New York City Transit

**New York, New York**

ADA Complementary Paratransit Service

Compliance Review

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

September 10-18, 2003

*Summary of Observations*

**Prepared for**

**Federal Transit Administration**

**Office of Civil Rights**

**Washington, DC**

**Prepared by**

**Planners Collaborative, Inc.**

**with**

**TranSystems Corporation**

**Final Report: October 22, 2004**

[]{.mark}

**CONTENTS**

[]{.mark}

[I. Purpose of the Review 3](#purpose-of-the-review)

[II. Overview 5](#overview)

[III. Background 9](#background)

[IV. Summary of Findings 22](#summary-of-findings)

[V. ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility Determinations
33](#ada-complementary-paratransit-eligibility-determinations)

[VI. Telephone Access 49](#vi.-telephone-access)

[VII. Trip Reservations 54](#trip-reservations)

[VIII. Scheduling 66](#viii.-scheduling)

[IX. Transportation Operations 78](#ix.-transportation-operations)

[A. Dispatching 81](#a.-dispatching)

[B. Transportation 96](#transportation)

[C. Performance 105](#performance)

[X. Resources 129](#x.-resources)

[]{.mark}

*Attachment A. New York City Transit Response*

*Attachment B. On-Site Review Schedule*

*Attachment C. List of Operators*

*Attachment D. ADA Transportation Assessment Application*

*Attachment E. Eligibility application receipt confirmation*

*Attachment F. NYCT's "No-Show/Late Cancellation Policy"*

*Attachment G. Access-a-Ride Paratransit Service User's Guide*

*Attachment H. MTA New York City Transit Telephone Directory for
Customers with Disabilities*

*Attachment I. Point Coding List Report*

*Attachment J. Sample Page from a Multi-Boro Report*

*Attachment K. Re-optimization Report*

*Attachment L. Trim-Slack Report*

*Attachment M. Sample Manifest*

*Attachment N. Affinity Factor Map Zones*

*Attachment O. Dispatch Turnover Log*

*Attachment P. NYCT Trip Disposition During May 2003*

*Attachment Q. Paratransit On-Time Performance February - July 2003*

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

# Purpose of the Review

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

# Overview 

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

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

-   Trip denials and "wait listing" of trips,

-   Trip caps,

-   On-time performance, and

-   Travel times.

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

-   Determinations of ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility, and

-   Telephone capacity.

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

**Pre-Review**

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

-   A description of how the ADA Complementary Paratransit service is
    structured;

-   Public information describing the ADA Complementary Paratransit
    service; and

-   A description of the New York City Transit's (NYCT) standards for
    on-time performance, trip denials, travel times, and telephone
    service.

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

-   Copies of completed driver manifests for recent months;

-   Six months of service data, including the number of trips requested,
    scheduled, denied, canceled, no-shows, missed trips, and trips
    provided by NYCT;

-   A breakdown of trips requested, scheduled, and provided;

-   Detailed information about trips denied in the last six months
    including origin and destination information, day and time
    information, and customer information;

-   Detailed information about trips identified in the last six months
    with excessively long travel times;

-   Telephone call management records; and

-   Records of recent customer comments and complaints related to
    capacity issues (trip denials, on-time performance, travel time, and
    telephone access).

[]{.mark}

**On-Site Review**

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

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

-   Preliminary findings and an opportunity to respond would be provided
    at a closing meeting on Thursday, September 18;

-   A draft report would be provided to the NYCT for review and comment;
    and

-   NYCT's comments would be incorporated into a final report, which
    would then become a public document.

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

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

-   Consumer input,

-   Service design parameters,

-   Eligibility determinations,

-   Telephone access,

-   Handling of trip requests and trip denials,

-   Trip scheduling,

-   On-time performance and service delivery,

-   Trip duration,

-   Operations, and

-   Resources (vehicles, manpower, and financial resources).

[]{.mark}

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

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

# Background

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

[]{.mark}

**Description of Fixed Route Service**

[]{.mark}

***General*** -- The train fleet consists of 5,758 subway cars and the
bus fleet consists of 4,489 buses.[^1] NYCT operates 25 subway lines,
204 local and 31 express bus routes.

[]{.mark}

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

The NYCT rapid transit system consists of 731 track miles, of which 70
are on elevated structure. The deepest station is 181 feet below street
level; the highest station is 87.5 feet above street level. The system
picks up and drops off passengers at 468 stations and from 1077 train
platforms. Average weekday ridership is approximately 4.3 million
passengers with 1.7 billion unlinked passenger trips served
annually.[^2] In addition NYCT serves approximately 822 million unlinked
bus passenger trips each year.[^3]

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

***Service Area*** -- The NYCT service area is the City of New York
including all five boroughs, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and
Staten Island. The area covers 322 square miles and had a 2000
population of 8,008,278.[^4] New York City is the center of the New York
-- Northern New Jersey Urbanized Area, which covers 2,967 square miles
and had a 2000 population of 21,200,000.[^5]

NYCT buses operate throughout the five boroughs and in several locations
serve areas (within ¾ miles of the bus route) beyond the city limits. A
number of NYCT bus routes operate less than ¾ miles from the
Bronx-Westchester County Border and the Queens-Nassau County border with
routes 5 and 85 extending less than a mile into Nassau County.

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

-   1-day Fun Pass - \$7 for unlimited use of NYCT subway and local
    service for one day;

-   7-Day - \$21 (\$10.50 reduced fare) for unlimited rides on NYCT
    subway and local services;

-   30- Day Unlimited Ride - \$70 (\$35 reduced fare -- for unlimited
    rides on NYCT subway and local services;

-   Pay-Per-Ride -- A \$4-80 debit card for use on NYCT with free
    transfers within a two-hour period. Pay-Per-Ride offers an
    additional 20% in value on the debit card for refills of more than
    \$10 in value.

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

[]{.mark}

**Description of the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service**

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

**AMERICAN TRANSIT, INC.**

Yonkers, N.Y. 10703

**ATLANTIC PARATRANS OF NYC, INC.**

Maspeth, N.Y. 11378

**MAGGIES PARATRANSIT CORP.**

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11208

**MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.**

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11233

**PTM MANAGEMENT CORP.**

Jamaica, N.Y. 11435

**RJR PARATRANSIT CORP.**

Staten Island, N.Y. 10306

**STAR CRUISER TRANSPORTATION, INC.**

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11234

**TRANSIT FACILITY MANAGEMENT CORP**.

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11208

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

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

***Service Area*** -- The DOT ADA regulations require that ADA
Complementary Paratransit service be available within 3/4-mile of all
bus routes, and within 3/4-mile of all rail stations (49 CFR
§37.131(a)). NYCT bus and subway service, with a few exceptions, covers
all of New York City. AAR provides service to all points within New York
City.

There are a number of NYCT local bus routes in Queens and the Bronx that
are within 3/4-mile of Nassau and Westchester Counties, respectively (in
addition, there are bus routes in Queens operated by private carriers
under contract to New York City that are within 3/4-mile of Nassau
County). Table III.1 lists some of the NYCT bus routes that are within
3/4-mile of Nassau or Westchester Counties.

> Table III.1 Selected NYCT Bus Routes Within 3/4-mile Of Nassau County
> or Westchester County

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Route Number       Adjoining County       Comment
  ------------------ ---------------------- -----------------------------
  Bx7                Westchester            

  Bx9                Westchester            

  Bx10               Westchester            

  Bx16               Westchester            

  Bx30               Westchester            

  Bx31               Westchester            

  Bx34               Westchester            

  Bx41               Westchester            

  Q1                 Nassau                 

  Q2                 Nassau                 

  Q4                 Nassau                 

  Q5                 Nassau                 Route enters Nassau County

  Q12                Nassau                 

  Q22                Nassau                 Contractor operated

  Q36                Nassau                 

  Q43                Nassau                 

  Q46                Nassau                 

  Q79                Nassau                 

  Q83                Nassau                 

  Q84                Nassau                 

  Q85                Nassau                 Route enters Nassau County

  Q110               Nassau                 Contractor operated

  Q111               Nassau                 Contractor operated

  Q113               Nassau                 Contractor operated
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The areas in Nassau and Westchester Counties within 3/4-mile of an NYCT
bus route are part of the mandated ADA Complementary Paratransit service
area. With the exception of the areas associated with routes Q5 and Q85,
AAR does not provide service beyond the borders of New York City.

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

-   Long Island Bus (ABLE Ride)

-   Westchester County DOT (B Line)

-   New Jersey Transit (Access Link)

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

***Access-A-Ride Performance Standards***

[]{.mark}

NYCT has established the following service performance standards for AAR
service:

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

-   NYCT has a goal of 0% denials.

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

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

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Miles**                             **Minutes**

  ≥ 0 and ≤ 3                           50

  ≥ 3 and ≤ 6                           65

  ≥ 6 and ≤ 9                           95

  ≥ 9 and ≤ 12                          115

  ≥ 12 and ≤ 14                         135

  ≥ 14                                  155
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

***Consumer Input***

[]{.mark}

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

***Recent Litigation***

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

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

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

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

-   NYCT must provide monthly reports that include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Demand citywide, inter-borough and intra-borough;

-   Trips scheduled;

-   Trips completed;

-   Carrier no-shows (missed trips) by carrier;

-   Late pick-ups by carrier;

-   Vehicles in operation by carrier;

-   Vehicles ordered by NYCT for each carrier;

-   Report on complaints of long trips;

-   Number of taxi reimbursements;

-   Registered riders by borough and wheelchair use;

-   Number of passenger no-shows, early and late cancellations
    --city-wide, by borough, inter-borough and intra-borough;

-   Number of subscription trips.

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

> []{.mark}

***Formal ADA Complaints Received by FTA***

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

Issues raised in the complaints were:

-   Denied eligibility for Personal Care Attendant (PCA);

-   No-show suspension policy;

-   Poor scheduling;

-   More than one wheelchair user scheduled to use vehicle, whose
    capacity is limited to one wheelchair at one time;

-   Late pick-ups; and

-   Malfunctioning lifts.

[]{.mark}

***Consumer Comments***

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

[]{.mark}

Among the concerns identified were:

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

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

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

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Transportation -- Vehicles sometimes arrive early and leave before
    the pick-up time. One customer cited a vehicle arriving at 10:30 and
    departing at 10:37 for an 11:30 pick-up. Customers do not have the
    name of the operator making it difficult for them to identify the
    vehicle. Visually impaired customers are often stranded because the
    driver doesn\'t approach the customer and the customer is unaware
    that the vehicle has arrived.

    People have been dropped off by as much as 1 1/2 hours early
    resulting in customers discontinuing use of the service.

> There is no effort to contact customer no-shows with the exception of
> one operator, RJR, which does it sometimes. Customers are categorized
> as no-shows when the vehicle arrives late and the customer is no
> longer waiting for the ride. A consumer provided an audiotape, which
> purports to demonstrate dispatchers directing drivers to classify
> missed trips as customer no-shows. Verification of what is said on the
> tape has not been possible because of the poor quality of the audio.
>
> Missed trips from vehicles going to the wrong place are a problem. AAR
> has been addressing this problem by establishing standard pick-up
> locations.
>
> Pick-ups are late in the evening. When a second vehicle is dispatched
> for a late pick-up it often arrives 1 1/2 hours late. AAR provides
> vouchers for Yellow Cab service for ambulatory customers who are
> stranded (missed trip). The vouchers are usually authorized after the
> trip is significantly late (1 hour). The number of vouchers available
> is limited by budget. Since Yellow cabs are not accessible to
> wheelchairs, the vouchers are not available to wheelchair users.
>
> Travel times are long in the evenings causing some customers to avoid
> use of the service. Trips have been as long as 3 hours, exceeding
> NYCT\'s standard of 155 minutes (2 hours and 35 minutes) for trip
> length.
>
> One consumer representative indicated that NYCT oversight and
> coordination with operators appeared limited.

