Text-Only Version Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. Medford, ma and: Planners Collaborative Boston, ma august 24, 2007 contents
|
|  Yüklə 1.11 Mb.
|
How is the automated call-back process working for you? While the majority of participants did not report significant issues with the automated call-back process, some still seemed to be experiencing problems. One participant at the Lynn meeting noted problems with answering machines – she felt that if the greeting on the answering machine was long, it would affect the automatic call, which would not come through. A few participants in Boston and Waltham said that they were aware that the call-back system sometimes would be “down,” but said this was very infrequent and that they got call-backs except a few times a year. Two people in Waltham and one in Quincy reported more significant issues, saying that call-backs are not received several times each month (or in the case of the person in Quincy “about two-thirds of the time”). Several people in Boston, Natick, Quincy and Waltham said that the calls are typically received but that the message is not always understandable and clear. An agency representative at the Waltham meeting also said that call-backs are not received 2 to 5 times a month, that the process “does not seem to work for group bookings,” and that she therefore has to call every evening to confirm the next day’s rides. One person at the Natick meeting also reported getting call-backs very late at night, after going to bed. Are the pick-up times you are given in the call-back process reasonably close to the times you requested? This question was asked at four of the meetings (all except Boston) and seemed to be a significant issue with riders. Several cited examples of being given what they felt were very early pick-up times for morning appointments. Four examples of pick-up times two hours before appointment times were given. Several examples of pick-ups 60-90 minutes before appointments for what participants described as 25 to 30 minute trips were also noted. One person cited being dropped off at work 45 minutes early – before the building was open. This seemed to be a particular problem when riders booked going trips based on an appointment time. One rider said she books going trips by a pick-up time (even though she has an appointment) to avoid this problem. An agency representative reported getting times that were very early for both ends of the trip because the service provider was combining rides with another program that had different hours. Her program ran 8:30 to 4:30, the other program ran from 7:30 to 3:30, and her clients were being given times that were much to early. While very early pick-ups for going trips were most often cited, a few participants also noted getting times that were later than desired for afternoon return trips. Return trip offers of 40 to 45 minutes later than requested were noted. Do you often call to request a change to the pick-up times you are given? If yes, when do you call, and are you able to get the times changed? This question was asked at three meetings (Natick, Quincy and Waltham). Several people reported calling some of the time to request changes to scheduled times, but only if the times given were really bad. There was a sense that changes are discouraged by dispatchers. Participants also noted problems getting through on the phone to the evening dispatchers and if they got through simply being told they would need to call back in the morning and speak to the morning dispatchers. One participant also said she had been told by morning dispatchers to call in the evening. One person in Natick said that she is often told “we will see what we can do” and then told to call back later. One participant in Waltham said dispatchers will accommodate his request “about 50% of the time.” If you are given a 9:00 AM pick-up time, when do you expect the vehicle to arrive? Very few participants seemed to have an understanding of the pick-up widow or the “be ready” time as detailed in the Rider’s Guide. One person in Lynn, one in Boston, and one Waltham said vehicles should arrive 5 minutes before to 15 minutes after the scheduled time. Three people at the Quincy meeting seemed to be familiar with the window. So, only six of the participants at all five meetings knew the formal policy. One person reported being told by the service provider that the window was 30 minutes after the scheduled time. Are you able to get information about your pick-up if it is running late and you call the service provider and is the information given accurate? There was mixed response at some meetings and at other meetings this seemed to be a significant issue. At the Boston meeting the response was mixed with some people saying the information provided by dispatchers is not accurate and others saying it “varied.” This was