Public entities that operate fixed route transportation services for the general public are required by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to provide ADA Complementary Paratransit service for persons who, because of their disability, are unable to use the fixed route system. These regulations (49 CFR Parts 27, 37, and 38) include six service criteria, which must be met by ADA Complementary Paratransit service programs. Section 37.135(d) of the regulations requires that ADA Complementary Paratransit services meet these criteria by January 26, 1997.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA and the USDOT regulations. As part of its compliance efforts, FTA, through its Office of Civil Rights, conducts periodic reviews of fixed route transit and ADA Complementary Paratransit services operated by grantees.

The purpose of these reviews is to assist the transit agency and the FTA in determining whether capacity constraints exist in ADA Complementary Paratransit services. The reviews examine policies and standards related to service capacity constraints such as those measured by on-time performance, on-board travel time, telephone hold times, trip denials, and any other trip-limiting factors. The reviews consider whether there are patterns or practices of a substantial number of trip limits, trip denials, early or late pick-ups or arrivals after desired arrival (or appointment) times, long trips, or long telephone hold times as defined by established standards (or typical practices if standards do not exist). The examination of patterns or practices includes looking not just at service statistics, but also at basic service records and operating documents, and observing service to determine whether records and documents appear to reflect true levels of service delivery. Input also is gathered from local disability organizations and customers. Guidance is provided to assist the transit operator in monitoring service for capacity constraints.

An on-site compliance review of ADA Complementary Paratransit service provided by New York City Transit (NYCT) of New York, New York was conducted September 10-18, 2003. Planners Collaborative, Inc., located in Boston, Massachusetts, and Multisystems, Inc., located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, conducted the review for the FTA Office of Civil Rights. The review focused on compliance of NYCT's ADA Complementary Paratransit service with one specific regulatory service criterion: the "capacity constraints" criterion. Section 37.131(f) of the regulations requires that ADA Complementary Paratransit services be operated without capacity constraints.

This report summarizes the observations and findings of the on-site review of NYCT's ADA Complementary Paratransit service. First, a description of the approach and methodology used to conduct the review is provided. Then, a description of key features of transit services provided by NYCT - fixed route, demand responsive, and ADA Complementary Paratransit service - is provided. All of the findings of the review are summarized in Section IV. Observations and findings related to each element of the capacity constraint criteria are then presented in Sections V through IX. Recommendations for addressing some of the findings are also provided.

NYCT was provided with a draft copy of the report for review and response. A copy of the correspondence received from NYCT on June 28, 2004, documenting their response to the draft report

This review focused on compliance with the ADA Complementary Paratransit capacity constraints requirements of the DOT ADA regulations. Several possible types of capacity constraints are identified by the regulations. These include "wait listing" trips, having caps on the number of trips provided, or recurring patterns or practices that result in a substantial number of trip denials or missed trips, untimely pick-ups, or significantly long trips. Capacity constraints also include other operating policies or practices that tend to significantly limit the amount of service to persons who are ADA Complementary Paratransit eligible.

To assess each of these potential types of capacity constraints, the review focused on observations and findings regarding:

• Trip denials and "wait listing" of trips,
• Trip caps,
• On-time performance, and
• Travel times.

Observations and findings related to two other policies and practices that can affect ADA Complementary Paratransit use also are provided, including:

• Determinations of ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility, and
• Telephone capacity.

ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility determinations were assessed to ensure that access to service was not adversely impacted by inappropriate denials of eligibility for the service or unreasonable delays in the eligibility process. Telephone capacity was assessed because access to reservations and customer service staff is critical to the effective use of any ADA Complementary Paratransit service.

The review first involved the collection and examination of key service information prior to the on-site visit. This information included:

• A description of how the ADA Complementary Paratransit service is structured;
• Public information describing the ADA Complementary Paratransit service; and
• A description of the New York City Transit's (NYCT) standards for on-time performance, trip denials, travel times, and telephone service.

NYCT was requested to make additional information available during the on-site visit. This information included:

• Copies of completed driver manifests for recent months;
• Six months of service data, including the number of trips requested, scheduled, denied, canceled, no-shows, missed trips, and trips provided by NYCT;
• A breakdown of trips requested, scheduled, and provided;
• Detailed information about trips denied in the last six months including origin and destination information, day and time information, and customer information;
• Detailed information about trips identified in the last six months with excessively long travel times;
• Telephone call management records; and
• Records of recent customer comments and complaints related to capacity issues (trip denials, on-time performance, travel time, and telephone access).

An on-site review of the service was conducted from September 10-18, 2003. The on-site review began with an opening conference, held at 1:00 PM on Wednesday, September 10, 2003. NYCT representatives attending the meeting included: Lawrence Reuter, President; Millard Seay, Senior Vice President; Barbara Spencer, Executive Vice President; Mary McCorry, Legal Department and from NYCT Paratransit Division: Howard Ende, Vice President Paratransit Division; Brian Altschul, Director Telecommunications & Information Services; Michael Cosgrove, Contract Management Officer; Dennis Erkus, Command Center Officer; John Gaito; Aldo Martelli, Standards and Compliance Officer; Beverly Morris, Eligibility & Planning Officer, Maritza Troncoso, Financial Services Officer; and Carol Zwick, Customer Relations Officer. Marc Albrecht, Grants Management and Noreen Din, Civil Rights, from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority also attended. Don Kidston and David Chia of Planners Collaborative, and Russell Thatcher and Rosemary Mathias of TranSystems, Inc. represented the FTA review team. Cheryl Hershey, David Knight and David Schneider of the FTA's Office of Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. also participated in the opening conference via telephone.

Cheryl Hershey opened the meeting by thanking NYCT for their cooperation in the review. She described the purpose of the review and emphasized that it was intended to assist NYCT in providing effective ADA Complementary Paratransit service and acknowledged the service challenges that NYCT faces in such a large urbanized area. Ms. Hershey outlined the steps in the review process:

• Preliminary findings and an opportunity to respond would be provided at a closing meeting on Thursday, September 18;
• A draft report would be provided to the NYCT for review and comment; and
• NYCT's comments would be incorporated into a final report, which would then become a public document.

Don Kidston indicated the objective of the review to identify significant impediments, if any, to people with disabilities receiving the service that they are entitled to under the ADA, and to assist NYCT in improving service if warranted. He described the scope of the review as including review of policies, procedures, practices and performance that can affect availability of effective service. The areas to be addressed include eligibility, telephone access, reservations and scheduling, performance, operating procedures and practices and adequacy of resources. Mr. Kidston went on to present the schedule for the on-site review, including the parts of the operation that would be observed by day.