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

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

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

-   Limitations of conditional eligibility

-   Long eligibility process

-   Eligibility of children

-   Re-certification required of people with permanent or deteriorating
    conditions

-   Policy changes not provided in alternate format for people with low
    vision

-   Suspension policies too severe -- suspension after 7 late
    cancellations and/or no-shows in 6 months, suspension for 15 days
    rather than 14 days in policy, 30 day appeal begins on date letter
    issued, not received. Subscription riders suspended from
    subscription service for 25% cancellations in 30 days.

-   Not responding to telephone calls in queue at 5:00 PM

-   Long time to make reservations

-   Denial of next day trip requests

-   Use of standby list for reservations

-   Trip reservations lost in the system -- AAR sometimes has no record
    of rides scheduled with customers

-   Trips scheduled to the wrong destination

-   Limits on schedule for return trips -- 1 1/2 hour delay within
    borough, 2 ½ hours between boroughs

-   Unresponsive trip offers -- Offers more than 1 hour from request or
    before customer is able to leave his/her activity

-   Changed pick-up times -- Subscription trip schedules are changed by
    AAR without notifying the passenger.

-   Pressure to accept early pick-ups

-   Late Cancellation and subscription missed trip policy

-   Late pick-ups -- Particularly during the afternoon; drivers appear
    to be reporting passenger pick-ups before they occur.

-   Unreliable service

-   Long hold times for ride checks

-   Vehicles at wrong pick-up location

-   No Show Policy -- Passengers are incorrectly classified as no shows
    with no effort to confirm by AAR

-   No effort to communicate vehicle arrival to people with low vision

-   Stranded riders

-   Inadequate back-up service -- long wait for approval, pre-payment of
    taxi fare, delayed reimbursement, limited to ambulatory customers

-   Long rides

-   Indirect routing -- Trips transporting customers in a zigzag pattern

-   Inexperienced drivers - low driver pay rates and limited training,
    poor knowledge of routes

-   Inaccessible sedans

-   Poor van maintenance -- high entry step, lift failures

-   Unresponsiveness to complaints

***Rider Comments on File at Access-A-Ride***

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

> **Table III.2 Primary AAR Complaints, January to July 2003**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Category**                           **Number**       **Percent of
                                                          Total**
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------
  Carrier No-show (missed trip)          1,817            26.3

  Carrier Late Pickup                    1,091            15.8

  Unreasonable Ride Time                 588              8.5

  Driver Rude/Verbally Abusive           469              6.8

  Disputed Customer No-show              303              4.4

  Incorrect pickup or drop-off address   278              4.0

  Driver failed to assist customer       248              3.6

  Driver stranded customer               218              3.2

  Scheduling                             205              3.0

  Reservation Error                      199              2.9

  General Policy Issue                   186              2.7

  Taxi Reimbursement Problem             159              2.3

  Driver Reckless                        130              1.9

  Customer Not Ready (driver early)      92               1.3

  Fare Dispute                           79               1.1

  Call Taker Not Helpful                 76               1.1

  Subscription Problem                   68               1.0

  All other Complaint Categories         696              10.1

  TOTAL                                  6,902            100.0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**Findings**

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

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

3.  AAR provides service to all points within New York City. However,
    AAR does not provide service in portions of Nassau or Westchester
    Counties that are within 3/4-mile of NYCT local bus routes. Service
    to customers in these areas is provided through carriers operating
    in these areas requiring customers in the AAR service area to
    transfer to AAR services. The requirement for customers outside of
    New York City within 3/4 miles of NYCT fixed route service to
    reserve separate trips from both the operator in the county of trip
    origin and AAR, to transfer, and pay two fares does not appear to
    meet the 3/4-mile obligation.

**Recommendations**

1.  NYCT should consider adjusting the service area for AAR to include
    all addresses within 3/4-mile of any NYCT bus route, including
    addresses in Nassau and Westchester Counties. Alternatively, AAR
    should consider reserving both legs of trips of a one-way trip for
    the customer with one call. This would permit the customer to
    reserve the trip with one call as is done with other AAR customers
    and permit AAR reservationists to schedule the entire trip with the
    adjacent county to assure transfers do not result in significantly
    long trip times. Similarly, AAR could consider free transfers for
    such trips so that these customers are paying the same fares as AAR
    customers.

# Summary of Findings

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

[]{.mark}

**A. Service Parameters**

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

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

    3\. AAR provides service to all points within New York City.
    However, AAR does not provide service in portions of Nassau or
    Westchester Counties that are within 3/4-mile of NYCT local bus
    routes. Service to customers in these areas is provided through
    carriers operating in these areas requiring customers in the AAR
    service area to transfer to AAR services. The requirement for
    customers outside of New York City within 3/4 miles of NYCT fixed
    route service to reserve separate trips from both the operator in
    the county of trip origin and AAR, to transfer, and pay two fares
    does not appear to meet the 3/4-mile obligation.

**B. ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility Determinations**

[]{.mark}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**C. Telephone Access**

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

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

    D.  **Reservations**

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

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

3.  The practice of limiting the times riders can book return trips to
    more than 90 minutes after the going trip pick-up or appointment
    time for intra-borough trips and 2 ½ hours after the going trip
    pick-up or appointment for inter-borough trips, does not appear to
    provide service that is comparable to fixed route service as
    required by 49 CFR §37.121.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D.  **Scheduling**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

**F. Transportation Operations**

[]{.mark}

**1 Dispatch**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

**2 Transportation**

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

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

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

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

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

6.  MV Transportation appears to have a high percentage of its passenger
    equipment assigned to maintenance and repair. In August of 2003, 14
    to 29% of MV Transportation's fleet was assigned to maintenance and
    repair and insufficient vehicles were assigned to meet peak service
    requirements. Since that time the MV fleet has increased from 100 to
    110 vehicles.

7.  Operators appear to have an adequate force of drivers to perform
    assigned routes.

**3 Performance**

1.  For a sample day of May 15, 2003, 94.7% of scheduled trips were
    completed, 3.3% were Customer No-Shows, 1.2% were categorized as
    No-Fault No-Shows, 0.4% were Carrier No-Shows and 0.4% were other.

2.  Taxi and black car vouchers were issued for 167 (1.7%) of the
    scheduled trips for May 15, 2003. Voucher redemptions accounted for
    0.3% of scheduled trips for the month of April 2003. Based upon this
    redemption rate it appears that approximately 20% of the vouchers
    were used. Because of lag time in redeeming vouchers it is not
    possible to accurately estimate the utilization rate. Based upon
    these numbers, 1.4% of trips otherwise classified could be missed
    trips. These are trips that were not completed by the customer and
    the vehicle did not arrive within the pick-up window agreed to with
    the customer.

3.  It appears that more than 50% of the trips categorized as No-Fault
    No-Shows or 0.2% of scheduled trips may be missed trips. In total
    missed trips for May 15, 2003, are estimated at 0.9% of scheduled
    trips including Carrier No-Shows (0.4%), No-Fault No-Shows (0.2%),
    and unused vouchers 0.3%

4.  Taxi vouchers appear to effectively provide a backup service to
    prevent customers from being stranded. However, the apparent low
    utilization of the vouchers by customers (estimated at 20%) and
    authorization of some vouchers for trips that are already late may
    indicate that the vouchers have limited effectiveness in reducing
    the number of missed and late trips. The late authorization for
    customer use of vouchers, the initial customer outlay of money for
    the taxi fare and time and effort required for reimbursement may
    limit the attractiveness of vouchers to customers.

5.  For the sample day of May 15, 2003, 91.8% of pick-ups were on-time
    or early. This is consistent with on-time performance of 91.5 to
    93.8% as reported by NYCT. For May 15 0.6% of pick-ups were more
    than 35 minutes after the pick-up window or 1 hour after the pick-up
    time negotiated with the customer. 0.1% of pick-ups were more than 1
    hour after the pick-up window or 1 hour and 25 minutes after the
    negotiated time.

6.  On-time performance internally tracked by MV Transportation
    indicated some performance issues on weekends. Managers at this
    provider indicated that because there were fewer vehicles on the
    road on weekend evenings, the opportunity to reassign trips between
    runs if in-service problems developed was more limited than on
    weekdays.

7.  NYCT does not have a performance standard nor does it track
    performance for on-time drop-offs. On-time drop-off performance is
    often more critical a concern to consumers than on-time pick-up
    performance, particularly for trips to appointments for work,
    school, medical services, etc.

8.  NYCT's goal is to *schedule* 100% of trips using distance-based
    travel time standards. The distance parameters overlap potentially
    causing confusion. NYCT does not have a travel time policy for
    actual performance of trips and does not measure performance based
    upon\
    AAR trip travel times.

9.  Based on reconciled trip information for May 15, 2003, the average
    travel time for all trips was 42 minutes; the overall average trip
    distance (based on odometer readings) was 9.3 miles. 68% of all
    trips were 50 minutes or less. Of those, the average travel time was
    36 minutes and the average trip distance was 5.8 miles. 81% of all
    trips were 65 minutes or less and 95% of trips were 95 minutes or
    less. 23 trips (less than 1%) were more than the maximum travel time
    standard for any trip set by NYCT (155 minutes or 2 hours and 35
    minutes).

10. The average travel time for sample of 70 long trips from May 15,
    2003, was 105 minutes and the average travel distance was 23 miles.
    The average trip mileage calculated by MapQuest for the sample trips
    was 13 miles.

11. The analysis identified approximately six trips from the sample of
    70 long trips that appeared to be significantly long considering the
    trip distance, AAR travel time and comparable fixed route travel
    times. An additional 16 long AAR trips from the sample that took
    more than 30 minutes longer than fixed trips by the "fastest route"
    could also be considered significantly long.

**G. Resources**

1.  Financing of AAR services appears to have strong support from MTA
    and public officials as evidenced by an increase in the operating
    budget from \$88,860 million for the year 2000 to \$153,889 million
    for 2003. Funding does not appear to limit delivery of ADA
    Complementary Paratransit services.

2.  The NYCT budget process appears to effectively address the
    anticipated market demand for service through the use of a
    demographic based model and trends in use of AAR service.

3.  The present fleet appears adequate in size to serve current demand
    with a cushion for increased demand.

4.  Staffing of the call center and scheduling appears to be adequate
    and not limit service. Staff involved in management of AAR service
    at all levels appeared to be professional, highly experienced and
    dedicated to provision of public service.

5.  MV dispatch staff appeared to be taxed managing assignments of 28
    runs per dispatcher. All other dispatch functions appear to be
    adequately staffed.

6.  The availability of drivers for some of the newer carriers may limit
    service. The stable labor force of long-term carriers indicates that
    current limitations of labor may be corrected by the passage of
    time.

# ADA Complementary Paratransit Eligibility Determinations

The process used to determine ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility
was reviewed to ensure that determinations are being made in accordance
with the regulatory criteria and in a way that accurately reflects the
functional ability of applicants. The timeliness of the processing of
requests for eligibility was also assessed. Finally, the process used to
identify and suspend riders for excessive no-shows was reviewed. The
review of these issues was completed as follows:

-   Input about the eligibility determination process was obtained
    through meetings with riders and advocates, a review of rider
    comments on file at NYCT, and a review of formal complaints on file
    at FTA.

