Location: St. Louis, MO
Date of Final Report: February 5, 2007  

Metro  Transmittal Letter 

Mr. Larry E. Salci
President & CEO
Metro
707 North First Street
St. Louis, Missouri  63102-2595

February 5, 2007 

Dear Mr. Salci:

Thank you for your response to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) letter and preliminary report of findings of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Complementary Paratransit compliance review conducted at Metro in April 2005.  Enclosed is the final report (Enclosure 1) that incorporates Metro’s official response by attachment.  In addition, in response to Metro’s comments, the performance analysis presented in the draft report has been revised in the final report to more closely reflect the service levels for ADA complementary paratransit eligible individuals.  As of the date of this letter, the final report became a public document and is subject to dissemination under the Freedom of Information Act of 1974.  It will also be made available on FTA’s ADA website here.

We have also enclosed a progress table (Enclosure 2) listing FTA’s understanding of the corrective actions either planned or taken by Metro in response to the preliminary findings contained in the draft report.  If you feel that our summarization of corrective actions is inconsistent with your response, please inform us in writing as soon as possible.

Following most of the areas where findings were made, we have:

• Identified responses that adequately address the finding
• Requested documentation of results and outcomes
• Requested Metro to clarify specific corrective actions based on its response to the draft report findings

Please use the enclosed table or similar structure as the format to report progress to FTA on the corrective actions Metro has completed or intends to implement as a result of our findings.  Please identify each response by item number (e.g., A.1, etc.).  The requested documentation, along with updates on the status of implementation of proposed corrective actions, should be provided in quarterly reports to FTA.  Each report should include the planned and actual completion date of the corrective action; the current status and contact person information for each corrective action; and specific reporting requests cited in this letter and on the enclosed table.  The first report will be due on April 16, 2007, and should include data for the months of January through March 2007 and identify any actions completed prior to that date that have not already been addressed.  Additional reports will be due by July 15, 2007, October 15, 2007, and January 15, 2008, and each calendar quarter thereafter until FTA releases Metro from this reporting requirement.

We recognize the progress that you have made in responding to the findings of the assessment as presented in your October 11, 2006, letter.  On a number of issues, however, we request that your first progress report more fully respond to the findings in this letter, which are also addressed in the progress table.  These issues can be broadly presented as service performance and measurement, misapplication of the regulations, and unclear customer communications.

Below is a partial list of areas where further action is required by Metro.  Please see the enclosed table for a complete list of actions and findings.  Metro should respond to the table, not to the partial list below, which is provided merely to highlight these areas of major concern.

We would also like to take this opportunity to raise two issues that have recently come to our attention, relating to telephone access and a new policy requiring transfers.  We will not include these as findings in the report, because they were not raised at the time of the review.  However, we feel this is an appropriate time to bring them to your attention, and to ask for more information as part of our on-going correspondence.  Moreover, the developments directly impact several findings and Metro’s compliance with the ADA, as discussed below.

Regarding telephone access, communication this month with consumer advocates in St. Louis first brought to our attention that consumers experience busy signals when attempting to make reservations.  To substantiate this, my staff made 60 calls on January 29, spread out across Call-A-Ride’s four hotlines between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.  Of those calls, all received busy signals except for six.  While we did not wait on the phone for all of those six that went through, one placed at 11:11 a.m. was on hold for six minutes before being answered, and a second at 2:58 p.m. was still on hold after 12 minutes when we abandoned that call.  On January 30, my staff made two more attempts to get through on your reservations line during the 10 o’clock hour.  The first got through on the first call, but remained on hold for 15 minutes before connecting with reservations.  The second received 21 busy signals (taking 4 minutes), and then got through and was on hold for 18 additional minutes—a total of 22 minutes just to get to a reservationist.  Not only are the long hold times of concern, but more importantly the existence of busy signals suggests that Metro’s measurement of average time in queue has only limited relation to actual constraints on telephone capacity.  Because Metro presented its average wait time in queue for FY 2007 (through September 06) positively in finding C.1, please report on average hold times (as instructed under finding C.2) and also busy signals (as outlined below in finding C.2) in your following progress reports.

Regarding a new policy requiring transfers, this first came to our attention through local media coverage last month.  While a transfer policy is certainly allowable, and we leave it to Metro to determine what method of service produces the most efficiency, we ask that you further explain this procedure with your first quarterly progress report, as part of finding E.1.10.  Of critical importance to compliance is whether these transfers are conducted as a “hand-off” or if riders are required to wait unattended for a second van.  If it is the latter, we are interested in how Metro accounts for the safety of riders and measures effects on on-time performance.  See the attached chart for more detail.