a significant issue in Natick, with all participants saying dispatchers give standard answers (“around the corner, “10 to 15 minutes”) and that dispatchers are also very rude. At the Quincy meeting, the response seemed to depend on the service providers used. Those who used GLSS and Keissling said the information from dispatchers seemed to be reliable, while a participant who used JV said the information given is not reliable. And in Waltham the reaction was mixed, with three people saying it “was better recently” and three people saying it was still a problem. For every 10 trips you make, how many times is the vehicle pick-up on-time? More than 15 minutes late picking you up? More than 30 minutes late? The experience of participants with on-time pick-ups was mixed. In Lynn, Natick, Quincy and Waltham, several people noted that 9 out of 10 pick-ups were on-time. The majority or respondents reported slightly lower performance, though, with 6 to 8 of 10 pick-ups on time. One or two people at each meeting noted very poor performance. Two people in Lynn noted that local trips seemed to be on-time, but trips to Boston were more often late. Most people indicated that pick-ups were 16 to 30 minutes late. A few people noted many pick-ups more than 30 minutes late. Staff of dialysis clinics who attended in Natick and Quincy reported more significant issues than most. The staff person at the Natick meeting seemed to have detailed stats and said only 20% were on-time; 40% were 15 to 20 minutes late; and 40% were over 60 minutes late. Representatives of two clinics in the Quincy area also noted very late return trip pick-ups, with patients waiting 1 to 2 hours for rides. It was also noted that poor on-time performance on the drop-off affected performance for returns. It was noted that dialysis patients are sometimes dropped off late and as a result start their treatments late. It was reported that no allowance is then made for the return trip (even though treatment must take a set amount of time). Vehicles would still show-up at the scheduled time for the return and riders would not be ready to go. As a result, the vehicle would leave and would return much later. For every 10 trips you make on THE RIDE, how many times do you get to your appointments on-time? Again, experience varied significantly. In Lynn, one person said very few arrivals were late; two said arrivals were on-time 80% 0f the time; and one person said arrivals were on-time because she had started giving an appointment time that was 30 minutes earlier than her real appointment. In Natick, one person said there were no problems with on-time arrivals; three said 70 to 90% were on-time; three said only about 50% of arrivals were on-time; and one agency representative said they don’t use THE RIDE for clients when they have appointments because the service is too unreliable. More significant issues with arrivals were noted at the Boston meeting. Two people said arrivals were mostly on-time, but seven participants said 60% or fewer of arrivals were on-time. One person again said they cannot trust the service when going to appointments. In Quincy, three riders said that arrivals were mostly on-time. The two dialysis clinic staff people, however, said 30 to 40% of arrivals are late, causing problems with times of treatments and return pick-ups (as noted above). In Waltham, three people said 90-100% of drop-offs were on time, but five people reported on-time arrivals at only 60-80%. Two people said they have started giving appointment times that are 30 minutes before the real times to help ensure they get there on-time. Do vehicles arrive early? If yes, how early? Do drivers pressure you to leave early? Many participants reported that vehicles will arrive early, and several said vehicles arrive very early. For the most part, though, riders said drivers did not pressure them to go early. Only one rider in Waltham said she felt pressured by the drivers. A second person at the Waltham meeting said drivers do not pressure her, but she feels pressured anyway if she sees that there are passengers waiting on the vehicle for her. One agency representative at the Boston meeting said that drivers will sometimes try to get clients to leave work programs very early and that the staff will step-in to make the driver wait. Are THE RIDE travel times reasonable? Experiences with travel times seemed to vary by area. No issues were reported at the Lynn meeting. In Boston, about half of the participants felt travel times were too long and noted problems mostly in the afternoon and evening. In Natick and Quincy, most felt that travel times were “okay” but that there might be an occasional long ride. A dialysis staffer noted that even though rides were reasonable, some were 6 minutes, which was a long time for someone returning from dialysis treatment. In Waltham, three people felt most