-   An understanding of the eligibility determination process was
    developed through a review of current eligibility materials,
    interviews of eligibility determinations staff, and an on-site visit
    to a selected in-person assessment contractor site.

-   Eligibility decisions were reviewed for the period from January 2003
    through August 2003.

-   The application files of 35 recent applicants who had been granted
    conditional eligibility or who had been denied ADA Complementary
    Paratransit eligibility were reviewed.

-   The application files of 6 recent applicants who had been denied
    eligibility and who then appealed the initial decision were also
    reviewed.

-   The processing times for 2,990 applications processed in August 2003
    were reviewed.

-   No-show suspension records between January and September 2003 were
    reviewed and the no-show tracking and suspension process was
    discussed with NYCT staff.

**Consumer Comments**

As noted in Section III of this report, a meeting was held with
advocates and riders in advance of the on-site visit to discuss rider
experiences with the paratransit service. A report prepared by Disabled
in Action of Metropolitan New York was also received and reviewed prior
to the on-site visit. This meeting and report identified the following
eligibility determination issues:

-   Some advocates/riders indicated that the process can take a long
    time and that there was no clear indication of when applications
    were considered complete.

-   It was stated that applicants have to deal with different
    eligibility staff throughout the determination process rather than
    having a single person review their eligibility. It was suggested
    that these multiple contacts contribute to confusion about the
    process and appeared to be inefficient.

-   Some concern was expressed about the limitations placed on
    applicants determined conditionally eligible.

-   The approach used to determine eligibility of children was
    identified as a concern.

-   It was noted that riders with permanent disabilities whose travel
    abilities were not expected to improve were still required to
    reapply and be recertified periodically.

-   Some advocates also expressed concern that the eligibility process
    appeared to be too lenient and that individuals who might be able to
    used fixed route service some of the time were still using
    paratransit services for these trips.

Two formal ADA complaints regarding AAR were filed with FTA in 2000. One
complaint claimed that authorization to travel with a personal attendant
had been inappropriately denied. The process used to suspend riders who
had accumulated no-shows was also challenged.

A relatively small number of rider comments received directly by NYCT
also cited issues with various aspects of the eligibility determination
process. In calendar year 2002, 145 of the 15,660 rider comments
received by NYCT (about 1%) concerned the eligibility process. Between
January and early September 2003, 51 of 6,902 total complaints (0.7%)
concerned the eligibility process.

**Overview of the Eligibility Determination Process and Materials**

NYCT managers indicated that prospective clients are made aware of AAR
and the eligibility process through out-reach efforts, bulk mailings.
Individuals interested in applying for ADA Comprehensive Paratransit
eligibility are referred to the Eligibility Determination Unit (EDU) of
NYCT's Paratransit Division. Six to eight staff persons in the EDU
(depending on the day and time) answer phones, provide general
information about the service, and application process, and send "ADA
Transportation Assessment Application" forms to callers who request
them. The application form is available in large print as well as
standard print and is also available in Spanish as well as English.

The standard print application form is eight-pages long (Attachment D).
The first page provides instructions for completing the form/process and
provides contact information should applicants need assistance. The
instructions request that two photographs be submitted with the
completed application form. One photo is kept on file and one is used to
prepare an ID card for persons determined eligible.

The second page of the application form is a statement that must be
signed by applicants. The statement notes that the applicant understands
that: the form will be returned if incomplete; an evaluation by a
professional certifier selected by NYCT might be required as part of the
process; the information provided in the form is true to the best of the
applicant's knowledge; misrepresentation of information could result in
a revocation of eligibility; a failure to cooperate with requests for
additional information to verify information provided in the application
could be grounds for a suspension or revocation of eligibility; and
failure to adhere to service policies and procedures could be grounds
for suspension or revocation. The statement also indicates that
applicants agree to notify NYCT if paratransit is no longer needed.

The remainder of the application form requests: general information
(name, address, phone, etc.); information about current travel and use
of MTA services and programs (fixed route bus, subway and reduced fare
services); information about the applicant's disability and mobility
aids used; information about travel abilities (i.e., ability to travel
to the nearest bus stop and subway station, ability to board and ride
buses and enter and use subways, obtain and understand information
needed to use the service, etc.). Open ended questions are included that
ask applicants to identify how their disability prevents them from using
bus or subway services and to provide any other information they feel is
important. One question also lists typical issues that might prevent
travel by fixed route (i.e., distances to/from stops, inclement weather,
hills, path-of-travel barriers, etc.) and asks applicants to identify
all that might prevent their travel by bus or subway. A question about
the need for a personal attendant is also included and applicants are
asked to describe what assistance an attendant provides. Finally,
information about the applicant's three most frequent destinations is
requested.

When application forms are received, they are reviewed for completeness.
Two EDU staff members perform these reviews. If significant information
is not provided (e.g., the up-front statement is not signed or questions
are left completely blank) the application is returned with a letter
requesting that the application be sent back once the missing sections
are completed.

Once applications are determined to be complete, the information
contained in the application is entered into the ADEPT system. The date
that a completed application was received is also noted and a
confirmation letter indicating that the application has been received
and is being reviewed is sent to the applicant. The confirmation letter
provides the date the completed application was received and informs
applicant that they can call and use the service if an eligibility
determination has not been made within 21 days of that date. The
telephone number to call to request service is also provided. To
facilitate use of the service by persons whose applications are not
processed in 21 days, the EDU staff members also then enter the
applicant's name and the date they should be considered eligible (21
days after the application receipt date) into the ADEPT system.

Once information is entered into the ADEPT system, the application forms
are forwarded to one of five EDU Certifiers. Each of the five Certifiers
handles determination for one of the boroughs. The Certifiers review the
information provided in the application form. If an eligibility decision
can be made based on the information provided, they will prepare an
appropriate determination letter. If the information in the application
form is not sufficient to make a final determination, Certifiers might
request more information from applicants (through a follow-up phone
call). In some cases, this might simply be a phone interview to ask for
clarification about information provided in the application. In other
cases, it might be a request for documentation/verification of the
disability indicated by the applicant. Documentation/verification of
disability might be requested, for example, if the applicant indicates a
"hidden disabilities" such as a health condition or a psychiatric
condition. If requested, it is then up to the applicant to obtain and
forward some form of documentation.

If documentation/verification of disability is requested, applicants are
given 10 days to provide this information. If the documentation is not
received within 10 days, the determination is placed in a "closed" or
"suspended" category. No further action is taken on the application
until documentation is provided. If provided at a later date, the file
is then reopened and the process continues.

If applicants call and indicate that they do not have any documentation
beyond what was provided in the application form, NYCT staff indicated
that they typically would ask the person to then participate in an
in-person assessment. Also, if the information in the application and
follow-up information is otherwise still not sufficient to make a final
determination, Certifiers can make a decision to ask applicants to
participate in in-person interviews and/or functional assessments. NYCT
has contracts with three health care/medical centers, which perform the
interviews/assessments at five locations and then provide a summary of
observations to the Certifiers. One contractor has interview/assessment
sites in the Bronx, Manhattan and Staten Island. A second is located in
Brooklyn and the third is located in Queens. These contractors and the
boroughs they serve are:

Horizon Health Care Bronx (through Excellence Physical Therapy),

> Manhattan (through Gramercy Physical Therapy),
>
> Staten Island (through Millan & Orloski Physical Therapy)

Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center Brooklyn

John F. Kennedy Medical Offices Queens

NYCT provides annual ADA Complementary Paratransit eligibility training
to assessment site contractor staff. A review of the assessment process
is also conducted on-site once each quarter by NYCT.

If a NYCT Certifier decides that an interview and/or assessment are
needed, the applicant is contacted and a date and time for an in-person
interview/appointment are set. Applicants are given ten days advance
notice of an appointment, and provided a voucher for transport to the
center by a car service. A confirmation letter giving the day, time and
location of the assessment is then sent. NYCT staff members create the
schedule of assessments for each contractor and provide the schedules
with applicant files in advance of upcoming appointments.

NYCT Certifiers specify for each in-person assessment whether they would
like the contractor to only perform an interview or to do both an
interview and an assessment. Professionals at each site generally follow
these requests, but they have the leeway to do an assessment if, based
on the interview, they believe an objective observation of abilities is
needed.

Most assessments begin with a short interview. Staff at each assessment
center asks each applicant a standard set of questions, contained in a
"Certifier In-Depth Review Report." Applicants are asked if they are
able to get to and use the subway, get to and use buses, and for
information about the need for personal attendant services when
traveling.

Each assessment center is also equipped to allow a functional assessment
to be performed if requested by NYCT (or if determined appropriate by
the assessment center staff). Each assessment center has a mock-up of a
bus step-well and entrance and a wheelchair-lift. Physical therapists,
occupational therapists, or other similar professionals at each site
observe applicants' abilities to climb bus steps, use a bus lift, use a
fare box, get to and use a seat, hold onto overhead support rails, use
the stop request system, and recognize destination signs. Assessors also
observe general mobility as applicants travel the equivalent of about
two blocks throughout the assessment center. Gait, balance and endurance
are assessed and assessors indicate on the "Certifier In-Depth Review
Report" the distance that they believe applicants are able to travel to
get to and from fixed route stops or stations.

If applicants fail to appear for a scheduled interview/assessment, they
are sent a letter noting that the appointment was missed and that the
application has been "withdrawn" as a result. The letter then indicates
to applicants that if they wish to be reconsidered for eligibility they
should call the EDU. If applicants call, a new interview/assessment
appointment is arranged.

Completed "Certifier In-Depth Review Reports" are then sent back to the
NYCT Certifiers. This information is then used, along with information
provided in the application and any follow-up information obtained, to
make a final determination of eligibility. The decision on eligibility
is made by the NYCT Certifiers. Applicants can be found either fully
eligible for paratransit service, conditionally eligible, temporarily
eligible, or not eligible. If temporary eligibility is granted for less
than the standard period (which is three years), applicants are made
either fully or conditionally eligible for this temporary period.

A limited number of specific categories of conditional eligibility are
granted. Applicants can receive conditional eligibility under one or
more of the following categories:

-   Extreme Cold or Inclement Weather: Individuals given this type of
    conditional eligibility are able to use paratransit service from
    December through March but not at other times of the year.

-   Extreme Heat: Individuals given this type of conditional eligibility
    are able to use paratransit service during the months of July and
    August but not at other times of the year

-   Inter-borough Trips: Applicants who can use bus service to travel
    within a borough but who are unable to use the subway system to
    travel between boroughs are able to use paratransit service only for
    trips between boroughs.

-   Navigational/Unfamiliar Locations: This category of conditional
    eligibility is granted if applicants cannot travel to and from
    certain locations due to path-of-travel issues (e.g., steep terrain,
    lack of curb-cuts) or are only able to travel to places with which
    they are familiar. Applicants who have cognitive disabilities or
    vision disabilities and who can make some trips to places they have
    learned but who cannot travel to unfamiliar locations might receive
    this type of conditional eligibility.

-   Distance: If applicants cannot travel more than a certain distance
    to get to and from fixed route stops/stations, they are given
    conditional eligibility when travel is more than this distance.
    Within this category of conditional eligibility there are
    subcategories that specify maximum distances. Applicants are given
    eligibility for trips that involve walking: more than 1-2 blocks,
    more than 3-4 blocks, or more than 5 blocks.

-   Trip-by-Trip: Applicants whose disability is episodic or variable
    and who might be able to use fixed routes on "good days" but not on
    "bad days" might receive this type of conditional eligibility. NYCT
    staff indicated, however, that this category of eligibility is not
    currently being used because of software/policy issues regarding the
    provision of subscription service for persons with episodic/variable
    disabilities. They indicated that use of this category has been
    suspended until these software/policy issues are resolved.

