![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.45in" height="0.4465277777777778in"}

U.S. Department Headquarters

of Transportation

**Federal Transit**

**Administration**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

February 5, 2007

[]{.mark}

Mr. Larry E. Salci

President & CEO

Metro

707 North First Street

St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2595

[]{.mark}

Dear Mr. Salci:

[]{.mark}

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 at www.fta.dot.gov/ada.

[]{.mark}

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.

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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.

[]{.mark}

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]{.underline} 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]{.underline}: Metro Call-A-Ride Plus service schedule does
not include service for all days and hours of scheduled service for
several Metro Bus routes.

[]{.mark}

> *[Corrective Action Proposed by Metro]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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.**
>
> []{.mark}

5\. [Finding]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **Please see
> A.5.**

[]{.mark}

###### B. ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility

1\. [Finding:]{.underline} 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.

[]{.mark}

> *[Corrective Action Proposed by Metro]{.underline}: 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.*
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **[Clarification of Corrective Action]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline} be denied [eligibility]{.underline}
> 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]{.underline} 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]{.underline} 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]{.underline} 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.**

[]{.mark}

6\. [Finding:]{.underline} 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.

[]{.mark}

[Corrective Action Proposed by Metro]{.underline}: 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.

[]{.mark}

**[Clarification of Corrective Action]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **The purpose of
this finding was to advise Metro that its average-based performance
measure for hold time in queue, if adhered to, [could]{.underline}
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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}:** **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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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.

# []{.mark}

# *[Corrective Actions Proposed by Metro]{.underline}: 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.*

[]{.mark}

**[Clarification of Corrective Action]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline}: 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]{.underline} (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

[]{.mark}

Sincerely,

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Michael A. Winter

Director, Office of Civil Rights

[]{.mark}

Enclosures

[]{.mark}

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 Leader