dispatch capacity as well as either flexible capacity or “slack time” that can be used to respond to same-day requests. All of these things are costly. Without a significant investment in dispatch, flexible capacity, or “looser” schedules, there is a trade-off between service quality (on-time performance and ride time) and service level (same-day flexibility). The MBTA, riders, and the disability community need to carefully consider this trade-off, determine if high-quality, flexible, same day service is a priority and if the improvements needed to provide it in a reliable way are affordable. If not, choices between the two might need to be made. For example, it might be much easier to significantly improve on-time performance if same-day changes and requests are limited. The MBTA, riders, and the disability community also might want to consider alternate ways to provide same-day service flexibility. In some systems, the ADA paratransit service is limited to “next-day,” prescheduled trips (with some no-show exceptions). Then, a limited “premium” taxi program is made available to accommodate same-day trip needs. In these programs, eligible riders can purchase a limited amount of taxi “scrip” that can be used to make same-day trips. The scrip typically is 50% subsidized, which means that this “premium” service has a higher effective fare. The amount of scrip that can be purchased also is typically limited and the period of time within which it can be used is limited. By separating these two types of trips, the ADA service can be run on a controlled, prescheduled basis and at a higher degree of reliability. Fleet Mix Finally, the MBTA THE RIDE service uses a much higher percentage of sedans in its operation that any other system we have studied. The highest percentage of sedans we are familiar with is in New Jersey where 32% of NJ Transit’s paratransit fleet is sedans. A recent study of the service found that more lift vans were needed and NJ Transit is moving to a ratio closer to 75% vans and 25% sedans. While larger accessible vehicles cost more to purchase and operate, they allow for greater productivity and efficiency. Logical groups of riders that could be scheduled on one vehicle do not need to be split-up and served by multiple vehicles due to capacity limitations. Similarly, ambulatory riders and riders who use wheelchairs and who are traveling at similar times and to and from similar locations can be booked together rather than scheduled on separate vehicles. Basically, a uniform fleet allows for scheduling decisions based solely on time and space rather than on time, space and vehicle characteristics. Not having to consider vehicle characteristics in the scheduling decision allows for the most efficient scheduling. A more uniform fleet also allows dispatchers to respond to same day service issues based on the most efficient solution. The closest vehicle with slack time can be chosen to assist when needed. When vehicle capacity and characteristics must be taken into consideration, these decisions become less efficient. Invariably, dispatchers will have to rely on vehicles that are farther away to assist since the closest vehicle is not accessible or does not have the capacity to cover the run that needs help. There appeared to be widespread consensus among the schedulers, dispatchers and managers interviewed that more vans and less sedans were needed and would allow them to be more efficient and responsive to same day service issues. It is recommended that the MBTA use archived trip data to conduct “what if” analysis of scheduling with different fleet configurations. Using the ADEPT system, a different fleet configuration could be simulated and the trips for that day batch scheduled. The number of vehicle hours needed to schedule trips could then be compared for different fleet configurations. While the issues presented in the “Public Understanding of the Service” section above is something that could be addressed in the sort-term by the MBTA, each of the other are presented for longer-term consideration by the MBTA. They affect the long-term contracts that have recently been executed with service providers. They also would require major adjustments to the method of operation. Each would require more extensive analysis and discussion with the community before being implemented. 2.5. THE RIDE Monitoring Plan The final work task performed as part of the evaluation involved the development and implementation of a detailed THE RIDE Monitoring Plan. This Monitoring Plan was intended to assist the MBTA in its oversight and management of THE RIDE services. The Monitoring Plan was developed to address issues concerning THE RIDE which were raised by riders and the public, as well as issues identified during the on-site assessment of service provider operations. The Monitoring Plan first identified contract management and service monitoring activities already being performed by MBTA staff. It then proposed a series of additional activities intended to strengthen the management and oversight of the service. A final version of the Monitoring Plan was submitted to the MBTA in September of 2006. Starting in September 2006 and continuing through February 2007, the TranSystems study team worked with MBTA staff in the Office for Transportation Access (OTA) to develop the special reports and implement portions of the