Mr. Reuter noted strong support for Access-A-Ride (AAR) by NYCT and MTA as evidenced by substantial increases in financial support for the program in recent years.

Following the opening conference, the review team toured the AAR offices at 2 Broadway in Manhattan and met with senior AAR staff to discuss the service structure and standards and the information available on-site. The review team also accepted reports and information provided by NYCT in response to FTA's earlier request. Members of the review team also observed call takers in the reservations section of the call center. Team members sat with selected reservationists, listened in on calls from riders and recorded the handling of trip requests.

During the morning of Thursday, September 11, 2003, three team members continued observations of the trip reservations and scheduling process. One team member observed call takers handling customer calls related to same day service issues. During the afternoon review team members began review and analysis of telephone performance reports, the trip scheduling process and reports on disposition of trip requests and performance in serving completed trips. Review team members also continued to observe call taker handling of trip reservations and scheduling and same-day trip inquiries.

On Friday, September 12 and Monday September 15 the review team split into teams of two and visited each of the eight primary service providers. One team visited Star Cruiser Transportation Inc. and the other Transit Facility Management Corp. on Friday morning; and MV Transportation, Inc. and RJR Paratransit Corp. on Friday afternoon. The teams visited Maggie's Paratransit Corp. and PTM Management Corp. on Monday morning and Atlantic Paratransit of NYC, Inc. and American Transit, Inc. on Monday afternoon. At each operator's site review team members observed dispatchers and interviewed drivers and managers regarding operating procedures and practices. Team members also collected information on personnel and equipment, as related to their capacity to provide effective service.

On Tuesday review team members returned to AAR offices at 2 Broadway and continued to interview managers and collect and review reports and information. One team member continued to review disposition of trip requests and performance in serving completed trips, focusing on one sample day. Team members also initiated review of the eligibility process, complaints received by NYCT, service design parameters, and the AAR budget process.

On Wednesday review team members continued review of disposition of trip requests and performance in serving completed trips and eligibility. One team member visited an NYCT AAR eligibility contractor. Another team member spent much of the day at NYCT's Headquarters at 370 Jay Street in Brooklyn analyzing duration of paratransit trips compared to fixed route trip duration for the same trip origin and destination. Team members also summarized the results of driver interviews and initiated analysis of operator resources. The review team leader briefed FTA on progress of the review.

Due to hurricane Isabel, which was forecast to impact New York City on Thursday, September 18, NYCT requested that the Closing Conference be rescheduled from 1:00 PM on Thursday to 8:00 AM. As a result the review team spent Wednesday evening continuing its analysis and preparing for the closing conference.

An exit conference was then held at 8:00 AM on Thursday, September 18, 2003. Attending the exit conference for NYCT were: Lawrence Reuter, President; Millard Seay, Senior Vice President; Barbara Spencer, Executive Vice President; Robin Bergstrom and Mary McCorry, Legal Department and from NYCT Paratransit Division: Howard Ende, Vice President Paratransit Division; Michael Cosgrove, Contract Management Officer; Dennis Erkus, Command Center Officer; John Gaito; Aldo Martelli, Standards and Compliance Officer; Beverly Morris, Eligibility & Planning Officer, and Carol Zwick, Customer Relations Officer. Attending from FTA's Office of Civil Rights were Michael Winter, Director; John Prince, Jr. Civil Rights Officer, Region II; and David Knight. Attending for the review team were Don Kidston and David Chia of Planners Collaborative, and Russell Thatcher and Rosemary Mathias of TranSystems.

Mr. Winter opened the exit conference by thanking the NYCT staff for their cooperation in the review.

The review team members then presented an overview of the assessment and initial findings in each of the following areas:

• Consumer input,
• Service design parameters,
• Eligibility determinations,
• Telephone access,
• Handling of trip requests and trip denials,
• Trip scheduling,
• On-time performance and service delivery,
• Trip duration,
• Operations, and
• Resources (vehicles, manpower, and financial resources).

There was discussion throughout presentation of the preliminary findings. Following the presentation, Mr. Winter noted that NYCT has made progress in recent years in improving AAR service. He expressed concern about the number of trips classified as no shows and the number of late trips. NYCT agreed to perform a more detailed analysis of these trips. Mr. Winter expressed concern that NYCT's suspension policy, were it fully enforced, could be overly restrictive and an impediment to use of the service by people who have disabilities. Mr. Winter also encouraged NYCT to increase public information on and availability of travel training to promote use of fixed route services by people with disabilities.

Mr. Winter and the review team again thanked NYCT for their cooperation during the field review. NYCT officials thanked FTA and the review team for their input.

New York City Transit (NYCT) is a New York State Public Benefit Corporation and public authority and is an affiliate of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). NYCT is the principal transit operator in New York City, providing a rapid rail and bus transit service throughout all five boroughs that comprise the city.

General - The train fleet consists of 5,758 subway cars and the bus fleet consists of 4,489 buses (Source: 2000 National Transit Database). NYCT operates 25 subway lines, 204 local and 31 express bus routes.

NYCT operates the nation's largest subway system with 228 miles of right-of-way linking three boroughs (Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens) with Manhattan and its central business district. NYCT also operates the Staten Island Railway (SIR), a single line, 14-mile rapid rail facility owned by the Staten Island Railway, another MTA subsidiary. The Staten Island Ferry links the SIR to Manhattan.

The NYCT rapid transit system consists of 731 track miles, of which 70 are on elevated structure. The deepest station is 181 feet below street level; the highest station is 87.5 feet above street level. The system picks up and drops off passengers at 468 stations and from 1077 train platforms. Average weekday ridership is approximately 4.3 million passengers with 1.7 billion unlinked passenger trips served annually.1 In addition NYCT serves approximately 822 million unlinked bus passenger trips each year. (Source: 2000 National Transit Database)

As of May 17, 2004, NYCT has 55 stations (40 accessible key stations and 15 other accessible stations) that are accessible individuals including people who use wheelchairs.

The NYCT rapid transit system is actually the consolidation of three historically separate systems known as the IRT, BMT and IND. These systems were constructed and operated by private and public entities in the early part of the 20th century. A major task of NYCT since its creation in 1953 has been the integration of the three systems into a single operating authority.

In addition to the core rapid rail system, NYCT is responsible for operation of service on the Staten Island Railway (SIR), another subsidiary of MTA. SIR is responsible for the railroad facilities, with the City of New York responsible for funding SIR. SIR was once owned and operated by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad as a passenger/freight railroad. In 1971, following years of increasing deficits, the SIR was acquired by the City of New York and later conveyed to the MTA as a subsidiary corporation.