A.  ADA Complementary Service Criteria

4.  Finding:  Metro Call-A-Ride Plus service schedule does not include service for all days and hours of scheduled service for several Metro Bus routes.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Metro acknowledges that there were a very small number of bus routes in selected areas that operated slightly earlier or later than the Call-A-Ride service.  When the new software system for paratransit operations is implemented, we will be able to identify and correct any discrepancies.  It should be noted that Metro’s fixed route system changed dramatically on August 28, 2006 when the Shrewsbury I-44 branch of the MetroLink opened for revenue service.  Nearly every route in Missouri has changed since the ADA paratransit review was conducted in April 2005.  There is also a very strong possibility that fixed route service may be reduced significantly in FY 2007 to achieve a balanced budget.
Metro will comply with the ADA requirement to provide complementary paratransit service within 3/4-mile of regular fixed route service during the hours of operation of the applicable fixed route service.  Metro will analyze recent and potential fixed route changes that could occur effective July 1, 2007.  Any changes needed to comply with the service area requirements would be implemented in July 2007.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Please describe the actions that Metro will take prior to implementation of a new software system for paratransit operations or fixed route changes to provide ADA complementary paratransit service during the same hours as the fixed route service in all areas with 3/4-mile of fixed route service.

5.  Finding:  For trips of two or three zones, it appears that the Call-A-Ride Plus fare of $3.50 can be more than two times the fare of a comparable fixed route trip on Metro by a typical user, if that user is traveling without a transfer on Metro Link one of the many Metro Bus routes that serve multiple Call-A-Ride zones.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Metro does not have the ability to analyze and apply ADA paratransit fares on a trip-by-trip basis and the zonal system used has been generally acceptable to the community.  Metro understands that fares charged for any ADA paratransit trip are not to exceed twice the applicable full fixed route fare and will analyze alternate methods for calculating ADA paratransit fares.  Fare changes require community input so it is unlikely that any fare changes will occur before July 2007.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Please describe the actions Metro will take prior to July 2007 so that riders receiving ADA complementary paratransit service are not paying fares more than two times the fixed route fare.

6.  Finding:  The transfer charge for Call-A-Ride Plus trips that include transfers to fixed route service can further increase the difference between Call-A-Ride Plus fares and fixed route fares for trips with the same trip origin and destination.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  This is analogous to finding 5 above and will be considered as ADA paratransit fares are analyzed.  It should be noted that currently very few customers transfer to bus and rail as conditional eligibility is not currently enforced.  In operational practice, customers who have spent a considerable amount of time on a van traveling across zones are taken to their final destination and not required to transfer to a fixed route vehicle.  Fare changes require community input so it is unlikely that any fare changes will occur before July 2007.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Please see A.5.

B.  ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility

1.  Finding:  Metro’s policy is to make determinations of ADA complementary paratransit eligibility based on whether the applicant’s mobility aid meets the definition of a “common wheelchair.”  This determination fails to make the distinction between the eligibility of the applicant and the applicant’s mobility aid.  The determination of eligibility should be made solely based on the applicant’s ability to use fixed route service as addressed in 49 CFR §37.123, and not on the mobility aid that the applicant uses.  The decision to limit service to mobility aids that meet the definition of a common wheelchair should be addressed by Metro as a separate issue from eligibility.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Metro disagrees strongly and requests reconsideration of this finding.  ADA regulations 49 CFR §37.165(b) requires transit providers to transport all “common wheelchairs”.  Mobility devices that exceed the dimensions or weight specified do not have to be transported. 49 CFR §37.123 (2) (ii) states “An individual using a common wheelchair is eligible…”  The ADA Paratransit Eligibility Manual (page 6) defines a “common wheelchair” and states “An individual would not be eligible for paratransit services under category 1 if they could not use an accessible bus because their mobility aid was too large or too heavy for the lift”. On page 58, it states, “It may also be helpful to request detailed information about the type, size, and weight of wheelchairs to determine if the applicant uses a ‘common wheelchair.’”  Clearly, the use of a mobility aid and whether it is a “common wheelchair” must be considered in conferring ADA paratransit eligibility, which is to be based on the applicant’s functional abilities as they relate to transit and not simply the presence of a disability. The mobility aid used is an essential element of an applicant’s functional ability to use any transit service.