Monitoring Plan. This section describes the monitoring activities that were already being performed by MBTA OTA staff prior to the study. It then describes the additional monitoring activities suggested by the Monitoring Plan. Initial results from the new monitoring activities conducted between September 2006 and February 2007 are also noted. Finally, an estimate of the staff time that will likely be needed to continue to conduct these monitoring activities on an ongoing basis is provided. As identified in this last section, it is recommended that the MBTA add four professional staff positions in the OTA to allow for thorough and ongoing monitoring of THE RIDE services. Current MBTA Monitoring Procedures and Practices As noted in Section 2.1 of this report, day-to-day operation of THE RIDE is the responsibility of four contracted service providers. Each of these contracted providers operates in a designated part of the overall service area. Within each service region, the service providers handle all aspects of day-to-day operations, including trip reservations, trip scheduling, vehicle operations and dispatching, and vehicle maintenance. Internal service monitoring is conducted by each of the contracted providers. General Managers and Operations Managers oversee the overall operation and are typically involved in employee hiring and supervision. Operations Managers also typically oversee the reservations, scheduling and dispatch functions. Pull-out/pull-in Supervisors also check drivers in and out, are responsible for making sure drivers perform daily vehicle inspections, provide drivers with daily run manifests, and assign vehicles to drivers. Maintenance Supervisors then oversee the maintenance and repair of vehicles and the correction of any equipment issues raised in the daily driver inspection process. Monitoring and oversight of the four contracted service providers is then the responsibility of the MBTA’s Office for Transportation Access (OTA). The OTA is divided into two sections; one located at Ten Park Plaza that oversees THE RIDE services, and a Fixed Route Access section located at Back Bay Station that oversees fixed route bus and rail accessibility. An organizational chart showing the staffing of the OTA’s THE RIDE section is provided as Figure 2.4 on the following page. As shown, the activities of this office are overseen by the Manager of Paratransit Contract Operations, who reports to the MBTA’s Director of Operations for Passenger Services and Schedules. The Manager is responsible for community relations, policy development and planning, the paratransit and OTA office budgets, as well as the design, procurement and management of the paratransit service contracts. An Administrative Coordinator who reports to the Manager provides administrative and clerical assistance to the Manager and office as well as to the staff at the Fixed Route Access office at Back Bay Station. The Administrative Coordinator is assisted by one Access Clerk. At the time of this review, two other clerical positions were authorized within the office but were vacant. A Paratransit Eligibility Coordinator, who reports to the Manager, handles eligibility determinations. The Eligibility Coordinator, together with an Access Representative, manages three Clerks/Representatives who assist with eligibility determination functions. The five-person eligibility unit makes eligibility determinations for between 200-300 applicants each week and manages the records and recertifications of over 65,000 individuals who have applied for and been determined eligible for THE RIDE. This unit makes initial determinations of eligibility and also manages the appeals process, which is required by the ADA. A Data Systems Analyst manages the software system that includes the master rider files as well as the daily trip records. A sophisticated, state-of-the-art software system, mobile data terminals, and an automatic vehicle location system are used by each of the four contract providers to manage daily THE RIDE operations. The OTA manages the master rider files and downloads these to the service providers. Daily trip and service information is then uploaded from each service provider. The Data Systems Analyst is responsible for coordinating these MIS efforts. He coordinates activities between the software and hardware manufacturers, the contract service providers, the MBTA’s IT Department and the OTA staff. He also provides systems support for the office and assists the Manager of the Office with the preparation of daily, weekly and monthly reports and other special reports. All other contract provider oversight as well as customer service is then mainly handled by four Contract Administrators. One Contract Administrator is assigned to oversee the activities of each contract service provider. Each Contract Administrator also serves as the primary contact for riders from that provider’s region who are contacting OTA with service issues or who are filing a formal complaint. The Contract Administrators therefore perform both a customer service function as well as a contractor oversight and management function. In FY2005, the four Contract Administrators were overseeing contracts that were collectively valued at $45.4 million per year. The contract service providers they monitor employ over 700 employees and operate a collective fleet of 480 vehicles. |