SIR operates a single route over a 14.3-mile double track, grade separated right-of-way between the Staten Island communities of St. George and Tottenville. SIR uses 64 rail cars, which were overhauled in 1990 and 1991 by NYCT to serve 22 stations. St. George, the terminal for the Staten Island Ferry service, has the highest volume passengers of stations on the route. The Staten Island Ferry service, linking Staten Island with Manhattan, is operated by the City of New York. All SIR service is coordinated with the ferry service. In 1999 SIR served five million annual passenger trips. The heaviest concentration of passenger trip ends is at the mid sector of the route near the communities of Bay Terrace, Great Kills, Eltingville, Annadale and Huguenot.

In 2001 NYCT reported operating 3,840 buses during peak periods out of a fleet of approximately 4,500 buses.

Service Area - The NYCT service area is the City of New York including all five boroughs, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. The area covers 322 square miles and had a 2000 population of 8,008,278. New York City is the center of the New York - Northern New Jersey Urbanized Area, which covers 2,967 square miles and had a 2000 population of 21,200,000. (Source: United States Census)

NYCT buses operate throughout the five boroughs and in several locations serve areas (within three-fourths of a mile of the bus route) beyond the city limits. A number of NYCT bus routes operate less than three-fourths of a mile from the Bronx-Westchester County Border and the Queens-Nassau County border with routes 5 and 85 extending less than a mile into Nassau County.

Service description - The NYCT A Division consists of the former IRT system. This is the oldest NYCT Division with most facilities built between 1904 and 1928. The A Division includes the Lexington Avenue Line (Lines 4, 5 and 6), the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line (Lines 1/9, 2 and 3), the Flushing Line (Line 7), and the 42nd Street to Grand Central Terminal Shuttle (S). The Lexington Avenue and Seventh Avenue Lines link Manhattan with the Boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx. The Lexington Avenue Line is the second most crowded line in the system. The cars used on the A Division are shorter and narrower than those of the other Divisions.

NYCT's B Division consists of the former IND and BMT systems. Both the IND and BMT systems shared identical car dimensions and tunnel clearances. NYCT Subdivision B-1 is the former BMT system. This is the second oldest NYCT Division, largely constructed between 1915 and 1931. Subdivision B-2, formerly the IND system, is the newest Division, largely constructed between 1925 and 1948. The B Division lines include the Eighth Avenue Line (A, C and E), the Sixth Avenue Line (B, D, F and Q), the Broadway Line (N and R), the Nassau Street Line (J/Z and M), the 14th Street Line (L), the Cross-town Line (G) and the Franklin Avenue Shuttle (S). Many of these lines also feature branches that extend into the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. The Queens Boulevard corridor line (E, F, R and G) is the most crowded line of the rapid transit system.

Service Hours - Citywide service is available on a 24-hour basis. Train connections with the ferry service are scheduled 24 hours a day seven days a week. Many of NYCT's bus routes also operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Fares - The base fare (not including discounts) throughout the NYCT and SIR systems is $2.00 regardless of distances traveled. Free transfers are provided between vehicles. Fares on express buses are $4.00 and also include free transfers to other NYCT services.

On the SIR, fares are collected as passengers enter and exit the system at the St. George Terminal. No fares are collected at any other SIR station.

On the NYCT system, fares are collected at fare gates (turnstiles) as patrons enter the system. MetroCards are predominately used as the system-wide fare medium. Tokens are still accepted.

MetroCards may be purchased at staffed fare booths at the stations and from MetroCard vending machines. MetroCard rates are:

• 1-day Fun Pass - $7 for unlimited use of NYCT subway and local service for one day;
  
  
• 7-Day - $21 ($10.50 reduced fare) for unlimited rides on NYCT subway and local services;
  
  
• 30- Day Unlimited Ride - $70 ($35 reduced fare - for unlimited rides on NYCT subway and local services;
  
  
• Pay-Per-Ride - A $4 - $80 debit card for use on NYCT with free transfers within a two-hour period. Pay-Per-Ride offers an additional 20% in value on the debit card for refills of more than $10 in value.

When traveling via subway, people with disabilities and senior citizens upon presenting Medicare card or other specifically approved ID, such as a Paratransit ID, can purchase a $2 MetroCard from the station agent and receive a return-trip ticket. Reduced-fare MetroCards are also available by special application to NYCT.

General - NYCT assumed responsibility for operation of Access-A-Ride (AAR), its ADA Complementary Paratransit service in 1993. Previously the service had been operated by the New York City Department of Transportation. The Division of Paratransit in the NYCT Department of Buses is now responsible for AAR service. AAR has a 15 member advisory committee with new (replacement) members selected by consensus of the committee. The committee controls meeting agendas.

Trip requests are made to a central reservation center located at the offices of the NYCT Paratransit Division at 2 Broadway in New York City. Scheduling of trips is also performed in these offices. NYCT Paratransit managers oversee the reservation center operation and scheduling function, which are performed by a contractor, First Transit. Dispatch and operation of service is performed by each of eight contracted carriers at their operating facilities. The eight carriers and their locations are:

AMERICAN TRANSIT, INC.
Yonkers, N.Y. 10703

ATLANTIC PARATRANS OF NYC, INC.
Maspeth, N.Y. 11378

MAGGIES PARATRANSIT CORP.
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11208

MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11233

PTM MANAGEMENT CORP.
Jamaica, N.Y. 11435

RJR PARATRANSIT CORP.
Staten Island, N.Y. 10306

STAR CRUISER TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11234

TRANSIT FACILITY MANAGEMENT CORP.
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11208

A more complete description of operator locations appears in Appendix C. Although each of the carriers operates throughout the entire service area, each carrier is assigned trips based on 9 geographic zones. The assignment results in each carrier operating in a primary service area. The service zones are discussed further elsewhere in this report. Each of the eight operators is providing service under the terms of a five-year contract executed during August of 2001.

Customers direct concerns on the service day to the NYCT Paratransit Division's service center located at 2 Broadway. The service center addresses service issues with the appropriate carrier. The service center is also operated through a contract with First Transit under the supervision of NYCT managers.

Service Area - The DOT ADA regulations require that ADA Complementary Paratransit service be available within three-fourths of a mile of all bus routes, and within three-fourths of a mile of all rail stations (49 CFR §37.131(a)). NYCT bus and subway service, with a few exceptions, covers all of New York City. AAR provides service to all points within New York City.