It is important to note that “ADA Paratransit Certification” in one jurisdiction requires that ADA paratransit services be provided to the individual when he or she travels to other jurisdictions, nationwide.  If the standards regarding a common wheelchair are not considered by the certifying agency, nationwide usability of ADA paratransit services cannot be ensured.  The individual’s ADA paratransit eligibility cannot be properly determined without consideration of the mobility device used.

Metro will continue its current practice until otherwise directed. The requirement for a common wheelchair is currently included in the Call-A-Ride Plus section of Metro’s “Public Transit Options for Customers with Disabilities” brochure and will be clarified in the next printing of the “Transit Access Program” brochure when current brochures are depleted or by June 30, 2007.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Metro must distinguish between the individual and the individual’s mobility aid in making the determination of eligibility.  Metro’s response correctly states that the ADA regulations do not require Metro to transport mobility devices that exceed the dimensions and weight of a “common” wheelchair.   However, a person who normally uses an oversized wheelchair may be able to travel on Metro using a common wheelchair or other device. 

A person who is otherwise eligible for ADA complementary paratransit service may not be denied eligibility merely because he or she normally uses an oversized wheelchair.  Once such a person is determined eligible for service, Metro remains under no obligation to transport the person’s oversized wheelchair.  Should the person use a common wheelchair or other acceptable aid, Metro has the same obligation to provide service as it does to other eligible customers.

Page 58 of the ADA Paratransit Eligibility Manual appropriately recommends that ADA complementary paratransit applicants be asked if the wheelchair they use meets the dimensions of a common wheelchair.  This information provides Metro the opportunity to advise the applicant that Metro will not transport the person when using the oversized wheelchair.  The applicant can withdraw his or her application or make arrangements to use a common wheelchair or other acceptable device when traveling on Metro.  If the applicant is ultimately determined eligible for service, the information on oversized wheelchairs also permits call-takers, when scheduling trips, to confirm that the device being used is acceptable for transport.

Metro appears to have misread the applicable regulations.  49 CFR §37.123(2)(ii) indicates that a person who uses a common wheelchair is eligible to use ADA complementary paratransit service if the lift on the fixed route vehicle does not meet the standards of Part 38.  49 CFR §37.123(2) does not say that a person who uses an over-dimension wheelchair is not eligible for ADA complementary service.  As discussed above, the person may be eligible for Metro service if he or she meets the eligibility criteria, but Metro has no obligation to transport the oversized wheelchair.

Page 6 of the ADA Paratransit Eligibility Manual indicates that a person’s inability to use an accessible bus because of an oversized wheelchair is an insufficient reason by itself to justify eligibility for ADA complementary paratransit service.  This does not mean that a person who uses such a device is not eligible for ADA complementary paratransit service.  It only means that use of an oversized wheelchair is by itself insufficient to justify eligibility since Metro has no obligation to transport the oversized wheelchair.

Please describe how Metro proposes to revise its eligibility procedures to comply with the ADA and applicable regulations.

6.  Finding:  The DOT ADA regulations (49 CFR §37.125 (c)) requires that applicants be treated as eligible for service if a determination of eligibility has not been made within 21 days following the submission of a complete application.  The application and other public information provided by Metro do not inform applicants of their right to service if they have not received a determination on their completed application within 21 days.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Metro concurs with this finding and as a matter of practice has granted “presumptive eligibility” to applicants whose eligibility decisions took more than 21 days.   Applications and other public information will be revised when supplies are depleted or by June 30, 2007 to ensure that applicants are aware of their rights.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Please advise us of what steps Metro plans to take to affirmatively advise applicants of their rights to presumptive eligibility during the period before replacement of public information supplies with revised materials.