Once a final determination has been made, applicants are sent a letter
indicating whether they have been found eligible and the type of
eligibility being granted. An "Access-A-Ride Paratransit Service User's
Guide" is sent to all persons determined eligible. Letters indicating a
denial of eligibility or any other limitation on eligibility (i.e.,
conditional or temporary eligibility) also indicate that applicants can
appeal the decision and include a copy of an "Access-A-Ride Eligibility
Appeal Form." The appeal form gives applicants the choice of appealing
in-person or having the decision reviewed based on the written record.
The form encourages applicants to provide a statements indicating why
they disagree with the determination and to provide additional
supporting documentation if they choose not to appear in-person.

NYCT staff also indicated that in most cases, a decision to deny
eligibility is not made without the benefit of an in-person
interview/assessment. This allows the NYCT Certifier to have information
and observations by the assessment contractor before a decision is made
to deny eligibility. In some instances, though, it may be clear from the
application form and/or follow-up contacts with an applicant that the
individual misunderstood eligible for AAR and it was clear that the
person was not eligible. In these cases, eligibility might be denied
without an in-person assessment.

If applicants request an appeal based on the written record, the
application file along with any additional documentation provided is
forwarded to the NYCT Appeals Officer. The Appeals Officer and a staff
physician review the record. A decision is then made and the appellant
is sent a letter indicating the outcome of the appeal. Because two
individuals decide appeals, all decisions are made by consensus. NYCT
has a goal of making appeal decisions, based on the written record,
within 30 days of the receipt of a request from an applicant.

If an in-person appeal is requested, a date and time is set and the
appellant is informed by telephone. In-person appeals are also heard and
decided by the Appeals Officer and the staff physician. It is NYCT's
goal to hear and decide on in-person appeals within 45 days of the
receipt of a request.

Occasionally, applicants who appeal and who did not participate in an
in-person interview/assessment as part of the original determination
might be asked to participate in an assessment before the appeal is
decided. The Appeal Officer and the staff physician will then consider
the results of the assessment.

It is also NYCT's policy to not reduce an appellant's level of
eligibility as the result of an appeal. If any changes are made to the
initial decision, more eligibility rather than less is granted.

All riders are required to be recertified when their eligibility expires
(three years from the date eligibility is granted unless temporary
eligibility is provided). Riders are sent a notice with a copy of a new
application form 60 days before their eligibility is scheduled to
expire.

**Determination Outcomes**

According to the "Eligibility Determination and Appeals Monthly Report"
provided by NYCT staff for the period from January-August 2003, a total
of 77,961 individuals were on record as ADA Complementary Paratransit
eligible. An average of about 3,200 applications were received each
month during this period. This included about 2,010 new applications and
about 1,010 requests for recertification each month.

The report also indicated that about 48% of all applicants are referred
for an in-person interview and/or assessment. For the eight-month report
period, 11,572 applicants were referred for an in-person interview or
assessment. Some applicants who are referred decide not to pursue
eligibility. During the same period, 9,261 interviews/assessments were
performed, which suggests that about 2,311 applicants referred (20%) do
not continue with the process once asked to participate in an
assessment.

For the eight-month period from January 1 through August 31, 2003, a
total of 23,423 eligibility determinations were made. About 54% of these
determinations granted full eligibility to applicants. Conditional
eligibility was granted 40% of the time. Six percent (6%) of applicants
were found not eligible.

From January 1 through August 31, 2003, NYCT received 767 requests for
appeals. Twenty-seven (27) appellants had not yet participated in an
in-person assessment and were asked to do so as part of the appeal
process. In 520 cases (68%), the original determination decision was
upheld. About 18% of the time the original decision for conditional
eligibility was changed to full eligibility. And in about 14% of the
appeals the conditions of eligibility originally granted were modified
(in most cases applicants were given additional conditions under which
they would also be eligible).

**Review of Recent Determination Decisions and Process Observations**

As part of the on-site assessment, 36 recent determinations where
reviewed with NYCT staff. This included 13 determinations that
applicants were not eligible and 23 determinations where applicants were
found conditionally eligible. Determinations made by each of the five
Certifiers were selected for review. In each case, the information in
the file -- the paper application and the interview/assessment summary
-- was reviewed. The reasons for the final determination were then
discussed with the Certifier who made the decision.

The review found that all 13 of the "not eligible" determinations
appeared to be appropriate. In-person assessments were performed in all
13 cases, and the observations made by the contractor staff suggested
that the applicants could travel to and from and use fixed route transit
services.

The review of selected determinations also indicated that in most of the
23 cases where applicants were given "conditional eligibility" the
decisions appeared to be appropriate. There was evidence in each file
that applicants could use fixed route service in some instances and
required paratransit services only under certain conditions.

In a few instances, however, there was some question about the
appropriateness of the specific categories of conditional eligibility
granted and whether these categories covered all circumstances under
which the applicants would not be able to use fixed route transit. In
one case, the applicant reported severe arthritis and use of a support
cane. An in-person assessment was performed and the report suggested
that the applicant could only be expected to travel about one block to
get to or from transit stops/stations. The applicant was only granted
eligibility for "inter-borough" trips, however. The Certifier explained
that eligibility based on "distance to and from stops" was not granted
because the applicant only indicated a need for AAR services to get to
and from her doctor, who was located in another borough. The decision
appeared to focus on a specific trip need rather than on the broader
conditions under which fixed route service could not be used.

In a second case, the applicant reported using a cane or walker and
sometimes a wheelchair. Use of inaccessible subway stations appeared to
be an issue. Conditional eligibility was only granted for trips "more
than 1-2 blocks" and for travel during times of "extreme heat" and
"extreme cold." Eligibility for inter-borough travel (when the subway
system would need to be used) was not one of the conditions granted. The
Certifier explained that giving eligibility for trips involving travel
of more than 1-2 blocks should cover inter-borough travel since the
subway stations were likely to be more than 1-2 blocks away. While this
might be the case for most trips, it is possible that stations could be
closer at both the origin and destination for some trips that the
applicant may request in the future.

NYCT Certifiers noted that some applicants report having variable
disabilities and might reasonably be expected to travel by bus or subway
on some days but not on days that their disability or health condition
caused severe limitations. They noted that the "trip-by-trip" category
of conditional eligibility had been created to address these instances.
They noted, however, that the granting of "trip-by-trip" conditional
eligibility had been discontinued because of incompatibility with the
ADEPT reservations and scheduling system. Apparently, granting
subscription service for individuals granted conditional eligibility
based on a variable condition was a problem. As a result, that type of
conditional eligibility was discontinued.

The handling of applications from children with disabilities was also
discussed, since this was an issue specifically raised by advocates and
riders contacted prior to the assessment. Certifiers noted that if
applicants were less than eight (8) years of age, their ability to use
the fixed route system with an accompanying adult is considered.
Independent travel ability is only considered when applicants are eight
years of age or older. Staff explained that this policy was established
to mirror the fixed route policy, which required children less than 48
inches tall to be accompanied by an adult.

The granting of eligibility for a personal care attendant (PCA) was also
discussed. Staff at Gramercy Physical Therapy, who were interviewed as
part of the assessment indicated that they consider whether or not an
applicant might require the assistance of a PCA to perform the tasks
needed to use public transit. They then make their recommendation
regarding the need for a PCA on this specific need rather than on a
broader need for assistance at a destination. Discussions with NYCT
Certifiers also indicated that they often would rely on the contractor's
observations to make a decision on the need for a PCA. As a result,
these decisions may not always consider the need for attendant services
at destinations rather than just for actual travel.

Finally, it was observed that eligibility determinations did not appear
to always note travel limitations caused by path-of-travel barriers. The
"navigational" category of conditional eligibility did not appear to be
used very often. It was not used in any of the 23 determinations
reviewed even though it appeared that some applicants would be affected
by the lack of curb cuts or an accessible path-of-travel (e.g.,
applicants who indicated they used wheelchairs).

Six recent appeal cases were also reviewed with the Appeal Officer. The
information in each file was examined and the appeal decision was
discussed. In all six cases, the appeal decisions appeared to be
appropriate.

**Review of Application Processing Times**

The USDOT regulations implementing the ADA state that applicants must be
treated as eligible if a determination of eligibility cannot be made
within 21 days of the receipt of a completed application (49 CFR Part
37.125(c)). Information about the time required to process requests for
ADA paratransit eligibility and the handling of cases where the
processing time exceeds 21 days was therefore collected.

As noted above, when paper applications are received, NYCT staff review
them for completeness. If applications are found to be incomplete they
are returned with a letter asking the applicant to provide the missing
information and then return the completed application. When applications
are determined to be complete, the date they were received is entered
into a computer database. At the same time, the applicant is entered
into the ADEPT reservations and scheduling database and an "eligible"
date that is 21 days from the date of the receipt of the completed
application is entered. This ensures that if the processing of the
application takes more than 21 days, the applicant will be able to call
and request trips.

A confirmation letter letting the applicant know that the application
has been received and is in process is also sent to the applicant (see
Attachment E for a sample letter). The letter indicates the date the
application was received and lets the applicant know that if a decision
is not made within 21 days he/she can use the service until a decision
is made. The phone number to call to request rides is also provided.

If an applicant is required to participate in an in-person
interview/assessment, the processing time is "suspended" once the person
is notified and the count of days does not resume until the person has
appeared for the interview/assessment. Further, if an applicant
schedules an appointment for an interview/assessment and is a no-show,
the application is considered "closed" and the applicant is notified
that the processing of the application will not resume until an
interview/assessment is conducted.

Similarly, if an NYCT Certifier determines that
documentation/verification of disability is needed, the applicant will
be notified that documentation is needed and the processing time is
"suspended" until the documentation is received. If documentation is not
received within 10 days, the application is considered "closed" and the
applicant is notified that processing will not resume until the required
documentation is received.

NYCT maintains a computer database that includes the key dates in the
process. This includes:

-   The date of receipt of completed applications;

-   The date applicants are notified of the need for an in-person
    interview/assessment (if applicable);

-   The date the interview/assessment is completed;

-   The date documentation/verification of disability is requested (if
    applicable);

-   The date documentation of disability is received; and

-   The date a final determination is made.

Two printouts listing the processing dates for 2,990 determinations
completed in August 2003 were generated and reviewed. One printout was
for 1,201 determinations that were made "in-house" without in-person
interviews/assessments. The second list was for 1,789 determinations
that included an in-person interview/assessment. Table V.1 below shows
the reported application processing times for determinations done
in-house without in-person interviews or assessments. Table V.2 presents
reported processing times when in-person interviews and/or assessments
were required.

As shown in Table V.1, 64% of all determinations that are made
"in-house" (without an in-person interview/assessment) are made within
21 days of the receipt of a completed application. Another 18% take
between 22 and 28 days to complete. Sixteen percent (16%) take between
29 and 35 days, and about 2% take 36 days or more. The longest
processing time noted for this sample of 1,201 determinations was 53
days.

Table V.1  Processing Time for 1201 Eligibility Determinations That Did
Not Involve In-Person Assessments, Based on NYCT Report for August 2003

  ---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
  **Number of Days to Make     **Number of            **Cumulative
  Determination Following      Determinations**       Percentage**
  Receipt of Complete                                 
  Application**                                       

  0-7 days                     170 (14%)              14%

  8-14 days                    360 (30%)              44%

  15-21 days                   237 (20%)              64%

  22-28 days                   220 (18%)              82%

  29-35 days                   187 (16%)              98%

  36+ days                     27 (2%)                100%

  TOTAL                        1201 (100%)            
  ---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------

A review of the sample of 1,789 determinations that did involve an
in-person interview/ assessment showed that processing times were
somewhat longer. As shown in Table V.2 below, about 42% of all
determinations were made in 21 days when an in-person
interview/assessment was required. Twenty-seven percent of these
determinations were made in 22-28 days, 17% took up to 35 days, and 14%
took 36 days or more. The longest determination time in this sample took
80 days.