There are a number of NYCT local bus routes in Queens and the Bronx that are within three-fourths of a mile of Nassau and Westchester Counties, respectively (in addition, there are bus routes in Queens operated by private carriers under contract to New York City that are within three-fourths of a mile of Nassau County). Table III.1 lists some of the NYCT bus routes that are within three-fourths of a mile of Nassau or Westchester Counties.

The areas in Nassau and Westchester Counties within three-fourths of a mile of an NYCT bus route are part of the mandated ADA Complementary Paratransit service area. With the exception of the areas associated with routes Q5 and Q85, AAR does not provide service beyond the borders of New York City.

NYCT coordinates cross-jurisdictional trips for ADA Complementary Paratransit service with three adjoining fixed route providers:

• Long Island Bus (ABLE Ride)
• Westchester County DOT (B Line)
• New Jersey Transit (Access Link)

For AAR riders who want to travel into Nassau County, AAR and ABLE Ride have three designated transfer points near the Queens/Nassau border. For AAR riders who want to travel into Westchester County, AAR and B Line have five transfer points near the Bronx/Westchester border. For AAR riders who want to travel into New Jersey, the transfer point is the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. For any cross-jurisdictional travel, a rider must be a registered client of both services. The rider must make separate reservations with each service, be responsible for coordinating the transfer between the two services, and pay separate fares. AAR does not track the number of cross-jurisdictional trips that its clients make.

Service Hours - The USDOT ADA regulations require that ADA Complementary Paratransit service be available during the same hours and days as fixed route service (49 CFR §37.131(e)). NYCT's subways operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many of NYCT's fixed bus routes also run around the clock. AAR also provides service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Fares - The DOT ADA regulations require that the fare for ADA Complementary Paratransit service be no more than two times the base fare for a comparable fixed route trip (49 CFR §37.131(c)). NYCT's base fare for the bus and subway is $2.00. The fare for AAR is also $2.00 for a one-way trip.

• The telephone answering standard is that the reservationist must respond to an average of 95% of all incoming calls within a maximum of 2 minutes after the call has been answered by the automatic call distribution ("ACD") system.

• NYCT has a goal of 0% denials.

• If the vehicle arrives at the pick-up location between five minutes before the scheduled pick-up time and 25 minutes after the scheduled pick up time the vehicle is considered to have arrived on time. The NYCT goal is that vehicles arrive on-time 95% of the time.

• NYCT's goal is to schedule 100% of the trips using the following travel time standards:

  Miles	Minutes
  > 0 and < 3	50
  > 3 and < 6	65
  > 6 and < 9	95
  > 9 and < 12	115
  > 12 and < 14	135
  > 14	155

Prior to and during the field portion of the compliance review the review team gathered input from the perspective of consumers to assist the reviewers in identifying compliance issues of concern to consumers. Input was collected from review of recent litigation, complaints on-file with FTA, consumer interviews, and review of customer complaints on file with AAR.

Three individuals and Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, the Brooklyn Center for the Independence of the Disabled, Inc., Bronx Independent Living Services, The Center for the Independence of the Disabled in New York, Inc. and Queens Independent Living Center, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit in November of 1998.

The complaint was settled on September 30, 1999. Among the agreements reached were:

• The denial rate will not exceed 1% of requested trips for the period December 1999 through the end date of the agreement, December 31, 2001.

• Late pick-ups will not exceed 10% monthly. The agreement defines a late pick-up as a pick-up past the pick-up window. Lateness caused by forces beyond NYCT's control is not included in this calculation.

• Carrier no-shows (missed trips) will not exceed 0.3% per month from July 2000 through the end date of the agreement. Carrier no-shows are defined as a trip in which the carrier's vehicle fails to appear within 45 minutes after the scheduled pick-up time.

• Negotiation between the parties of a methodology for comparing paratransit trip duration with the door-to-door travel time of the same trip using fixed route bus service. For inter-borough trips, use of subway service would also be included.

• NYCT must provide monthly reports that include:
  • Demand citywide, inter-borough and intra-borough;
  • Trips scheduled;
  • Trips completed;
  • Carrier no-shows (missed trips) by carrier;
  • Late pick-ups by carrier;
  • Vehicles in operation by carrier;
  • Vehicles ordered by NYCT for each carrier;
  • Report on complaints of long trips;
  • Number of taxi reimbursements;
  • Registered riders by borough and wheelchair use;
  • Number of passenger no-shows, early and late cancellations -city-wide, by borough, inter-borough and intra-borough;
  • Number of subscription trips.

NYCT reported that the U.S. District Court dismissed this action with prejudice in May 2002. According to NYCT the court found that NYCT had met all of the terms of the agreement except one and that it had met its good faith effort on that one term.

There were 2 recent complaints relating to AAR service on file with FTA. Both of those complaints, which were filed between April 25, 2000 and May 10, 2000, were closed.

Issues raised in the complaints were:

• Denied eligibility for Personal Care Attendant (PCA);
• No-show suspension policy;
• Poor scheduling;
• More than one wheelchair user scheduled to use vehicle, whose capacity is limited to one wheelchair at one time;
• Late pick-ups; and
• Malfunctioning lifts.

In August one of the reviewers met with a number of AAR customers and people who represented customers. Among those interviewed were three AAR customers and three consumer representatives. The purpose of these meetings was to identify concerns of consumers prior to the review as a means of focusing the review effort on potential problems. In addition a reviewer interviewed a customer representative.

Among the concerns identified were:

• Service Design - One consumer representative advocated greater use of NYCT fixed route services by people with disabilities and more emphasis on AAR as a "complementary" service. Other consumers indicated limitations in the accessibility and reliability of the fixed route system. Particular concern focused on NYCT contracted bus services. Options suggested for fixed route service were use of paratransit as a feeder service, and provision of strong customer support - both in providing strong customer support to address problems during trips and through more extensive fixed route travel training for people with disabilities.

• Eligibility - Consumers indicated that the eligibility process appears to be lenient, particularly with respect to limiting people to conditional eligibility. Consumers also described the process as long and without a clear definition of when the process began (when the application was considered complete). Consumers expressed concern that they had to deal with different eligibility staff rather than having one person assigned to their application and that this approach contributed to confusion, inefficiency. Consumers also indicated that eligibility staff was sometimes rude.

• Telephone Access - Between 4:00PM and 5:00 PM on weekends the call center will often stop taking calls for reservations. One customer said that when they got through at the end of a weekend day that they were told to call back later. Consumers indicated that callers using TTD were disconnected. Calls can take a long time when call takers are scheduling trips. Customers also indicated that it takes a long time to confirm ride status when vehicles are late.