10.  Finding:  Metro’s appeals process description states, “Appeals must be made in writing” and “The written appeal should state the reason or reasons you believe the determination to be incorrect.”  To require the appeal be made in writing and state the reason for the appeal could deprive the appellant of an opportunity to be heard and present information and arguments that the appellant would otherwise have if the appeal were made orally and without advance written reasons.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Reconsideration of this finding is requested.  Metro’s appeals process description as stated above is consistent with ADA regulations and guidance provided by the FTA.  According to the ADA Paratransit Manual (page 94) “Transit providers can require that appeals be requested in writing.”  Additionally, the policy does not “require” that reasons for appeal be provided.  As noted above, the wording is “should” not “must or shall.”  However, Metro will add wording to the letter to say that accommodations will be made for those who are unable to independently communicate in written form.  This will be completed no later than December 31, 2006.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  We agree with Metro that the regulations permit transit agencies to require appeal requests be made in writing and permit agencies to ask that they provide reasons for the appeal.  While we agree that use of the word “should” does not indicate a “requirement” to provide reasons for the appeal, we feel that Metro’s unqualified language could be construed to result in negative consequences to the appellant if the reasons are not provided.  We therefore encourage Metro to modify this language to make clear that this information is “requested” to assist in the appeals process.

Please advise us of how appellants are made aware that written justifications for an appeal are optional and that choosing not to provide a written justification does not affect an individual’s opportunity to be heard.

13.  Finding:  Metro considers same day cancellations in its procedure for service suspensions.  The DOT ADA 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.  Accordingly, same day customer cancellations made several hours before the scheduled time should not be considered as a basis for suspending customer service.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  We disagree and request reconsideration of this finding.  Same day cancellations are a waste of scarce community resources and are very costly.  Same day cancellations have a very negative impact on service capacity for other customers.  They deprive other users of trips on the system.  Metro is still trying to fund enough service to reach a zero-denial capacity level.

Additionally, it takes 24 same-day cancels in a 60-day period to get suspended from the service.  We understand that things do come up occasionally and it may be necessary to cancel on the day of service from time to time.   But if a customer is canceling 40% of all rides on the day of service, that has a considerable negative impact on the system for other users.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  While we agree with the importance of efficient use of ADA complementary paratransit capacity, the U.S. DOT regulations make no allowance for suspending service for customers who cancel their trips.

Transit agencies have included “late cancellations” as grounds for suspending services to customers.  FTA considers this policy acceptable when, and only when, the effects of a late cancellation are the operational equivalent of a no-show in terms of the negative impact on the service.  This approach is consistent with the intent of the regulations with respect to discouraging no-shows and providing service that is comparable to fixed route service.

Cancellations made several hours in advance of the scheduled pickup time or some time before the vehicle is dispatched to the customer’s location allow the system’s dispatchers to use the open vehicle time to respond to same-day operating issues.  Many systems effectively use the capacity provided by same-day cancellations to address same day service issues and operate reliably and on-time, thereby mitigating potential loss of effective service capacity.

FTA does not agree that cancellations made anytime on the day of service are the operational equivalent of a no-show.  FTA requests that Metro respond to this finding with corrective actions.

C.  Telephone Access

1.   Finding:  Metro’s policy goal of average times in queue of 4.18 minutes likely results in many calls in queue for periods of time well in excess of 4.18 minutes and would appear to significantly limit ADA complementary paratransit customers’ ability to use Call-A-Ride service.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  As stated by the Review Team, our minimum standard for average wait times in the queue was 4.18 minutes.  For a public agency, this is a reasonable response time.  Our actual performance during the review, however, was actually much better than this as noted by the Review Team.  As shown in their table on page 37, average wait times were excellent and well under two minutes as shown below. (See attached Table C.1.)

Even on Sundays when there are fewer agents on duty, with a few brief exceptions during the day, wait times were generally under one minute during the review.  The average wait times in the reservation line queue for the last three fiscal years is shown in this table. (See Attachment C.2.)  Data for FY07 is through September 06.  During FY06 we did have some server and equipment issues that negatively impacted performance averages for year.  But those have largely been corrected as shown in the FY07 data.

It is important to note that we do not have any complaints about long wait times in the phone queue.  In years past this was a problem – and customers did in fact call in complaints about their inability to get through on the phone lines.  But this is no longer an issue that comes up a public hearings or monthly ADA meetings.  We have significantly improved the phone system staffing and dramatically reduced wait times for customers.  Our customers have experienced the improvement and no longer complain about this particular aspect of our service.

For reasons cited above, Metro does not plan to take further action with reference to this finding.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  The purpose of this finding was to advise Metro that its average-based performance measure for hold time in queue, if adhered to, could result in a substantial number of customers experiencing significantly long hold times.  If such significantly long hold times occur, they are indicative of operational patterns and practices that significantly limit the availability of service to ADA paratransit eligible persons, in violation of 49 CFR §37.131(f)(3).  Metro’s actual telephone access performance, which is well within Metro’s average-based standard, is addressed in Finding C.2.