rides were okay, one said about 25% of rides are too long; and two people reported significant problems with long rides. With in-region trips regularly taking 60-90 minutes when the direct travel time was only 20-25 minutes. For those who noted long rides, circuitous routing was typically also noted. Several people felt that vehicles went way out of the way. One participant at the Waltham meeting said it would help if rivers told riders what they were doing when they went way off-route. Otherwise, riders think the driver is just lost. How would you rate driver performance and assistance? Most participants indicated that the vast majority of drivers were very good. Some problems with driver performance were noted, though. In Lynn, the problems noted were a lack of assistance (3 people); drivers not knowing the area (particularly when traveling to Boston); and securement straps being left on the floor ( 1 person). In Boston, issues included drivers not knowing directions (1 person); drivers being afraid of service animals and needing more training on this (1 person); and drivers not knowing English ( 1 person). In Natick, several people mentioned drivers not knowing the area. One person said that the add-ons via MDTs did not give drivers time to plan their routes. In Quincy, past problems with a lot of new drivers who didn’t know English and didn’t provide assistance were cited, but this seemed to have changed recently and many of those drivers were reported to have left. An agency representative in Quincy suggested that when drivers have problems with riders an attempt should be made to reach agency staff for guidance. In Waltham, several people mentioned issues with drivers not knowing the area. Problems with drivers not having good English skills and not providing assistance were also noted. Are there trips that you do not use THE RIDE for? Why? This question was asked at the Natick and Waltham meetings. Most people indicated that they use the service for all types of trips. A few people, though, said they do not use it for trips that are “time sensitive” or when they have important appointments because of reliability issues. Two agency staff people said they do not use the service when arranging job interviews for clients – again because of reliability issues. One person said they do not use THE RIDE to go into Boston at night for fear of being stranded. How would you rate the overall performance of THE RIDE in meeting your travel needs? Participants at four of the meetings were asked to rate the service as either excellent, good, fair, or poor. Responses were: Excellent: 2 people Good to Excellent: 3 people Good: 12 people Fair to Good: 10 people Fair: 4 people Poor to Fair: 0 Poor: 0 It is interesting to note that while most participants had some kind of issues with the service and several had significant issues, the majority (17 out of 31) still indicated they felt the service was good or better. Most of the remaining participants rated the service as “fair.” None of the participants rated the service worse than “fair.” Are there any changes in the way that THE RIDE works (service policies) that might make it work better for you? Numerous suggestions for changes to service policies or ways that the service could be improved were offered. These included: Several staff members of dialysis clinics felt that automatic cancellations of subscription trips on holidays caused significant problems. They noted that dialysis clinics typically don’t close for holidays (with the exception of Christmas) and suggested that the policy be more specific to the type of agency and not a broad blanket policy. Other agency staff noted that service providers need to work more closely with agencies to address issues. The fare structure was mentioned by a few riders. It was noted that relatively short trips between regions cost $3.00, while much longer trips within the region were only $1.50. A few riders also mentioned that information on account balances were needed. It was noted that some riders have trouble keeping track of balance in debit accounts; tickets were easier to keep track of. The idea of making call-backs using the automated technology to give people account balance information was suggested. A few riders had comments and suggestions related to the eligibility determination process. One person said better and more timely information about recertification was need. A second person thought that certain riders should be granted permanent eligibility. Several riders suggested that service providers should keep the same drivers with group subscription runs. It was also suggested that drivers be used in areas that they are familiar with and not in areas they don’t know. One person said to designate some drivers for appointments, others for leisure trips. Two people said to pay drivers more so that they work fewer hours