• Reservations and Scheduling - Customers noted that the number of trip denials has declined in recent months. One customer indicated that times offered are usually good but on occasion are too early or too late. Customers said that subscription trips are changed by AAR without notifying the customer. Pick-up times are changed from that agreed upon at the time of the trip request resulting in drivers and customers having two different times for the same trip. Schedules were also described as illogical. Service was also described as variable. It appears that subscription routes are well designed but when changed result in poor performance which is corrected after a period of time. Customers said that rides scheduled with AAR appear to be lost in the system. On the day of the trip AAR would have no record of the requested trip. Customers questioned the turnover rate and training of call takers as possible contributing problems. One customer felt that schedules are not adjusted to traffic conditions in autumn resulting in longer trips than in summer.

• Transportation - Vehicles sometimes arrive early and leave before the pick-up time. One customer cited a vehicle arriving at 10:30 and departing at 10:37 for an 11:30 pick-up. Customers do not have the name of the operator making it difficult for them to identify the vehicle. Visually impaired customers are often stranded because the driver doesn't approach the customer and the customer is unaware that the vehicle has arrived. People have been dropped off by as much as 1.5 hours early resulting in customers discontinuing use of the service.

There is no effort to contact customer no-shows with the exception of one operator, RJR, which does it sometimes. Customers are categorized as no-shows when the vehicle arrives late and the customer is no longer waiting for the ride. A consumer provided an audiotape, which purports to demonstrate dispatchers directing drivers to classify missed trips as customer no-shows. Verification of what is said on the tape has not been possible because of the poor quality of the audio.

Missed trips from vehicles going to the wrong place are a problem. AAR has been addressing this problem by establishing standard pick-up locations.

Pick-ups are late in the evening. When a second vehicle is dispatched for a late pick-up it often arrives 1.5 hours late. AAR provides vouchers for Yellow Cab service for ambulatory customers who are stranded (missed trip). The vouchers are usually authorized after the trip is significantly late (1 hour). The number of vouchers available is limited by budget. Since Yellow cabs are not accessible to wheelchairs, the vouchers are not available to wheelchair users.

Travel times are long in the evenings causing some customers to avoid use of the service. Trips have been as long as 3 hours, exceeding NYCT's standard of 155 minutes (2 hours and 35 minutes) for trip length.

One consumer representative indicated that NYCT oversight and coordination with operators appeared limited.

• Resources - Consumers expressed concern about inconsistent vehicle maintenance and high driver turnover rate that they attributed to low pay rates. One indicated that drivers were insensitive.

• Customer Service - Almost all of the consumers and consumer representatives cited complaint tracking and resolution as a problem. NYCT has a goal of responding to complaints within 60 business days. A tracking system has been in place since November but according to consumers, performance in responding to complaints does not appear to be measured. Customers making complaints often are not informed as to the disposition of the complaint. They noted that calls to the resolution hot line were not treated by NYCT as complaints. They noted that the hot line was used for ride status or "where's my ride" calls.

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York also provided FTA with an extensive report on problems with AAR Services. Concerns raised include:

• Limitations of conditional eligibility
• Long eligibility process
• Eligibility of children
• Re-certification required of people with permanent or deteriorating conditions
• Policy changes not provided in alternate format for people with low vision
• Suspension policies too severe - suspension after 7 late cancellations and/or no-shows in 6 months, suspension for 15 days rather than 14 days in policy, 30 day appeal begins on date letter issued, not received. Subscription riders suspended from subscription service for 25% cancellations in 30 days.
• Not responding to telephone calls in queue at 5:00 PM
• Long time to make reservations
• Denial of next day trip requests
• Use of standby list for reservations
• Trip reservations lost in the system - AAR sometimes has no record of rides scheduled with customers
• Trips scheduled to the wrong destination
• Limits on schedule for return trips - 1.5 hour delay within borough, 2.5 hours between boroughs
• Unresponsive trip offers - Offers more than 1 hour from request or before customer is able to leave his/her activity
• Changed pick-up times - Subscription trip schedules are changed by AAR without notifying the passenger.
• Pressure to accept early pick-ups
• Late Cancellation and subscription missed trip policy
• Late pick-ups - Particularly during the afternoon; drivers appear to be reporting passenger pick-ups before they occur.
• Unreliable service
• Long hold times for ride checks
• Vehicles at wrong pick-up location
• No Show Policy - Passengers are incorrectly classified as no shows with no effort to confirm by AAR
• No effort to communicate vehicle arrival to people with low vision
• Stranded riders
• Inadequate back-up service - long wait for approval, pre-payment of taxi fare, delayed reimbursement, limited to ambulatory customers
• Long rides
• Indirect routing - Trips transporting customers in a zigzag pattern
• Inexperienced drivers - low driver pay rates and limited training, poor knowledge of routes
• Inaccessible sedans
• Poor van maintenance - high entry step, lift failures
• Unresponsiveness to complaints

Access-A-Ride (AAR) receives rider comments on its service by phone, e-mail, fax, and in writing. The telephone number for rider comments appears in the AAR brochure. The telephone number is also listed on the AAR web site, as well as in each rider newsletter. Telephone comments for all NYCT services are directed to this number.

AAR records and tracks comments concerning ADA Complementary Paratransit service through an email based system ("Right Now") that is used by all NYCT departments. A member of AAR's Customer Service Unit reviews the comments related to ADA Complementary Paratransit service. Comments related to carrier activities are forwarded to the appropriate carrier. The carrier is responsible for replying to these complaints (with approval from AAR). For comments concerning in-house activities, policies, or procedures, the Customer Service Unit develops the response, with help from other units (e.g., eligibility determination, contracts) as needed. A majority of replies are made in writing. Replies over the phone tend to be for complaints initially received by phone. All replies and other actions related to developing the reply are tracked in Right Now.

The goal of AAR is to reply to each complaint within 60 days. However, at the time of the review team's visit, AAR was not tracking its performance in meeting this goal.

For the first 7 months of 2003, AAR had a total of 6,902 complaints recorded in Right Now (AAR had also received 394 commendations during that period). Table III.2 presents the top categories (at least one percent) of complaints for that period. AAR's Customer Service Unit developed these categories.

The 6,092 complaints yield an average of 986 per month. In 2002, AAR recorded 15,660 complaints, or 1,305 per month. In 2001, AAR recorded 12,012 complaints, or 1,001 per month.

The Customer Service Unit staff said that they use the tracking system to "proactively determine problems." Based on the trends in number and types of complaints, they alert other service units for areas requiring focus.

The Customer Service Unit has not analyzed complaints by individual carriers. Until 2003, they had not consistently recorded that information in Right Now.