Average hold time measures do not effectively measure the number of callers who experience significantly long hold times.  Rather, many callers will likely experience hold times that are greater or less than the average 4.18 minutes.  A normal distribution of hold times around a mean of 4.18 would result in hold times ranging from zero to 8.36 minutes.

In addition to the problems associated with distribution around the mean, use of an average over a day period conceals periods within the day when hold times may be significantly long.  For example, the average hold time between 2:30 and 3 p.m. for one telephone line on Sunday April 10, 2005, was 6.73 minutes while the daily average was 1.98 minutes.  Hold time service measurement is further addressed in Finding C.8.

While it is Metro’s responsibility to establish service standards with public input, those standards must also conform to the capacity constraint requirements of the U.S. DOT ADA regulations (49 CFR § 31.123(4)(f)(3)).  Consequently, actual performance to a daily average hold time standard of 4.18 minutes will almost certainly result in a substantial number of significantly long hold times, regardless of any public input.

With respect to the reasonableness of an average hold time of 4.18 minutes the following standards used for hold times by other entities are provided for reference:

• 30 second hold time met 90 percent of the time on a quarterly basis – FCC Standards for cable franchises
• 60 seconds average time to answer a call at North America call centers – Association of Call Center Managers Benchmarking Report
• One minute average or two minute maximum answer time – various long distance travel reservation services
• Two minute maximum average hold times for ADA complementary paratransit service reservations – National Council on Disability recommendation June 13, 2005

Accordingly, what actions does Metro propose in order to assure that the 4.18 minute hold time standard does not lead to substantial numbers of excessively long hold times?

Additional Concern:  As discussed in the opening to this letter, we have recently become aware of additional concerns with Metro’s reservations telephone access.  We placed a sample number of calls on January 29, and found that 90 percent received busy signals.  Of those calls that got through, we noted hold times ranging from six minutes on January 29 up to 18 minutes on January 30.  While this is anecdotal, it raises serious concerns about Metro’s average hold times (see additional reporting request for finding C.2, below) and also the extent to which Metro consumers receive busy signals when attempting to make a reservation.

If a majority of calls placed to Metro receive busy signals, then tracking average hold times only minimally reflects actual telephone capacity.  Rather, callers are substantially more inhibited from access to service.

Additional Reporting:  In addition to reporting on what action Metro proposes in order to assure that the 4.18 minute hold time standard does not lead to substantial numbers of excessively long hold times, please  report on the actual rate of busy signals encountered by callers to Metro’s reservation lines.  This could be captured through a number of means.  Metro could communicate with your telephone service provider and determine what percent of calls placed to each reservation line are not connected because of lines operating at capacity.  Alternatively, Metro could engage a third party to conduct a statistically significant sampling of telephone access and report the results of that survey.  A third measure might be to record what percent of the time each day reservation queue’s are at or near capacity (when there would be no additional space for incoming calls).

Only when Metro has a reliable understanding of telephone line capacity and use will you be able to know the reliability of tracking average hold times, regardless of the standard used.  Once capacity has been determined, please identify how Metro will act to eliminate busy signals so that all calls are reliably connected and can be reported as a part of telephone hold time statistics.

2.  Finding:  During the week of February 7 to 11, 2005, Metro received a total of 4,053 calls to the reservation center.  Daily average hold times for the four phone lines ranged from 0.65 minutes to 2.45 minutes.  Of the 4,053 calls, 737 were abandoned by the caller for an abandonment rate of 18 percent.  This high abandonment rate is an indicator of difficulty in getting through on the phone lines to make reservations.  Call Center staffing and equipment limits may be contributing to long hold times and high abandonment rates.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  This is only a partial analysis of the data presented.  Looking at just the number of abandoned calls without analyzing the amount of time waiting in the queue for that abandoned call is only telling part of the story.

We do not have the data reports for February 05 as we gave those to the Review Team.  But we pulled a quick Abandoned Call Report for Tuesday September 26, 2006.  Here is the summary for just the Reservation Lines.  (See attached Table)

As shown, there were 607 abandoned calls on Tuesday.  Of those, 45% hung up almost immediately when they got the first announcement.  They may be wrong calls, customers who meant to call the Customer Assistance Line, or customers who are used to getting straight through and will just call back later.