It should also be noted, though, that the reported processing times in
Table V.2 do not include the time required to arrange for and conduct
the in-person interview/assessment. As noted above, once it is
determined that an in-person visit is required, the processing time is
"suspended" until the interview/assessment is completed. Essentially,
NYCT considers that application "incomplete" at that point and only
restarts the processing time when the information from the assessment is
obtained.

To estimate how much longer it typically takes to arrange for an
in-person interview/assessment, the processing time records for a sample
of 133 determinations made in August 2003 that involved an
interview/assessment were reviewed. The total processing times for these
determinations (from dates the applications were recorded as complete to
the dates of the final determinations) were compared to the processing
times reported by NYCT (that did not include the time required to
arrange for and conduct the assessments). This analysis indicated that,
on average, an additional 15 days was required. In most cases it
appeared that interviews/assessments were arranged and conducted in 7-14
days, but occasionally a longer time was required -- probably due to
scheduling difficulties on the applicants' end. If the time required to
conduct in-person assessments was included in the processing time, it
appears that probably only about 10% of determinations would be made in
21 days or less.

Table V.2  Processing Time for 1789 Eligibility Determinations That Did
Involve In-Person Assessments, Based on NYCT Report for August 2003

  --------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------
  **Number of Days to Make          **Number of         **Cumulative
  Determination Following Receipt   Determinations**    Percentage**
  of Complete Application**                             

  0-7 days                          206 (11%)           11%

  8-14 days                         178 (10%)           21%

  15-21 days                        370 (21%)           42%

  22-28 days                        482 (27%)           69%

  29-35 days                        308 (17%)           86%

  36+ days                          245 (14%)           100%

  TOTAL                             1789 (100%)         
  --------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------

**No-Show Suspension Policy**

49 CFR §37.125(h) of the USDOT's ADA regulations states that transit
agencies "...may establish an administrative process to suspend, for a
reasonable period of time, the provision of complementary paratransit
service to ADA eligible individuals who establish a pattern or practice
of missing scheduled trips." Related language in Appendix D of the
regulations states that "It is very important to note that sanctions
could be imposed only for a 'pattern or practice' of missed trips. A
pattern or practice involves intentional, repeated or regular actions,
not isolated, accidental, or singular incidents."

A copy of NYCT's "No-Show/Late Cancellation Policy" is provided as
Attachment F. As shown, the policy considers cancellations made after
5:00 PM on the day before service to be "late cancellations." Riders can
be suspended from AAR service for two weeks for the first time they
accumulate seven or more no-shows or late cancellations in any rolling
six-month period. If riders subsequently accumulate seven or more
no-shows or late cancellations in a second six-month period they can be
suspended from service for three weeks. And a four-week suspension is
called for if there is a third occurrence. Subscription service can also
be canceled if a rider accumulates seven of more no-shows in six months
and riders must wait at least four months after the date of the
suspension to reapply for subscription privileges.

If a suspension is proposed, NYCT sends the rider a letter which details
the policy, lists the no-shows and late cancellations by date and trip
addresses, and indicates the start and end date of the proposed
suspension. The letter also informs riders that they have a right to
appeal the proposed suspension. Riders must complete and submit a
"Notice of Intention to Appeal Suspension" form and can either appeal in
writing or in person. A "Statement of Appeal" form is provided to assist
rider in making written appeals (although letters stating the reasons
for the appeal are also accepted).

As noted in the description in Attachment F, the current policy was
adopted on May 15, 2000. NYCT staff noted, however, that it was not
enforced for a period of time in 2001 and 2002 because of general
service performance issues. The identification of riders with excessive
no-shows and late cancellations resumed in March of 2003 and suspensions
began again in April of 2003.

While the policy calls for suspensions when there are seven or more
no-shows in six months, the actual practice since March of 2003 has been
to only propose and enforce suspensions of riders with the worst
no-show/late cancellation records. Staff indicated that since February
of 2003 a list of the 10 riders with the greatest number of
no-shows/late cancellations in the last two months has been generated
each month. These riders usually have no-shows or late cancellations on
at least 20 separate days in a two-month period. It was also noted that
when generating this list staff consider "days of no-shows/late
cancellations" rather than individual occurrences. So, for example, it
is possible that these riders no-showed or late cancelled 20 or more
round trips (40 or more total one-way trips) during this period.

Staff also indicated that before proposing a suspension, the record of
no-shows will be checked against trip records and dispatcher notes to
ensure that service performance issues did not cause or contribute to
the no-show or late cancellation. It was also noted that staff would
sometimes make follow-up calls to riders or professionals who might be
working with riders to determine if no-shows or late cancellations were
beyond the riders' control. Information collected from these
investigations or follow-up contacts will also be used to correct
"system" problems that might be causing no-shows and late cancellations.
In general, staff indicated that they will "look for any reason not to
have to carry out a proposed suspension" and that enforcement actions to
date have really focused on what they consider to be clear cases by the
worst offenders in the system.

Records indicated that a total of 81 suspensions have been enforced
between March 1, 2003 and the date of the assessment (September 10,
2003). About 70 individual riders have been suspended (a few riders have
been suspended multiple times).

**Findings**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Recommendations**

1.  When making determinations of conditional eligibility, it is
    recommended that NYCT tailor these decisions to the specific travel
    limitations of each applicant rather than fitting them to
    categories. It is also recommended that path-of-travel barriers be
    more fully explored in the in-person functional assessments and
    final eligibility determinations. Explaining conditional eligibility
    in a more specific way rather than through general categories may
    also be more helpful to riders. For example, finding someone
    conditionally eligible "when travel to or from a bus stop or subway
    station is prevented due to a lack of curb-cuts or the lack of a
    sidewalk" may be more understandable than "navigational"
    eligibility.

2.  NYCT should work to eliminate impediments to use of the
    "trip-by-trip" conditional eligibility category so that this type of
    conditional eligibility can again be used. In the absence of this
    type of conditional eligibility, NYCT should ensure that decisions
    made for applicants with variable/episodic disabilities take into
    consideration the applicant's travel abilities on days when the
    impacts of the disability/health condition are most severe.

3.  It is recommended that contractor staff that interview and/or assess
    the functional abilities of applicants be asked to determine the
    need for a PCA based not only on assistance needed to travel on the
    fixed route system but also on the need for assistance with other
    tasks when at a destination. If contractor staff continue to only
    consider the need for a PCA in transit, NYCT should be sure that
    Certifiers are aware that recommendations from assessors on PCAs
    only consider this very narrow need and that Certifiers consider
    other types of PCA assistance that the traveler may need at their
    decision.

4.  As it is unclear to AAR applicants that there might be additional
    requirements made of them after submitting the written application,
    it is recommended that NYCT include the time required to arrange and
    conduct in-person interviews/assessments as part of the total
    processing time. Use of the service should be extended to applicants
    if it is not possible to review the paper application, arrange an
    in-person assessment and make a final determination in 21 days. It
    would be reasonable to "suspend" the processing time, though, if
    caused by the applicant not meeting a scheduled in-person assessment
    or delaying the scheduling of an assessment. Since in-person
    assessments are requested on an "as needed" basis, are not required
    of all applicants, are an additional step required by NYCT for only
    certain applicants, and it is not clear that an application may not
    be complete upon the submittal of a written application, the
    "application" should be considered complete when all information
    requested in the paper application required of all applicants is
    provided by the applicant. In the alternative, NYCT could clarify
    that an application is not considered complete upon the submittal of
    the written application, putting applicants on notice as to when the
    21-day clock begins.

5.  It is recommended that NYCT revise its policy for service
    suspensions to take into consideration the frequency of use of the
    service and the percentage of trips no-showed or late cancelled. A
    frequency of no-shows and late cancellations that shows a clear
    "pattern or practice" should then be the basis for a proposed
    suspension of service. It is also recommended that public input be
    obtained for this policy revision.

6.  It is recommended that NYCT revise its policy regarding no-shows and
    late cancellations to only count cancellations made within several
    hours before the scheduled pick-up time toward a possible suspension
    of service. It is also recommended that public input be obtained for
    this policy revision.

# VI. Telephone Access {#vi.-telephone-access .unnumbered}

The review team collected information about telephone access to NYCT's
AAR service for this part of the review. Telephone access for placing or
changing trip reservations or checking on the status of a ride is an
important part of ADA Complementary Paratransit operations. The
inability to get through on the phone to place trip requests without
significant delays could discourage people from using the service and
could therefore be considered a form of capacity constraint.

The review team conducted the following activities:

-   Gathered consumer input,

-   Reviewed performance standards for wait and hold times,

-   Reviewed the design of the phone system,

-   Observed reservations and command center personnel handling of
    calls,

-   Reviewed phone system monitoring (Automatic Call Distribution)
    reports, and

-   Made calls to the AAR reservations line to hear how the system
    directs callers and to test access and hold times.

**Consumer Comments**

At the August 1, 2003 meeting, AAR riders and representatives raised the
following concerns related to telephone access:

-   One consumer stated that between 4:00 and 5:00 PM on weekends the
    call center will often stop taking calls for reservations,

-   One customer said that when they got through at the end of a weekend
    day that they were told to call back later,

-   Consumers indicated that callers using TTD were disconnected,

-   Consumers noted that calls can take a long time while the call
    takers are scheduling trips, and

-   One consumer representative claimed that AAR did not respond to
    telephone calls that were still in queue at 5:00 PM.

Neither of the two complaints filed with FTA in 2000 included issues
relating to telephone access.

In NYCT's internal complaint tracking system, AAR had a total of 68
complaints classified as "telephone problems" for a recent 12-month
period (August 2002 to July 2003; only 14 since January 2003). These
complaints could include those relating to telephone access.

**Phone Service Standards and Performance Monitoring**

NYCT has established the following service performance standards for AAR
service:

The reservationists must respond to an average of 95% of all incoming
calls within a maximum of 2 minutes after the call has been answered by
the automatic call distribution system (ACD).

**Access-a-Ride Phone Service Design**

NYCT's AAR has one telephone number for all voice communications with
the general public (toll free 877-337-2017 or 646-252-5252). AAR has 11
"T-1" lines, each with a capacity of 24 telephone lines. At the time of
the on-site review, AAR's phone system allowed a total of 212 calls to
be active in queue (beyond that, the caller would get a busy signal).
These lines were available to all AAR and on-site contractor staff, with
no allocation among the organizational units. The number of workstations
in the various units: 72 for reservations, 50 for transit control, and
12 for eligibility determination, establish the limits of hardware to
accept calls. In addition to these workstations, the rest of the AAR
staff shares these telephone lines. AAR uses a call management system
from Avaya (Version 6, purchased from Lucent Technologies in 1998).

When a caller dials the public number, there is a menu with the
following choices:

-   "1" − get information on eligibility, appeals, and applications

-   "2" − make a trip reservation

-   "3" -- change a trip reservation

-   "4" − cancel a trip

-   "5" − find out about today's trip ("Where's my ride?")

-   "0" − talk to an operator or repeat the menu choices

AAR accepts reservations between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM every day. The
eligibility determination unit accepts calls on weekdays between 9:00 AM
and 5:00 PM. If the caller presses "1," "2," or "3," when the
eligibility or reservations units are not open, the call is forwarded to
the transit control unit. Customer information on telephone access and
service is provided in the "Access-a-Ride Paratransit Service User's
Guide" (Attachment G) and the "MTA New York City Transit Telephone
Directory for Customers with Disabilities" (Attachment H).