As can be seen in Table III.2, principal customer complaints were for missed trips (26.3%), late pick-ups (15.8%) and long ride times (8.5%).

1. NYCT provides AAR service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2. NYCT's fare of $2.00 for AAR is the same as NYCT's base fare for bus and subway service. This fare complies with the regulations for ADA Complementary Paratransit service.

3. AAR provides service to all points within New York City. However, AAR does not provide service in portions of Nassau or Westchester Counties that are within three-fourths-of-a-mile of NYCT local bus routes. Service to customers in these areas is provided through carriers operating in these areas requiring customers in the AAR service area to transfer to AAR services. The requirement for customers outside of New York City within three-fourths-of-a-mile of NYCT fixed route service to reserve separate trips from both the operator in the county of trip origin and AAR, to transfer, and pay two fares does not appear to meet the three-fourths-of-a-mile obligation.

• NYCT should consider adjusting the service area for AAR to include all addresses within three-fourths-of-a-mile of any NYCT bus route, including addresses in Nassau and Westchester Counties. Alternatively, AAR should consider reserving both legs of trips of a one-way trip for the customer with one call. This would permit the customer to reserve the trip with one call as is done with other AAR customers and permit AAR reservationists to schedule the entire trip with the adjacent county to assure transfers do not result in significantly long trip times. Similarly, AAR could consider free transfers for such trips so that these customers are paying the same fares as AAR customers.

The following summarizes the findings made as a result of the review. The findings are observations of policies, procedures, practices and performance that relate to delivery of service as required by USDOT ADA Regulations at the time of the review. Findings may be positive, neutral, or observations of opportunities to improve service delivery. The bases for these findings are presented in other sections of this report. Findings of opportunities to improve service should be used to identify corrective actions proposed by NYCT. Recommendations are also included in the body of the report for NYCT's consideration in developing corrective actions.

1. Service Parameters
   
   

   1. NYCT provides AAR service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

   2. NYCT's fare of $2.00 for AAR is the same as NYCT's base fare for bus and subway service. This fare complies with the regulations for ADA Complementary Paratransit service.

   3. AAR provides service to all points within New York City. However, AAR does not provide service in portions of Nassau or Westchester Counties that are within three-fourths-of-a-mile of NYCT local bus routes. Service to customers in these areas is provided through carriers operating in these areas requiring customers in the AAR service area to transfer to AAR services. The requirement for customers outside of New York City within three-fourths-of-a-mile of NYCT fixed route service to reserve separate trips from both the operator in the county of trip origin and AAR, to transfer, and pay two fares does not appear to meet the three-fourths-of-a-mile obligation.

2. ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility Determinations
   
   

   1. NYCT has established a thorough process for determining ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility. In addition to a paper application, documentation/verification of disability is collected when appropriate. In-person interviews and functional assessments are also conducted on an as-needed basis. Professionals, with experience in assessing functional abilities, conduct in-person assessments.

   2. A review of 41 recent determinations of eligibility found that denials of eligibility appear to be appropriate. The practice of conducting an in-person interview and/or functional assessment before eligibility is denied (in most cases) is also a good way to ensure that there were no misunderstandings and miscommunications in the paper application process.

   3. A review of 23 determinations where "conditional eligibility" was granted indicated that applicants did appear to be able to use fixed route service some of the time. However, in two instances it was noted that the specific types of conditional eligibility granted might not have covered all circumstances under which applicants may not be able to use fixed route service. In one case, the type of conditional eligibility granted appeared to be specific to one trip that the applicant reported making. In the second case, an applicant who could walk limited distances and was unable to use the subway system was granted eligibility for trips involving travel of "more than 1-2 blocks," but not "inter-borough" eligibility. As a result, in the rare instance that the customer wanted to schedule a trip from within a block of a subway station the trip might not be accepted. In making determinations of conditional eligibility, NYCT should ensure that the types of conditional eligibility granted cover all situations that prevent travel by fixed route.

   4. Conditional eligibility based on path-of-travel barriers (the "navigational" type of conditional eligibility) does not appear to be used very often - even in cases where it appeared that applicants likely would be affected by such barriers. It was also noted that even if this type of conditional eligibility were to be granted, the specific barriers that would affect the person would not be included in the determination (e.g., uncontrolled intersections, lack of curb-cuts or accessible sidewalks, etc.). Without more specific information about the barriers that prevent travel, making appropriate decisions about trip eligibility for individuals affected by path-of-travel barriers would be difficult, if not impossible.

   5. Use of the "trip-by-trip" conditional eligibility category, which recognizes travel limitations from day-to-day due to episodic/variable disabilities or health conditions, was reportedly not being utilized at the time of the on-site visit due to a lack of compatibility with the subscription function of the reservations and scheduling software system.

   6. Based on an interview of staff at the Gramercy assessment site, it appears that contractors consider only assistance needed to use fixed route service when deciding whether a PCA is needed. The contractor in making the eligibility recommendation did not consider PCA assistance needed by the traveler at his or her trip destination.

   7. If NYCT requires additional information of applicants or requires applicants to participate in an in-person interview/assessment, it suspends the application processing time. As a result the time required to process applications for applicants requiring an interview for eligibility from the time that the written application was first submitted can be considerably longer than 21 days. Such applicants, who may ultimately be determined eligible for service, are not offered service during the period beyond 21 days from receipt of the initial completed application. This procedure appears to prevent ADA Eligible people from using the service during this period.

   8. About 36% of determinations that do not involve an in-person interview and/or assessment take more than 21 days and 2% take more than 35 days; about 58% of determinations that involve an in-person interview and/or assessment take more than 21 days and 14% take more than 35 days. NYCT has excellent policies and practices in-place, though, to enable applicants to use the service when determinations take more than 21 days to complete. The practice of sending a confirmation letter stating the date the application was received and indicating that the service can be used 21 days after that date, and the practice of immediately entering rider information into the ADEPT system with an "eligible date" 21 days after the date of receipt of the completed application, is particularly proactive and helpful.

   9. NYCT's current practice of identifying obvious instances of excessive no-shows and then carefully evaluating possible circumstances beyond the rider's control that may have caused the no-shows appears to meet the intent of the regulations.

   10. While the current practice appears to be appropriate, the formal policy, which considers seven or more no-shows or late cancellations in a six-month period to be an abuse of the service could unreasonably limit service to ADA eligible customers and does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the regulations. Appendix D of 49 CFR Part 37 indicates that, "suspensions of eligibility for no-shows are intended to prevent a pattern or practice of no-shows." It is further noted, "a pattern or practice involves intentional, repeated or regular actions, not isolated, accidental or singular incidents." Seven no-shows or late cancellations in a six-month period, particularly when considering a customer who uses the service frequently, may not rise to the level of a pattern or practice as intended by the regulations and described in the associated appendix.