and can attract better people. One rider noted that there was a lot of turnover of drivers which created change and a lack of continuity. Another person specifically said that the 12 hour shifts that were worked by drivers were too long. Several people suggested additional employee training. Two people said to train drivers better and noted the need for sensitivity training and more knowledge of the areas they serve. One person commented that drivers need respect for customers’ time. Another participant said that dispatchers need training in sensitivity and being courteous on the phone. A fifth person said more training is needed on communicating on the phone with riders as well as effective and appropriate radio communications between dispatchers and drivers. One person said much improvement is needed in scheduling and reservations. One person indicated the need for floater drivers to help get back on schedule. Another suggested that schedulers should observe service, to get a better feel for travel times and how long it takes to provide assistance and secure wheelchairs One person said THE RIDE needs an Ombudsman for customers who is an expert with the ADA. One rider indicated a need for more flexibility in changing trip times on the day of service and still getting reliable service. One person noted that more information needs to be communicated to drivers, such as rider needs and special address information. Another person said to communicate schedules to drivers in a better way – MDCs only show an hour’s worth of trips at a time One person said that drop-off times and late drop-offs needed to be tracked. One rider noted the need for printed RIDE Guides for people who don’t have computers Other Comments Four participants reported trouble with phones ringing busy for 40-45 minutes (repeated calls), and with repeated recorded messages (3 complaints referred to Kiessling, the other Joint Venture). Attachment D THE RIDE Service and Performance Statistics By Service Contractor July 2004 through February 2007 Table A-1. VTS Trips Completed, On-Time Performance and Complaints per Month, July 2004 through February 2007 (Editor’s note: Data in the table is presented in the following order for fiscal year 2005, 2006, and 2007) Month; Trips on time; Late 16 to 30 minutes; Late greater than 30 minutes; Trips Completed; Number of Complaints Fiscal Year 2005 July; 33894; 1654; 331; 35879; 19 August; 34960; 1678; 367; 37005; 33 September; 35157; 2964; 819; 38940; 30 October; 35353; 3334; 1099; 39786; 63 November; 34576; 3009; 1070; 38655; 58 December; 31690; 4634; 3396; 39720; 99 January; 29162; 4343; 2691; 36196; 102 February; 32868; 4174; 2092; 39134; 111 March; 38906; 3734; 1256; 43896; 91 April; 37232; 3598; 1311; 42141; 83 May; 38315; 3728; 1254; 43297; 53 June; 39482; 3546; 1071; 44099; 75 Total; 421595; 40396; 16757; 78748; 817 Fiscal Year 2006 July; 36091; 2971; 700; 39762; 56 August; 39955; 2791; 547; 43293; 61 September; 39576; 3875; 860; 44311; 91 October; 39647; 3902; 915; 44464; 81 November; 40242; 3345; 771; 44358; 65 December; 38504; 3317; 1032; 42853; 58 January; 39384; 3530; 854; 43768; 66 February; 37086; 29884; 562; 40632; 61 March; 45137; 3321; 566; 49024; 61 April; 40336; 3347; 498; 44181; 67 May; 43349; 3781; 627; 47657; 37 June; 42903; 3412; 526; 46841; 85 Total; 482110; 40576; 8458; 531144; 782 Fiscal Year 2007 July; 39727; 3200; 549; 43476; 57 August; 43216; 3274; 559; 47049; 64 September; 41311; 4192; 771; 46274; 67 October; 45025; 3843; 610; 49478; 72 November; 43292; 3959; 705; 47956; 68 December; 48816; 3184; 458; 46458; 39 January; 48846; 3198; 401; 47445; 60 February; 38551; 3575; 738; 42864; 50 Total; 337784; 28425; 4791; 371000; 477 (Editor’s note: A summary table with data by year and changes in data by year is presented. Data in the table is presented in the following order: Year; Trips on time; Late 16 to 30 minutes; Late greater than 30 minutes; Trips Completed; Number of Complaints) Fiscal Year 200505; 421595; 40396; 16757; 478748; 817 Fiscal Year 2006; 482110; 40576; 8458; 531144; 782 Change 2005 to 2006; 14.35%; .45%; negative 49.53%; 10.94%; negative 4.28%\ Fiscal Year 2007 through February 28; 337784; 28425; 4791; 371000; 477 Fiscal Year 2007 March through June (Projected); 506423; 42616; 7183; 556222; 715 Change 2006 to 2007; 5.04%; 5.03%; negative 15.08%; 4.72%; negative 8.55%