Another 26% hung up in less than 60 seconds.  These are callers that are fairly confident they will be able to call back later with an even lower wait time in the queue than 1 minute.

Callers that experience lots of busy signals or routinely have long wait times in the queue do not give up and abandon the call after only 60 seconds.  They hang on and on and on and are reluctant to abandon the call for fear they will not get through the phone lines again.  We know – in years past our phone service was severely constrained and this is what we experienced at that time.  Large numbers of busy signals, long wait times in the queue before the call was abandoned and a large number of complaints about the phone service.

But since we have significantly increased our staffing, doubled the number of phone lines and added a new Customer Assistance Line and kept it staffed with three people during peak daytime hours, the Reservation Lines are moving quite well.  And customers expect these lines to move well – their behavior tells the story.  If they call and get put into the queue, they are much more likely to hang up and call back later when it is not so busy rather than wait in the queue, even if it is a short wait now.

The abandoned call rate, combined with the very low “wait times to abandonment,” actually indicate that the phone system is not constrained and is quite good.  Customers are quite confident about their ability to get through the phone lines and are willing to hang up with very little wait time invested. And we have no customer complaints about the phone service.

For reasons cited above, Metro does not plan to take further action with reference to this finding.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  The review team’s analysis of phone hold times was limited by the availability of data on telephone performance captured and tabulated by Metro during the on-site review.  That analysis indicated that during Sunday April 10, 2005, half-hourly average hold times exceeded two minutes for five of the 72 (6.9%) half-hour increments that the four phone lines were available.  During these five half-hour periods, the hold times for some callers could be significantly long.

The daily average hold time for the four phone lines was approximately 1.5 minutes.  During the period from February 7 through 11, the daily average for the four phone lines exceeded two minutes for two reporting periods, or 10 percent of the time.  Similarly, this may indicate a substantially long hold times, particularly during half-hour periods within the day for lines with high daily average hold times.

The analysis done by Metro for September 26, 2006, indicates that 57 abandoned calls (representing approximately 1.3 percent of daily reservations calls) were unanswered after four minutes.  Of those 57 calls, 23 (approximately 0.5 percent of daily calls) were unanswered after five minutes.  This data could indicate a substantial number (23 – 57) of significantly long (greater than 4 or 5 minutes) hold times.

In its response to Findings C.1 and C.2, Metro described customers as satisfied with the phone system.  However, most of the nine consumers and consumer representatives interviewed by the review team complained that the amount of time required to make a reservation was too long.  Their complaints addressed both the long hold times as well as the long time involved in making a reservation after the call was answered.  Telephone access, more than any other issue, was voiced as a concern by interviewees.  More recent communication with consumers by our office suggests resignation rather than satisfaction when it comes to access to reservations.

To better measure hold time performance, we encourage Metro to consider a system of measuring the number of calls by time in queue as addressed in Finding C.7.

Additional Reporting:  Metro’s response to C.7 indicates the availability of call information in half-hour increments.  Please provide a report of half-hourly average hold times for the last week in the second month of the calendar quarter.

5.  Finding:  Any calls left in the queue at the end of the day were abandoned.  As a result, some customers calling before 4:30 p.m. are not being served.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  Actually, Reservation agents answer all calls until the end of their shift at 4:30.  If they are in the middle of a call at 4:30, they must continue to handle the call through to completion, even if that takes them past the end of their shift.  At that hour of the afternoon on weekdays we have 12-13 agents on the Reservation Lines.  Customers understand that the phone lines close at 4:30 and the staff goes home.  They understand that if they want to make a reservation, they cannot wait until 4:30 to start the call process.  We have very few calls coming in after 4pm.  We have no complaints about customers getting abandoned in the queue at 4:30.  However, we cannot say with certainty that this never occurs.   Our phone system is over 20 years old and a new phone system is needed to allow us to ensure that the queue is empty before logging out of the phone system. Metro does not plan to take any further action on this finding until a new phone system is installed.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  Please provide the schedule for installing a new phone system and modifying procedures to assure that all customer calls to make reservations, initiated before 4:30 p.m. on the day before service will be answered by call-takers.

Also, it is insufficient for Metro to delay all corrective action until an uncertain future date when a new phone system is fully operational.  Metro’s response in C.7 indicates that Metro is only “in the very early stages” with “no specific plans” to upgrade its phones.  Please identify what interim actions Metro proposes in order to make reservation service available until at least 4:30 p.m., as required by 49 CFR §37.131(b)(1).