   11. The regulations allow transit systems to suspend service for a reasonable period for riders who abuse the system by regularly "no-showing" for scheduled trips. While transit agencies have in recent years also considered "late cancellations" to be an abuse of the system and have considered this in their suspension policies, the effects of a late cancellation should be operationally equivalent to a no-show in terms of the negative impact on the service. Cancellations made several hours in advance of the scheduled pick-up time would still seem to allow the system's dispatchers to use the open vehicle time to respond to same-day operating issues. Systems, which operate without "floater" vehicles or with limited "floater" capacity, often rely on same-day cancellations to be able to operate reliably and on-time. NYCT should revise its policy of suspending persons who do not cancel by 5:00 PM the day before service and should ensure that its definition of a "late cancellation" is operationally equivalent to a no-show in terms of its impact on the service.

3. Telephone Access
   
   

   1. AAR's phone system capacity appears to be adequate to handle calls in a timely manner. Average hold times and call times for calls to reservations are under twenty seconds. An exception to prompt response times is occasional 30-minute periods with long average hold times. These infrequent periods of poor performance seems to result from unforeseen shortage of reservationists staffing. Overall the system performance appears to be excellent and not an impediment to using AAR service.

   2. AAR's call management system does not provide data to explicitly present AAR's performance relative to its standard. The system generates data by 30-minute period and by day for average and maximum telephone hold times and call times, but not by AAR's telephone answering performance standard of an average of 95 percent of calls answered within two minutes after the call is transferred to the reservationists.

4. Reservations
   
   

   1. AAR does not accept next day trip requests for the period 12:00 Midnight to 4:00 AM. AAR defines "next day" to begin at 4:00 AM rather than 12:00 Midnight. For a trip between Midnight and 4:00 AM, a caller must call two days in advance (e.g., Monday for a trip on Wednesday at 1:00 AM).

   2. NYCT offers trips between 61 and 65 minutes after the pick-up time requested by the customer. One occurrence of this practice was identified while observing reservations. A scheduled time was offered that was 61 minutes after the requested time. The review team also looked at all trip offers for requested pick-up times on May 15. Of 5,278 requests for pick-up times, 108 (2%) were offered trips that were between 61 and 65 minutes after the requested trip times. Of those 108 trip offers, 24 were classified as customer refusals. This was 8.7% of 277 customer refusals on May 15. This practice does not comply with 49 CFR §37.131(b) and these offers of pick-up times more than one hour from the requested time should be classified as denials of service. This practice apparently results from using the pick-up window in the scheduling software in a way that considers the beginning of the pick-up window (5 minutes before the scheduled time) rather than the scheduled time, when offering trips to customers. NYCT indicated that they are in the process of reprogramming the software to discontinue this practice.

   3. The practice of limiting the times riders can book return trips to more than 90 minutes after the going trip pick-up or appointment time for intra-borough trips and 2.5 hours after the going trip pick-up or appointment for inter-borough trips, does not appear to provide service that is comparable to fixed route service as required by 49 CFR §37.121.

   4. Other than as noted above, no trip denials were noted during observations of reservations. A total of 151 trip requests were observed and scheduling options existed and trips were offered in all cases. In reviewing NYCT data for May 15, no denials, other than as addressed in Finding D.1, were identified. NYCT reported 2 denials during the month of May and none between June 1 and August 31.

   5. Waiting lists and trip caps also do not appear to be used. Some trips are placed on standby, but in these cases riders are told that the trip will be provided and that a scheduler will get back to them with an exact pick-up time.

   6. Reviewers observed a thirteen percent (13%) trip refusal rate by riders. This observation appears to be significantly higher than the percentage of refused trips reported by NYCT. It is recommended that NYCT examine the way that trip refusals are captured to be sure that all refusals are appropriately reported.

   7. A detailed training program and call handling script have been prepared and reservationists appear to be well trained and were observed to follow the established script in most cases.

   8. Reservationists were observed to diligently repeat back and confirm key trip reservation information with callers. Reservationists also consistently conducted a final verification of the trips scheduled at the end of each call.

   9. In some cases, reservationists repeated back and verified trip requests information very rapidly and it was not clear in some cases that callers were focusing on all of the information being repeated.

   10. The current practice of offering only one possible pick-up time in response to a trip request and not searching for alternate times within the one-hour before or after the requested time may not be consistent with the concept of "negotiat[ing]" times as detailed in 49 CFR §37.131(b)(2) of the USDOT's ADA regulations.

   11. Some reservationists made limited use of the "pick-up time with earliest departure" in responding to customer needs in scheduling trips. While some reservationists often used this option, others indicated that they only used this scheduling option if callers specifically said they could not leave earlier than a certain time. Also, procedures for using the "pick-up with earliest departure" scheduling option did not appear to be clearly addressed in the Reservations Manual. Use of this option for all trips to which it applies could result in trip offers that are more responsive to customer needs and avoid seeking additional trip times when the customer can't use the offer.

   12. Some reservationists appeared to continue to place trip requests from riders who could not be served by the supplemental taxi program (i.e., required an accessible vehicle) and which were received after 2:30 PM the day before service, in "standby" mode until 4:00 PM. Others appeared to offer "standby" status up to 5:00 PM. Procedures for handling these situations do not appear to be addressed in the "Reservations Manual."

   13. Procedures for when to search for options to the one time given by the system did not appear to be clearly addressed in the Reservations Manual.

   14. There appear to be enough reservationists on-duty throughout the week to handle calls from riders in a timely way.

5. Scheduling
   
   

   1. The scheduling process appears to be well structured. NYCT and First Transit staff appeared highly knowledgeable of the scheduling process and software. Staff appears to be pro-active in reviewing schedules, addressing scheduling problems, and seeking out improvements to the scheduling process and resultant schedules.

   2. Computer software modifications made over the past year seem to have significantly reduced earlier problems encountered during the transition from the PASS to the ADEPT software system.

   3. Use of the beginning of the pick-up window (5 minutes before the scheduled time) in the scheduling parameters rather than the scheduled time appears to have resulted in offers of schedule times to customers that are more than 60 minutes from the requested time. NYCT staff indicated that they are modifying the software parameters to prevent trip offers of more than 60 minutes from the requested time.