**Trip Reservations Staffing**

First Transit staff performs the trip reservations and initial
scheduling process at a central office located in NYCT offices at 2
Broadway. A NYCT supervisor oversees the management of this function by
the contractor.

The work schedule for the week of September 7-13, 2003 showed that First
Transit employed a total of 164 reservationists. Most reservationists
(132) were scheduled to work the full period when trip requests were
accepted (from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM) four days a week. Seven
reservationists worked five-day weeks from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM and
provide additional call-taking capacity at the end of the day. The
remaining 16 reservationists worked six-hour part-time shifts, four-days
a week: either from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM, or 11:00 AM
to 5:00 PM. Table VI.1 below shows the total number of reservationists
scheduled by day of the week for the week of September 7-13, 2003. It
also shows the number of reservationists scheduled at 7:00 AM, when the
reservation lines were opened each morning, and at 5:00 PM, when the
reservation line is closed. As shown, 68 reservationists were scheduled
for weekend days (with 62-64 available at the beginning and end of the
day). On weekdays, between 80 and 116 reservationists are available
(with between 63 and 100 on-duty at the beginning and end of the day).

Table VI.1  Number of Reservationists by Day of the Week, September
7-13, 2003

  --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Day and date**      **Total           **Number         **Number
                        Reservationists   Scheduled to     Scheduled at
                        Scheduled to      Start at 7:00    5:00 PM**
                        Work**            AM**             

  Sunday, September 7   68                64               64

  Monday, September 8   113               92               97

  Tuesday, September 9  116               94               100

  Wednesday, September  96                78               84
  10                                                       

  Thursday, September   82                63               70
  11                                                       

  Friday, September 12  80                73               78

  Saturday, September   68                62               64
  13                                                       
  --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------

A thorough training program appears to have been established to train
new reservationists in the use of the automated reservations and
scheduling system and in AAR policies. A training facility with its own
dedicated version of the reservations/scheduling system has been set-up
to allow new reservationists to practice using the system in a simulated
but "real-life" environment. NYCT also has a "Reservations Manual" that
addresses all aspects of the reservations and scheduling processes. The
manual includes a detailed "script" for reservationists to follow when
answering customer calls.

**Telephone Service Performance Reports**

The review team collected and reviewed data from AAR's call management
system for seven months: February 2003 to August 2003. The review team
also made some sample calls to AAR to check on the response time.

Data collected by the call management system includes:

-   Number of incoming calls,

-   Average time to answer (hold time),

-   Maximum time to answer,

-   Average call length, and

-   Number of abandoned calls.

Data is available by the hour and by the day. The system generates data
separately for reservation lines and dispatch lines. Table VI.2 presents
summary data for AAR's reservations telephone lines. Table VI.3 presents
summary data for AAR's Control Center telephone lines.

> **Table VI.2 − AAR Telephone Performance for Reservations Lines:**
>
> **February to August 2003**

+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| **Month**  | **Average    | **Max.    | **Average** | **Abandoned   |
|            | Time to      | Time to   |             | Calls**       |
|            | Answer**     | Answer    | **Call Time |               |
|            |              | (m        | (min:sec)** |               |
|            | *            | in:sec)** |             |               |
|            | *(min:sec)** |           |             |               |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| February   | 0:29         | 9:43      | 3:16        | 3.2%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| March      | 0:18         | 7:48      | 3:20        | 2.1%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| April      | 0:09         | 7:26      | 3:15        | 1.0%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| May        | 0:07         | 10:28     | 3:10        | 0.9%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| June       | 0:09         | 7:47      | 3:16        | 1.1%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| July       | 0:09         | 7:44      | 3:13        | 1.1%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| August     | 0:12         | 13:12     | 3:12        | 3.1%          |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+
| *          | **0:13**     | **13:12** | **3:14**    | **1.7%**      |
| *Overall** |              |           |             |               |
+------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+---------------+

> **Table VI.3 − AAR Telephone Performance for Control Center Lines:**
>
> **February to August 2003**

  ------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------------
  **Month**     **Average Time  **Max. Time to   **Average     **Abandoned
                to Answer       Answer           Call Time     Calls**
                (min:sec)**     (hr:min:sec)**   (min:sec)**   

  February      0:29            2:36:26          1:08          8.3%

  March         0:18            0:45:28          1:08          4.8%

  April         0:15            0:58:12          1:07          4.3%

  May           0:13            0:47:49          1:10          3.6%

  June          0:12            0:40:51          1:14          3.4%

  July          0:10            0:30:03          1:12          2.4%

  August        0:10            0:31:36          1:16          2.8%

  **Overall**   **0:15**        **2:36:26**      **1:10**      **4.2%**
  ------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------------

The review team looked at call-data for individual days and 30-minute
periods for these seven months to see if there were time periods that
had consistently poorer performance, as well as to determine the reason
for the maximum values for answer time. The maximum values for the
reservation unit's answer time generally appeared to be exceptions,
e.g., AAR reservations unit was short staffed on that particular shift.
Overall, the average hold times presented in the daily reports show that
the average time to answer − measured in 30-minute periods − is well
below AAR's standard of two minutes. This indicates that telephone
access is not an impediment to using the AAR service. However, AAR does
not collect data to explicitly show AAR's performance relative to its
standard, i.e., the 95th percentile for hold times.

The review team made a total of 34 test calls between July 31 and
September 7, 2003. These calls included a random sampling by day of week
and time of day, between 9 AM and 5 PM, including three calls between
4:30 and 5:00 PM on a weekend day. The time to answer (reach the initial
menu) ranged from three to five seconds. Once the call made the menu
selection, only two of the 34 calls had hold times greater than 15
seconds (24 seconds at 4:20 PM and 64 seconds at 4:40 PM).

**Findings**

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

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

**Recommendations**

1.  AAR should collect data from its call management system so that it
    can explicitly measure performance against its standard for
    answering reservations calls.

# Trip Reservations 

In this portion of the compliance review, the team examined how trip
requests from riders were handled. Particular attention was given to
whether Access-A-Ride (AAR) uses any form of trip caps or waiting lists
and whether there was a pattern or practice of denying a significant
number of trip requests. The following information was gathered and
analyzed:

[]{.mark}

-   Input from customers and advocates was obtained through telephone
    interviews, a review of recent court documents, and a review of
    comments and complaints on file at NYCT;

-   Reservations and scheduling policies, practices, and performance
    standards were reviewed;

-   Service reports prepared by NYCT showing the number of trips
    requested, scheduled and denied were examined; and

-   First-hand observations of the handling of trips were made, and
    staff members were interviewed about the ability to accommodate trip
    requests.

**Consumer Comments**

[]{.mark}

Consumer input, as detailed in Section III, was gathered through
interviews with representatives of the disabled community, review of a
report provided by Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and AAR
complaint records for the first 7 months of 2003.

Reservations issues identified by representatives of the disabled
community and the Disabled in Action Report included:

-   Calls can take a long time when call takers are scheduling trips.
    Representatives also indicated that it takes a long time to confirm
    ride status when a vehicle is late.

-   Representatives noted that the number of trip denials has declined
    in recent months. One customer indicated that times offered are
    usually good, but on occasion are too early or too late.
    Representatives questioned the turnover rate and training of call
    takers as possible contributing factors. Seventy-six complaints
    (1.1%) filed with AAR during the first 7 months of 2003 related to
    call takers being unhelpful.

-   Consumers described missed trips from vehicles going to the wrong
    place as a problem. Four percent of the complaints filed with AAR
    were for wrong addresses and an additional 2.9% of complaints
    related to incorrect reservation information. AAR has been
    addressing the problem of wrong pick-up locations at major centers
    by establishing standard pick-up locations.

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York also cited use of standby
lists for reservations and trip reservations lost in the system (AAR
sometimes has no record of rides scheduled with customers) as issues.

**Reservations and Scheduling Policies**

> []{.mark}

NYCT standards that guide the reservations and scheduling process
include a goal of 0% denials; an "on-time" pick-up window of between
five minutes before the pick-up time scheduled with the customer and 25
minutes after the scheduled pick up time (-5/+25). The NYCT goal is that
vehicles arrive on-time 95% of the time. NYCT's goal is to schedule 100%
of the trips using the following travel time standards:

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Miles**                             **Minutes**

  ≥ 0 and ≤ 3                           50

  ≥ 3 and ≤ 6                           65

  ≥ 6 and ≤ 9                           95

  ≥ 9 and ≤ 12                          115

  ≥ 12 and ≤ 14                         135

  ≥ 14                                  155
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[]{.mark}

The Access-a-Ride User's Guide advises customers that they can apply for
subscription service if they use the service for three or more trips per
week. Subscription service is subject to availability limits.

[]{.mark}

**Trip Reservations Procedures**

Trip requests are accepted from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM, seven days a
week, 365 days a year. Trip requests can be placed from four days in
advance until 5:00 PM the afternoon before the day of service. However,
AAR defines "next day" to begin at 4:00 AM rather than 12:01 AM.
Therefore, a caller who requests service for the following day can get a
trip only if it is after 4:00 AM. For a trip between midnight and 4:00
AM, a caller must call two days in advance (e.g., Monday for a trip on
Wednesday at 1:00 AM).

The "Reservations Manual" (page 1) notes that, for trips within the same
borough, riders cannot book return trips that are less than 90 minutes
after the going trip pick-up or appointment time. For inter-borough
trips, returns cannot be requested less than 2 ½ hours after the going
trip pick-up or appointment. The practice of limiting the times riders
can book return trips after the going trip, does not appear to provide
service that is comparable to fixed route service as required by 49 CFR
37.121. A person using fixed route service can begin their return trip
upon arrival at a destination. Whereas it appears reasonable to allow
for the pick-up window (25 minutes on the going end and 5 minutes on the
return) plus travel time to the destination, in scheduling such trips,
and it may be reasonable to allow a small amount of time for the
customer to conduct business at the destination, minimum requirements of
90 minutes and 2 ½ hours do not appear to provide ADA eligible customers
with comparable service.

As calls are received, reservationists are trained to request and record
information and schedule trips as follows:

-   Confirm that the person is calling to place a reservation by asking,
    "Are you booking a reservation?" This allows the reservationist to
    quickly determine if the person is calling for another reason and to
    transfer them to the appropriate area if they are calling for
    eligibility information, to check on a ride for that day, or for
    other reasons.

-   Request the caller's AAR ID number and enter it into the
    trip-booking screen.

-   Verify the caller's name (as it appears when the ID# is entered) to
    ensure that the ID number given is correct.

-   Ask if the trip is beginning at the caller's home address, and if so
    verify the home address, cross-streets, and home phone number that
    appears in the system (reservationists are instructed to start the
    trip booking process by loading in the "primary" (home) address). If
    the trip is originating at a different address, that address is
    entered into the system in place of the home address and the
    cross-streets and phone number at that address are verified. In some
    cases, different originating addresses are already in a recent trip
    history file and reservationists are able to simply select and
    automatically load in these addresses. In other cases,
    reservationists type in and then go through a process of geo-coding
    the address.

-   Request the destination address. Again, if the destination address
    is one that is in the rider's recent trip history file, the address
    is selected and automatically loaded into the system. If not, the
    destination address is entered and geo-coded. The cross-streets at
    the given destination as well as a phone number are also verified
    (if the address is selected from an existing list) or requested (if
    this is a new destination).