If Metro is unable to stop incoming calls, one alternative action might be to extend call-taker work hours.  Based on the limited analysis of hold times conducted during the review, it would appear that extending call taker work hours to answer calls until 4:35 p.m. would be sufficient to respond to all calls in the queue at 4:30 p.m.

D.  Trip Reservations and Scheduling

1.  Finding: Metro’s web site and the Metro Call-A-Ride brochure dated June 28, 2004, advise Call-A-Ride customers to “phone at least 24 hours in advance to schedule your trips.”  The DOT ADA regulations (49 CFR §37.131(b)) requires the transit entity (Metro) to schedule and provide trips in response to a request for service made the previous day.

Corrective Action Proposed by Metro:  As noted, the brochure “advises” customers to call at least 24 hours in advance – but does not state that it is a “requirement.”  We also “advise” customers to call as early as possible for trips and let them know they can call up to 7 days in advance.  It is never stated as a requirement to call 7 days in advance. We are letting customers know that the vans fill up quickly and if they want a very specific time, they should call as early as possible.

In practice, we accept reservation calls for the next day up to 4:30 pm the day before service.  We also accept same-day calls for service and provide them if there is time and space available for the requested trip. We will clarify that reservations are taken through the close of business of the prior day in the next printing of the above documents and the website will be updated when the new printed materials are available.

For reasons cited above, Metro does not plan to take further action with reference to this finding

Clarification of Corrective Action:  The brochure states:

“Making Reservations
“Phone at least 24 hours in advance to schedule your trips.”

This language conveys an incorrect message that customers are to call 24 hours in advance to schedule they’re trip.  Such a message is not compliant with the regulations, which require that reservations be accepted up to the end of Metro’s normal business hours (4:30 p.m.) on all days before service days.  You have indicated that you accept next day reservations until 4:30 p.m.

Please provide your schedule for correcting the language in the Call-A-Ride brochure and on Metro’s web site.  Furthermore, it would seem appropriate in response to this and other findings to distribute the existing Call-A-Ride brochure with an insert explaining clarifications such as the “24 hour” statement.  It is also not apparent why Metro suggests that a simple change to the website such as this is contingent on making newly printed materials available.

E.1.  Service Performance

1.  Finding:  Metro’s policy standard for service denials does not appear to consider all denials.  Metro’s policy standard is zero denials for requests made the previous day.  Metro accepts service requests seven days in advance of the service day, and “Metro Call-A-Ride Easy Trips” brochure encourages customers to call early to make trip reservations.  Denying a trip more than one day in advance of the service day, thereby requiring multiple calls to schedule a trip, appears to limit access to the service and constitute a capacity constraint.

Corrective Actions Proposed by Metro:  The ADA Regulations are very specific about what constitutes a trip denial.  Only next-day trip denials are discussed in the ADA Regulations.  Transit properties should not be penalized for attempting to make the service as convenient as possible by allowing customers to make travel arrangement more than one day in advance.

We have discussed this subject with the disabled community before.  We could implement a service plan that only allows next-day reservations and scheduling.  It would probably cut down on cancellations and no-shows and possibly reduce denials.  It would probably be easier and more cost effective for the transit system.  When given this choice, however, customers have indicated a very strong preference for the advance scheduling convenience over next-day scheduling.  They were willing to accept a few advance-day denials for the convenience of advance-day scheduling.

For reasons cited above, Metro does not plan to take further action with reference to this finding.

Clarification of Corrective Action:  A trip denial is the failure to negotiate a trip schedule within one hour before or after the individual’s requested time (49 CFR §37.131(b)(2)).  Negotiation implicitly requires the transit entity to make trip offers that consider limitations on the timing of the customers travel such as meeting appointments or departing from a location after an activity has been completed.

The regulations also require transit entities to accept trip request made before the service day and permit transit entities to accept trip requests up to 14 days before the service day.  The regulations make no distinction between trips denied one day or 14 days in advance of the service day.  Accordingly Metro’s policy standard of considering only trips denied the day before the service day as trip denials fails to comply with the regulations.

The number of days (between one and 14) in advance of the travel day reservations are allowed is a local decision to be made in consultation with the community.  In our observations, and as you mention, there can be tradeoffs between advantages of advance scheduling and flexibility for customers associated with long schedule periods and reduced trip cancellations with shorter periods.  However, we do not see consistent counting of denials throughout whatever period is selected as a penalty, but rather a means of assuring that ADA eligible people are provided the service to which they are entitled under the ADA.