   4. Subscription trips are handled by a separate unit and appear to be adequately staffed for the current volume. Changes to the subscription program (allowing subscriptions for one trip per week instead of limiting subscriptions to three per week) could increase the burden on this department as they process and monitor subscription requests.

   5. Schedulers' use of The Point Coding List Report, Multi-Boro Report, standby list, and other reports appears to be effective in refining schedules.

   6. By working with the operators, NYCT appears to effectively address scheduling issues that affect service performance.

   7. Active efforts to improve schedules through the application of the affinity factor, on-street travel time checks, and the use of "Peter Pan" trips appear to have had a positive effect on the quality of the schedules.

   8. Scheduler's do not appear to review actual service performance to identify significantly late or long trips but instead rely upon customer complaints and the Multi-Boro Report and operator feedback to identify such trips and "ghost runs." Review of actual performance of significantly late, long and missed trips should be done to assist schedulers in identifying the cause of such trips, such as travel time assumptions, geo-coding errors, etc., and further reduce the number of significantly long, late and missed trips.

   9. Assigning trips with uncertain pick-up times (such as return trips from dialysis) to the black car voucher program appears to provide better service for the passengers and removes potential problem trips from scheduled routes.

   10. There appear to be adequate First Transit schedulers on duty throughout the week to handle trip-scheduling responsibilities, including customer callbacks, as needed.

6. Transportation Operations
   
   
   1. Dispatch
      
      

      1. Dispatch procedures and operations generally appear to be effective with good coordination between the First Transit Control Center and the Operator's dispatchers.

      2. Routing of customers to different departments for each service issue can consume more staff time and discourage customers from resolving their concerns and using AAR service than addressing as many issues as practicable with one staff person. Customers who call the control center for reasons other than a same day service issue are transferred to another AAR department. In one instance a caller was rerouted to reservations to make a next day trip change after making a same day cancellation. In another instance a customer who was provided incorrect or incomplete information was routed back and forth between the control center and eligibility before resolving the customer's problem.

      3. Observed calls from customers inquiring as to the status of their ride appeared to be addressed effectively, with responses in less than four minutes. However, operator dispatchers indicated that the control center would often call to check on the status of rides that were operating within the "on-time" window. This practice can unnecessarily consume staff time and distract dispatchers from more important activities.

      4. The wording of dispatcher calls to customers announcing driver arrivals before the pick-up window could be construed to encourage, or require, customers to board the vehicle before the beginning of the pick-up window. In some instances when drivers arrive at pick-up locations before the pick-up window, dispatchers were observed telling customers that their "vehicle is waiting for them."

      5. In general, operators were observed applying procedures for customer no-shows effectively. In one instance a driver classified a customer as a no-show without dispatcher approval. In several other observations the dispatcher called the customer before the beginning of the pick-up window but not during the pick-up window. Since the customer may not be expecting the vehicle until the pick-up window begins, the early call could result in a missed connection with the customer.

      6. Same day changes in customer schedules were generally handled very well. Reviewers observed control center dispatchers making a positive effort to accommodate real time requests by customers for schedule changes.

      7. The practice of leaving a scheduled trip unchanged, when customers indicate that they will be late, until one hour before the scheduled pick-up time, limits utilization of the slack time created by the rescheduled trip.

      8. Some dispatchers appeared unclear that the scheduled time used in the software is intended to guide the driver in performing their trip. Conversely, dispatchers all seemed sensitive to the importance of the promised time in the schedules when monitoring service.

      9. Most dispatchers appeared to very effectively track performance of their routes and move trips as needed. Dispatchers poll drivers for location rather than drivers calling in their locations as indicated in AAR procedures. Polling drivers permits dispatchers to communicate with drivers at a time of their choosing, thereby avoiding interruptions from drivers when dispatchers are busy addressing late runs or no-shows.

      10. Reviewers observed some dispatchers at MV as much as 60-90 minutes late in polling drivers and devoting little time to monitoring late runs and taking corrective action.

      11. It appeared that dispatchers did not consistently report incorrect customer or trip information to the responsible department sufficiently for appropriate corrective action or that the responsible department was not always following through to correct incorrect information. Reviewers observed a number of instances of incorrect information causing service problems. This included incorrect customer IDs, addresses, phone numbers and GIS locations. In one instance an applicant for eligibility could not schedule service because of incorrect information on a form letter. Some of these problems with misinformation were recurring.

      12. The time required for operators to obtain authorization from the control center for recovery routes (route extensions or additions to address service problems) may contribute to late and missed trips. The use of route extensions and additions appears to be an effective way of addressing real time service problems. However, the time from identification of a late route by an operator's dispatcher to the route appearing late in the scheduling/dispatch system to request and authorization for recovery could be extensive. Most operators indicated that the time is excessive and they dispatch vehicles in advance of control center authorization to minimize delays to customers.

      13. The number and assignment of dispatchers appeared to be adequate for each of the operators. Most operators maintain a ratio of no more than about 20 runs per dispatcher most of the time. MV Transportation appears to have dispatchers handle up to 28 runs each on Monday and Friday afternoons. Managing 28 runs at one time could reduce the dispatcher's effectiveness in maintaining schedule control of the runs.

      14. The skill of the dispatchers appeared to be good but varied among operators and among dispatchers, which is to be expected in a large operation with personnel having differing amounts of experience. While some operators, particularly those with more experienced dispatchers, appeared to be very effective at monitoring their runs and quickly taking corrective actions when delays occurred and working cooperatively, others, particularly at MV, appeared to have difficulty tracking their runs and identifying and correcting problems.

      15. Slowdown in computer operation was reported to occur frequently by Atlantic Paratrans dispatchers and was observed on Monday afternoon, September 15, 2003. During this time, dispatchers were not able to use the system for other functions.

      16. Communications equipment appeared to be adequate to support dispatch operations.

   2. Transportation
      
      

      1. Operator's practice of reviewing and revising schedules before and during the service day appears to positively contribute to service delivery.

      2. Not all drivers understood the difference between the estimated time and the negotiated pick-up times listed on the manifest. This could cause confusion in running their route.

      3. Not all drivers knew the correct pick-up window of -5 minutes/+25 minutes. This could contribute to drivers encouraging passengers to leave early, late pick-ups and miscommunication with customers.

      4. Some drivers made changes to their routes and told the dispatcher after the fact or not at all. This failure to obtain prior dispatcher approval could cause routes to run late, by either inefficient changes or dispatcher having incorrect information on the status of the run.

      5. Operators appear to have sufficient equipment to provide service.

      6. MV Transportation appears to have a high percentage of its passenger equipment assigned to maintenance and repair. In August of 2003, 14 to 29% of MV T