-   The date/day of the trip is requested and entered. If callers state
    a date, the day of the week is verified. If callers state a day
    (e.g., "next Monday"), reservationists confirm the date with the
    caller.

-   Ask, "Do you have an appointment?" If the caller indicates that
    there is no appointment, the reservationist asks, "What time would
    you like to be picked up?"

-   Determine if the person will be using any mobility equipment by
    asking "Will you be using any type of equipment?" The system
    automatically loads the primary mobility aid(s) used by the caller
    and this is modified as needed.

-   Determine if the caller will be traveling alone or with an attendant
    or companion(s) by asking "Will you be traveling alone?" Again, the
    system automatically indicates if the person is authorized to travel
    with an attendant and this information is modified as needed.

    Consistent with the Reservations Manual, the Access-A-Ride
    Paratransit Service User's Guide advises rider's requesting trips to
    have the following information:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ID Number;

-   Trip Date;

-   Desired arrival time;

-   Trip origin and destination addresses;

-   Whether accompanied by a Personal Care Attendant (PCA) or guest;

-   Telephone number at destination; and

-   Any special instructions.

The reservationist has three options for scheduling the trip using the
"Trip Time & Type" portion of the trip-booking screen. The choices are:

-   The appointment/drop-off time;

-   The pick-up time; or

-   The pick-up time with earliest departure.

Using the information provided by the caller, the reservationist selects
the appropriate scheduling approach.

If the trip is scheduled based on the stated appointment time, the
system will look for scheduled pick-up times that will ensure that the
rider gets to their destination from 30 minutes before to no later than
the appointment time. If the trip is scheduled based on a pick-up time,
the system will look for available times that are anywhere from an hour
before to an hour after the requested pick-up time. And, if the "pick-up
time with earliest departure" scheduling option is selected, the system
will look for pick-up times that are an hour after but not before the
requested time.

Once the above information has been requested, verified and entered, the
reservationist clicks on a "Schedule Trip" button and the system
attempts to schedule the trip. If a scheduling option exists, the system
will display the one best-scheduled pick-up time. This time is then
offered to the caller. If the rider accepts the time, the reservationist
clicks on the "Accept" button and the trip is scheduled. If the time is
not acceptable to the rider, the reservationist clicks on the "Client
Refusal" button and the trip request is stored in the system as a
refusal.

If no scheduling options can be identified by the system, a "Trip Failed
to be Scheduled" window appears. This window gives the reservationist
the choice of either placing the trip in a "standby" category, recording
it as a denial ("failed due to capacity" button), or offering the caller
supplemental taxi service.

The "Reservations Manual" (page 15) indicates that trip requests can be
placed in "standby" as long as the request is received before 2:30 PM
one day in advance. It was explained that this cut-off time was
established to give schedulers time to review and clear the standby list
and to call all riders on the list back with final scheduled times. The
"Reservations Manual" also indicates that taxi service is to be offered
after 2:30 PM the day before service if no trip options are identified
by the system.

If trips are placed on "standby," reservationists let callers know that
AAR schedulers will continue to work on the trip request, that it will
be scheduled, and that a scheduler will call them back with a final
scheduled time.

If no scheduling option for a trip request is identified by the system,
and if the trip is not placed in "standby" mode or the rider is not
offered a taxi, the reservationists will click on the "fail due to
capacity" button and the trip request will be recorded as a denial.

Return trips, or additional legs of trips, are booked in a similar way.
Information about origin and destination addresses, phone numbers at
each location, cross-street information, and travel times are requested,
verified and entered. An appropriate scheduling method (i.e., drop-off,
pick-up, or pick-up with earliest departure) is then selected. A
scheduling option is then generated and the time offered to the caller.

Once all legs of the trip being requested are scheduled, reservationists
call-up a "trip verification" screen that displays summary information
about the trips. This information is then read-back to the caller to
ensure that the addresses and times in the system are correct.

The "Reservations Manual" also instructs reservationists on several
other "Things to Remember," including:

-   Confirming whether trip times are AM or PM;

-   Getting information about the section of Queens for trips requested
    to or from that borough;

-   Asking for the type of destination facility;

-   Asking for information about the exact entrances to places like
    malls and hospitals; and

-   Getting information about exact terminals for trips to or from
    airports.

This additional information is then entered into comment fields attached
to the origin and destination of trips.

Finally, after completing the trip booking process and verifying trip
information with callers, reservationists are instructed to inform
callers "to be outside 5 minutes prior to their pick-up time and allow
25 minutes after the pick-up time for the driver to arrive."

**Observations of the Trip Reservations Process**

Three assessment team members sat with several different reservationists
and observed and recorded the handling of calls on Wednesday afternoon,
September 10, and at various times throughout the day on Thursday,
September 11. Telephone "splitters" were used to allow assessment team
members to listen to the calls. In addition to observing the handling of
trip requests, team members discussed reservations policies and
procedures with each reservationist. A First Transit reservations
Supervisor and the NYCT Control Center Manager and Reservations
Supervisor were also interviewed. Tape recordings of randomly selected
calls made on Monday, September 8, 2003, were also reviewed. These
interviews and observations provided the following additional
information about reservations procedures or practices that were not
detailed in the "Reservations Manual:"

-   Reservationists indicated that callers are limited to two round-trip
    requests (or multi-legged-trip requests) per call. Riders must call
    back if they need to book more than two trips.

-   In most cases, only one pick-up time is generated and offered to
    callers for each trip requested. If this time is not acceptable to
    the caller, reservationists indicated that they would usually tell
    the caller that they must call back to see if a different scheduling
    option can be identified. For example, if a rider asks for a 9:00 AM
    pick-up, is offered an 8:00 AM pick-up, but doesn't want to be
    picked-up that early, they cannot ask the reservationists handling
    their initial request if a later pick-up time is available or ask
    the reservationist to try again using a later requested pick-up time
    (say 9:30 AM) to see if this will give them an option more to their
    liking. Instead, they must call back and make a new request.

-   Some reservationists indicated that in some cases they would try a
    new time if the original trip offer does not appear to be responsive
    to the caller's needs. For example, one reservationist noted that if
    it were close to the end of the day she would look for a better time
    rather than asking the rider to call back and make a new request.

-   Once the rider's ID# and trip date are entered into the system,
    reservationists will call-up a listing of all trips by that rider
    for that day. This procedure is used to avoid duplicate bookings. It
    also appears to be used to determine if riders are accepting trips
    and then calling back for the same trip to see if pick-up times more
    to their liking can be obtained.

-   The practice of using the "standby" and "taxi" options appeared to
    be slightly different from the procedure described in the
    "Reservations Manual" and seemed to vary somewhat by reservationist.
    Because the taxi option did not meet the needs of riders who
    required accessible vehicles, some reservationists indicated that
    they would offer taxi service to ***ambulatory*** riders if no trip
    option could be identified after 2:30 PM the day before service.
    These reservationists indicated that "standby" service was offered
    up to 4:00 PM to riders who used wheelchairs since the taxi option
    would not meet their needs. The First Transit Reservations
    Supervisor also confirmed use of this practice of using the standby
    option up to 4:00 PM for riders who used wheelchairs. There appeared
    to be differences in the way that trip requests from riders who used
    wheelchairs, received after 4:00 PM, that could not be scheduled,
    were handled. Some reservationists were observed placing these
    requests on standby. Others indicated, that they would offer taxi
    service to these riders and did not put any trips on standby after
    4:00 PM.

-   There also appeared to be some difference in the way that
    reservationists used the "pick-up time with earliest departure"
    scheduling option. Some reservationists appeared to use this often.
    Others indicated that they only used this scheduling option if
    callers specifically said they could not leave earlier than a
    certain time. Others indicated that they used it primarily for
    return trips from dialysis centers or return work trips.

All reservationists did appear to closely follow the basic script for
booking trips.

The process of verifying information was also observed to be very
thorough. In some cases, though, riders were asked to verify so much
information in a very short period of time that they did not seem to be
fully focusing on the information being given by the reservationist.

Callers did not always appear to be clear on trip time limitations. For
example, calls were observed where the rider stated a requested pick-up
time but did not indicate that this was the earliest time that they
could leave until after a scheduled pick-up time was offered. At that
point, because the policy is to only offer one time, the person would be
told that they would need to call back.

One call was observed where the rider indicated that the home address in
the system was incorrect. The rider indicated that he had moved "a year
ago." The reservationist then entered the new home address into the
trip-booking screen. The reservationist did not, however, complete a
form to ensure that the address was corrected in the rider file
(something done only by the Eligibility Determination Unit (EDU). The
reservationist also did not tell the caller that they needed to call a
different number (the EDU number) to make the address change. This
rider's home address was then looked-up with the help of a supervisor
the following day and it appeared to still be the old incorrect address.

**Handling of Trip Requests**

NYCT tracks each trip request through to its ultimate disposition. Table
VII.1 Presents the number of trips scheduled and denied each month from
January 2001 through June 2003.

As can be seen in the table, NYCT reports a large reduction in the
number of trip denials in April of 2003, with zero denials during the
month of June. During the previous periods denials ranged from 445, or
0.2% of scheduled trips, in January 2001 to 3,523, or 1.7% of scheduled
trips in October of 2003.

For the month of May NYC reported 272,480 trip requests. Of this number
they reported 2 denials, 6,515 (2.4%) customer refusals, and 17,370
(6.4%) early cancellations, leaving 248,593 (91%) of requested trips
scheduled.

Table VII.1  Access-A-Ride Trips Scheduled and denied as reported by
NYCT

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Period                               Scheduled        Denied       
  ------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ----------
  Year                Month                             Number       \%

                                                                     

  **2001**            **Jan**          **180,148**      **445**      **0.2%**

                      Feb              169,369          613          0.4%

                      Mar              195,461          702          0.4%

                      Apr              184,365          872          0.5%

                      May              197,729          1,162        0.6%

                      Jun              190,146          1,231        0.6%

                      Jul              188,981          1,142        0.6%

                      Aug              196,155          1,812        0.9%

                      Sep              141,036          1,297        0.9%

                      **Oct**          **201,528**      **3,523**    **1.7%**

                      Nov              196,758          2,039        1.0%

                      Dec              194,095          1,398        0.7%

                      **Total**        **2,235,771**    **16,236**   **0.7%**

  **2002**            Jan              204,672          1,839        0.9%

                      Feb              190,452          1,799        0.9%

                      Mar              202,646          1,925        0.9%

                      **Apr**          **196,254**      **2,771**    **1.4%**

                      May              206,105          1,260        0.6%

                      Jun              199,046          1,422        0.7%

                      Jul              206,624          1,287        0.6%

                      **Aug**          **209,057**      **846**      **0.4%**

                      Sep              207,232          2,045        1.0%

                      Oct              236,706          1,500        0.6%

                      Nov              217,246          1,978        0.9%

                      Dec              219,825          1,621        0.7%

                      **Total**        **2,495,865**    **20,293**   **0.8%**

  **2003**            Jan              229,896          1,183        0.5%

                      Feb              207,606          1,106        0.5%

                      **Mar**          **251,527**      **1,430**    **0.6%**

                      Apr              242,712          3            0.0%

                      May              249,340          2            0.0%

                      **Jun**          **242,963**      **0**        **0.0%**

                      **Total**        **1,424,044**    **3,724**    **0.3%**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a more detailed review of the results of the reservations process
the review team focused on reported data for one day, May 15, 2003. The
disposition of trip requests for that day is presented in Table VII.2

> Table VII.2  Trip Requests on May 15, 2003

+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
|                      | Trips   | \% of Requested    | > Remaining   |
|                      |         | Trips              | > Trips       |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
| Requested            | 11,576  |                    |               |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
| Capacity Denial      | 0       | 0%                 | > 11,576      |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
| Customer Refusal     | 277     | 2%                 | > 11,299      |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
| Early Cancellation   | 1,234   | 11%                | > 10,065      |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+
| Taxi Vouchers        | 28      | 0.2%               | > 10,037      |
| (Early)              |         |                    |               |
+----------------------+---------+--------------------+---------------+

Although no trip denials were recorded for the sample day, of the 277
customer refusals, 24 (8.7%) were for trip offers that were between 61
and 65 minutes after the requested trip times. These offers of pick-up
times more than one hour from the requested time are denials of service.
Early cancellations are customer cancellations made before 5:00 PM on
the day before service. Early taxi vouchers are authorizations given the
day before service for customers to use taxis and be reimbursed by NYCT.
On May 15 of the 11,576 trip requests, 10,037 were scheduled for the
operators and 28 were authorized taxi vouchers.