Fiscal Year 2005 July; 29326; 451; 152; 29929; 21 August; 30839; 435; 199; 31473; 24 September; 31355; 559; 245; 32159; 39 October; 31424; 559; 245; 32159; 39 November; 30856; 534; 189; 31579; 41 December; 24472; 2811; 1330; 28613; 113 January; 22208; 2229; 794; 25231; 44 February; 25176; 2167; 675; 28018; 53 March; 28180; 2044; 608; 30832; 60 April; 28251; 2076; 608; 30832; 60 May; 29981; 2092; 521; 32594; 43 June; 30765; 1809; 476; 33050; 20 Total; 342833; 17858; 6007; 366698; 527 Fiscal Year 2006 July; 28900; 1487; 352; 30739; 20 August; 32010; 1677; 385; 34072; 28 September; 31712; 23207; 656; 34675; 37 October; 31679; 1783; 399; 3861; 30 November; 32388; 1566; 314; 34268; 20 December; 31887; 1887; 472; 34246; January; 32008; 1426; 322; 33756; 22 February; 30238; 1296; 270; 31804; 18 March; 36526; 1391; 261; 38178; 17 April; 32828; 1394;277; 34499; 21 May; 34811; 1831; 497; 37139; 23 June; 35786; 1698; 384; 37868; 13 Total; 390773; 19743; 4589; 415105; 260 Fiscal Year 2007 (Through February 28) July; 33300; 1681; 362; 35343; 24 August; 37405; 1858; 305; 39568; 22 September; 35498; 2196; 491; 38185; 20 October; 37053; 2440; 602; 40095; 24 November; 36764; 2362; 550; 39676; 23 December; 36802; 2006; 465; 39273; 12 January; 37289; 1542; 283; 39114; 5 February; 33310; 1640; 357; 35307; 10 Total; 2874214; 15725; 3415; 306561; 140
Fiscal Year 2005; 342833; 17858; 6007; 366698; 527 Fiscal Year 2006; 390773; 19743; 4589; 415105; 260 Change 2005 to 2006; 13.98%; 10.56%; negative 23.61%; 13.20%; negative 50.66%\ Fiscal Year 2007 through February 28; 287421; 15725; 3415; 306561; 140 Fiscal Year 2007 March through June (Projected); 430916; 23576; 5120; 459612; 210 Change 2006 to 2007; 10.27%; 19.41%; 11.57%; 10.72%; negative 19.27%
Fiscal Year 2005 July; 22814; 861; 182; 23857; 12 August; 23184; 954; 213; 24361; 20 September; 22537; 1313; 406; 24256; 46 October; 23045; 1081; 359; 24485; 35 November; 22221; 1321; 383; 23925; 18 December; 17150; 2486; 1873; 21509; 84 January; 16179; 2238; 1285; 19702; 44 February; 18532;p 1902; 1086; 21520; 59 March; 21845; 1233; 370; 23448; 22 April; 21773; 1169; 228; 23170; 16 May; 22514; 1432; 316; 24261; 28 June; 22387; 1683; 456; 24526; 32 Total: 254181; 17672; 7157; 279010; 416 Fiscal Year 2006 July20830; 1137; 350; 22317; 15 August; 22491; 1320; 380; 24191; 25 September; 21537; 1763; 540; 23840; 30 October; 21878; 1693; 456; 24027; 39 November; 21763; 1868; 564; 24195; 29 December; 20737; 1917; 725; 23379; 29 January; 21798; 1204; 212; 23214; 9 February; 20463; 1034; 194; 21691; 21 March; 24604; 1364; 206; 26174; 23 April; 21246; 1273; 211; 22730; 25 May; 23322; 1455; 257; 25034; 16 June; 22431; 1531; 245; 24207; 25 Total; 263100; 17559; 4340; 284999; 286 Fiscal Year 2007 Through February 28 July; 21309; 1335; 247; 22891; 20 August; 23476; 1457; 314; 25247; 32 September; 22080; 1840; 390; 24310; 23 October; 23019; 1659; 293; 24971; 33 November; 22115; 1456; 299; 23870; 33 December; 21587; 1344; 270; 23201; 23 January; 21916; 1237; 210; 23363; 23 February; 19852; 1436; 297; 21595; 44 Total; 175364; 11764; 2320; 189448; 229
Fiscal Year 2005; 254181; 17672; 7157; 279010; 416 Fiscal Year 2006; 263100; 17559; 4340; 284999; 286 Change 2005 to 2006; 3.51%; .negative .64%; negative 39.36%; 2.15%; negative 31.25%\ Fiscal Year 2007 through February 175364; 11764; 2320; 189448; 229 Fiscal Year 2007 March through June (Projected); 262915; 17637; 3478; 284030; 343 Change 2006 to 2007; negative0.7%; .45%; negative 19.86%; negative 0.34%; 20.04%
Fiscal Year 2005 July; 17103; 489; 125; 17717; 13 August; 17797; 631; 126; 18554; 18 September; 18148; 704; 136; 18988; 19 October; 17832; 839; 137; 18808; 22 November; 18274; 522; 135; 18931; 34 December; 12409; 1553; 1564; 15526; 56 January; 12242; 1380; 1089; 14711; 41 February; 13342; 1245; 812; 15399+; 21 March; 15458; 1439; 1065; 17962; 44 April; 15069; 1687; 918; 17674; 30 May; 16089; 1547; 691; 18327; 31 June; 16386; 1545; 721; 18653; 31 Fiscal Year 2006 July; 15477; 920; 324; 16691; 26 August; 17396; 1016; 339; 18751; 28 September; 17198; 1451; 427; 19076; 43 October; 17458; 1310; 360; 19128; 34 November; 17106; 1268; 603; 18977; 35 December; 15829; 1674; 1072; 18575; 76 January; 16441; 1170; 593; 18204; 60 February; 15903; 930; 369; 17202; 42 March; 19536; 903; 233; 20672; 15 April; 17148; 1304; 385; 18837; 45 May; 19002; 1672; 563; 21237 June; 18106;1713; 407; 20226; 60 Fiscal Year 2007 Through February 28 July; 17594; 1116; 227; 18937; 10 August; 19131; 1059; 310; 20500; 36 September; 18569; 1257; 217; 20043; 36 October; 19617; 1588; 2529; 21464; 41 November; 18865; 1788; 362; 21015; 26 December; 18248; 1488; 427; 20163; 0 January; 18023; 1446; 457; 19926; 0 February; 16372; 1456; 318; 18146; 0 (Editor’s note: A summary table with data by year and changes in data by year is presented. Data in the table is presented in the following order: Year; Trips on time; Late 16 to 30 minutes; Late greater than 30 minutes; Trips Completed; Number of Complaints) Fiscal Year 2005; 190149; 13582; 7519; 211250; 360 Fiscal Year 2006; 206570; 15331; 5675; 227675; 497 Change 2005 to 2006; 8.64%; 12.88%; negative 24.52%; 7.73%; 38.06% Fiscal Year 2007 through February 28; 146419; 11198; 2577; 160194; 149 Fiscal Year 2007 March through June (Projected); 213519; 16789; 3864; 20171; 223 Change 2006 to 2007; 6.27%; 9.51%; negative 31.92%; 5.53%; negative 55.05% |