Please identify the actions Metro proposes to revise its policy standard for trip denials to comply with the regulations.

6.   Finding: Metro has two standards for on-time performance.  For the customer, the standard for on-time is a vehicle arrival between 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after (-15/+15) the scheduled time.  For performance measurement and reporting the standard is 15 minutes before and 20 minutes after (-15/+20) the scheduled time.  Use of one standard for the customer and a more generous standard for performance measurement overstates the level of service being provided to the customer.

10/11/06 - This is not an accurate representation.  When a customer is booked for a trip on our service, they are given an “approximate pickup time” – not a guaranteed pickup time.  The Scheduling Software will move that scheduled trip up and down in the scheduling window to accommodate other trips that are added to the route.  This is absolutely essential to enable productive cost-efficient scheduling.

The important point is that the actual pickup time on the day of service could be at the very end of the 15-minute window depending on how the system has scheduled all of the trips for a given route.  On our bus and rail service, on-time performance is measure as:

• 0 – 59 seconds early; and
• 0 – 5 minutes late

If the bus/train arrives at the designate stop within those parameters, it is measured as “on-time” by our internal standards.  This is a very common standard around the transit industry as well.

We measure our van service with the same standards.  Since the Scheduling Software can move the trip to the very end of the 15-minute window, the trip is measured on-time as long as it is within 0-5 minutes late of the scheduled time – in this case the end of the 15 minute window.

Since the van will sit at a location until the beginning of the early window, and customers only need come out when they are ready, there is no penalty for being early.  Unlike the bus or rail service – we never leave customers stranded for being too early.  Drivers are not allowed to go in and get customers before the early window and dispatchers will never call before the early window. 

For reasons cited above, Metro does not plan to take further action with reference to this finding

Clarification of Corrective Action:  The concern raised by this finding is that the use of two different time frames to define expectations of what is “on time” can be confusing and misleading.

The U.S. DOT ADA regulations require that ADA complementary transit service be scheduled at a requested time (not an approximate time or a window) in response to a request for service (49 CFR §37.131(b)). 

The regulations 49 CFR §37.121 require that complementary paratransit service be comparable to fixed route service.  ADA complementary paratransit service providers have used this comparability requirement to allow for vehicle arrivals to occur within a window before or after the scheduled time, as is common practice for fixed route service.  Given the unique scheduling requirements of paratransit service the window commonly used for paratransit ranges from 20 to 30 minutes, compared to the 5 minute 59 second window that you cite for fixed route service.

Metro clearly communicates to customers the expectation that vehicles may arrive between 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after the pickup time negotiated with the customer (Call-A-Ride Tips on Metro’s web site), and places an obligation for the customer to appear or board the vehicle within three minutes of vehicle arrival within this period.  The duration of the window may vary based on local conditions, particularly traffic congestion.  As long as the length of the window is reasonable with respect to comparability with fixed route service we find it to be consistent with the regulations.

To use a standard different from that communicated to customers for reporting missed trips is potentially confusing and misleading.  

To avoid this potential confusion we request Metro to consider use of one consistent standard for measuring on-time performance.  As an alternative to this recommendation we request that with any presentation of on-time performance Metro describe the standard being used and make clear that it differs from the on-time requirements of its customers.

We recognize the efforts that Metro has already taken action to correct the deficiencies identified in the draft report, and we anticipate your continued endeavors to take further corrective actions as noted in this letter.  We appreciate the cooperation and assistance that you and your staff have provided us during this review.  If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me or Mr. Jonathan Klein, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at (202) 366‑0809 or at his e-mail address: jonathan.klein@dot.gov.

It would also be very helpful if you would provide a copy of all correspondence to this office to the FTA Regional Civil Rights Officer at the following address:

Mr. Thomas Harris
FTA Region VII
901 Locust Street
Suite 404
Kansas City, MO 64106

Sincerely,

Michael A. Winter
Director, Office of Civil Rights

Enclosures

cc:   Patricia P. Hall, Metro Director of ADA Services
Mokhtee Ahmad, FTA Region VII Administrator
Cindy Terwilliger, FTA Region VII Supervisory Senior Operations Manager
Thomas Harris, FTA Region VII Civil Rights Officer
David Knight, FTA ADA Team