The review team also looked at all trip offers for requested pick-up
times on May 15, 2003. Of 5,278 requests for pick-up times, 108 (2%)
were offered trips that were between 61 and 65 minutes after the
requested trip times. This number includes the trip refusals discussed
above.

As part of the observation of the reservations process, assessment team
members recorded the handling of a total of 151 trip requests. Table
VII.3 below summarizes these observations. As shown, no trip requests
were denied due to an inability to identify pick-up times within an hour
of the requested times. It is also important to note that most trip
requests (44%) were placed only one day in advance and only 10% were
placed a full four days in advance. This suggests that riders do not
feel that they need to call as far ahead as possible to schedule trips.

Table VII.3  Observations of the Handling of 151 Trip Requests,
September 10-11, 2003

  ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------
  **Days In   **Trips          **Trip Offers    **Trips       **Total Trips
  Advance**   Scheduled Within Refused by       Requests      Requested**
              One Hour\***     Riders**         Denied**      

  1 Day       58               9                0             67 (44%)

  2 Days      35               2                0             37 (25%)

  3 Days      27               5                0             32 (21%)

  4 Days      12               3                0             15 (10%)

  Totals      132 (87%)        19 (13%)         0 (0%)        151
  ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------

\* One trip was scheduled 61 minutes after the requested time. As
described below, this appeared to be a minor software issue that was
being corrected.

A total of 19 trip requests (13%) were not accepted by riders and were
recorded as refusals. This observation was somewhat different than the
call handling statistics reported by NYCT. NYCT "Paratransit Operating
Statistics" reports for the period from February through July 2003
indicated that riders refuse only 2.5% of all trip requests. This 2.5%
is consistent with NYCT's report for May and the sample data day of May
15. Some of the difference is due to the fact that trip requests
observed were only non-subscription requests. If subscription trips, for
which there would be no refusals, are factored in, the difference would
be narrowed somewhat. Still, the number and percentage of trip requests
that are refused appeared to be higher than the service reports would
suggest. NYCT indicated customers would often make multiple calls for
one trip request and refuse the trip offer in hopes of getting a more
desirable time on a subsequent call. In performance reports NYCT counts
multiple refusals from a customer for the same trip as only one refusal.
This would account for the higher number of refusals during the
reviewers' observations.

**Findings**

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

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

3.  The practice of limiting the times riders can book return trips to
    more than 90 minutes after the going trip pick-up or appointment
    time for intra-borough trips and 2 ½ hours after the going trip
    pick-up or appointment for inter-borough trips, does not appear to
    provide service that is comparable to fixed route service as
    required by 49 CFR §37.121.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    **Recommendations**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  AAR should revise its policy to accept all requests for pick-ups
    after midnight, and before 4:00 AM, on the following day.

2.  NYCT should continue to reprogram the scheduling software to
    discontinue the practice of offering pick-up times trips between 61
    and 65 minutes after the pick-up time requested by the customer.

3.  NYCT should revise its policy limiting the time that AAR customers
    can book return trips to make service for such trips comparable to
    fixed route trips. NYCT might consider offering trips with an
    earliest pick-up time some fixed period, such as 30 minutes, after
    the drop off time estimated by the scheduling software.

4.  It is recommended that NYCT review the way that trip refusals are
    recorded to be sure that all refusals are appropriately reported.

5.  Given that the average call servicing time is about 2 minutes 30
    seconds and that the established goal is 4 minutes, and that hold
    times are very low, NYCT should consider having reservationists
    repeat back and verify key trip information more slowly and
    deliberately in order to avoid potential trip reservation errors.

6.  NYCT should consider offering customers more than one option in
    negotiating pick-up times with customers during the reservations
    process.

7.  It is recommended that NYCT develop reservations and trip booking
    procedures that better identify trip needs of callers so that trip
    offers are appropriate to these needs. Procedures should also
    address appropriate negotiation of trip times that respond to stated
    rider needs. For example, if a caller initially just states a return
    pick-up time without constraints but subsequently indicates that the
    time requested was an earliest departure time, it might be
    appropriate for the reservationist to search for new options using
    the "pick-up with earliest departure" function. The "Reservations
    Manual" should be modified to address these procedures.

8.  NYCT should clarify in its "Reservations Manual" how trip requests
    from riders who could not be served by the supplemental taxi program
    (i.e., required an accessible vehicle) and which were received after
    2:30 PM the day before service should be handled and should then
    communicate a consistent policy to all reservationists.

9.  NYCT should review and revise the Reservations Manual to clarify
    procedures on when to search for options to the one time given by
    the system, did not appear to be clearly addressed in the
    "Reservations Manual."

# VIII. Scheduling {#viii.-scheduling .unnumbered}

In this portion of the compliance review, the team examined how trip
requests from riders were handled. Particular attention was given to
whether Access-A-Ride (AAR) uses any form of trip caps or waiting lists
and whether there was a pattern or practice of denying a significant
number of trip requests. The following information was gathered and
analyzed:

[]{.mark}

-   Input from customers and advocates was obtained through telephone
    interviews, a review of recent court documents, and a review of
    comments and complaints on file at NYCT;

-   Reservations and scheduling policies, practices, and performance
    standards were reviewed;

-   Service reports prepared by NYCT showing the number of trips
    requested, scheduled and denied were examined; and First hand
    observations of the handling of trips were made, and staff was
    interviewed about the ability to accommodate trip requests.

**Consumer Comments**

Consumer input, as detailed in Section III, was gathered through
interviews with representatives of the disabled community, review of a
report provided by Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and AAR
complaint records for the first 7 months of 2003.

Reservations issues identified by representatives of the disabled
community and the Disabled in Action Report and a review of complaints
on file with AAR included:

-   Schedules were described as illogical. Routing was described as
    indirect with vans transporting customers in a zigzag pattern. 3% of
    customer complaints were for scheduling issues.

-   Customers said that AAR changes subscription trips without notifying
    the customer. Pick-up times are changed from that agreed upon at the
    time of the trip request resulting in drivers and customers having
    two different times for the same trip. It appears that subscription
    routes are well designed but when changed result in poor performance
    which is corrected after a period of time. 1% of AAR complaints
    related to subscription problems.

-   Customers said that some rides scheduled with AAR appear to be lost
    in the system. On the day of the trip AAR would have no record of
    the requested trip.

-   Trips have been as long as 3 hours exceeding NYCT\'s standard of 155
    minutes (2 hours and 35 minutes) for trip length. Travel times are
    long in the evenings causing some customers to avoid use of the
    service. 8.5% of AAR complaints were for long trips.

-   One customer felt that schedules are not adjusted to traffic
    conditions in autumn with people returning to school and work from
    summer vacations, resulting in longer trips than in summer.

The Disabled in Action Report also raised issue with the use of standby
lists for reservations; and limits on schedule for return trips
(customers must allow 1 1/2 hour from a pick-up for a going trip to a
pick-up for a return trip within borough, and 2 ½ hours between
boroughs).

**Reservations and Scheduling Policies**

> []{.mark}

NYCT standards that guide the scheduling process include a goal of 0%
denials; an "on-time" pick-up window of between five minutes before the
pick-up time scheduled with the customer and 25 minutes after the
scheduled pick up time (-5/+25). The NYCT goal is that vehicles arrive
on-time 95% of the time. Also NYCT's goal is to schedule 100% of the
trips using the following travel time standards:

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Miles**                             **Minutes**

  \> 0 and ≤ 3                          50

  ≥ 3 and ≤ 6                           65

  ≥ 6 and ≤ 9                           95

  ≥ 9 and ≤ 12                          115

  ≥ 12 and ≤ 14                         135

  ≥ 14                                  155
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[]{.mark}

It is currently NYCT's policy to limit scheduling trips as standing
order or subscription trips only for customers who make the same trip
(between the same origin and destination at the same time and day/s) at
least three times a week. NYCT plans to revise this policy to include
trips that are made once a week or more.

[]{.mark}

**Scheduling Department Staffing**

The day-to-day responsibility for scheduling AAR trips is handled by a
private contractor, First Transit. The First Transit schedulers are
co-located with NYCT staff at 2 Broadway in Manhattan. NYCT employs
three scheduling managers and a scheduling director to manage the
Scheduling and Subscription Units of First Transit (see Figure VIII.1).
As will be described in the following section, the NYCT scheduling
director and managers also work closely with the eight contract carriers
to assist with any scheduling-related issues. The NYCT scheduling
director reports to the command center officer, who also oversees the
reservations and Control Unit (dispatch) functions for NYCT.

The First Transit Scheduling Unit is responsible for overseeing the
development of schedules using ADEPT software. The Scheduling Unit
includes:

-   1 scheduling manager,

-   1 scheduling supervisor, and

-   10 schedulers.

All 10 schedulers work Monday through Thursday, 6 work Friday, 5 work
Saturday, and 4 work Sunday. Both the scheduling supervisor and
scheduling manager work Tuesday through Thursday and one or the other is
on duty Friday through Monday. As shown in Table VIII.2, coverage is
generally provided from 8:30 or 9:00 AM until 6:30 or 7:00 PM, depending
on the day.

The Subscription Unit is responsible for working with individual and
agency-related subscription (standing order) trips, which are provided
on an ongoing basis. The Subscription Unit includes:

-   1 subscription supervisor and

-   2 subscription assistants.

Table VIII.2 shows the scheduler positions and shift coverage of the
First Transit Scheduling and Subscription Units.

**Figure VIII.1**

**NYCT Scheduling Management Unit**

*Table VIII.2  First Transit Work Schedule: Scheduling and
Subscriptions Units*

+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| Sched |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| uling |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| U     |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| nit** |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **    | **Mon | *     | **W   | **    | **Fri | **Satu | **Su   |
| Posit | day** | *Tues | ednes | Thurs | day** | rday** | nday** |
| ion** |       | day** | day** | day** |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | RDO   | #####  | 9 am-6 |
| Sched | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  |       |        | pm     |
| uler) | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | RDO   | RDO    | 9 am-6 |
| Sched | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  |       |        | pm     |
| uler) | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | ####  | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | ####   | ####   |
| Sched |       | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  |        |        |
| uler) |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9 am-6 | RDO    |
| Sched | ####  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | pm     |        |
| uler) |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9 am-6 | #####  |
| Sched | ####  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | pm     |        |
| uler) |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | RDO   | RDO    | 9 am-6 |
| Sched | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  |       |        | pm     |
| uler) | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9      | #####  |
| Sched | ####  | am    | am    | am    | am    | a      |        |
| uler) |       | -6:30 | -6:30 | -6:30 | -6:30 | m-6:30 |        |
|       |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm     |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9:30  | 9:30  | 9:30  | RDO   | RDO    | 9:30   |
| Sched | ####  | am    | am    | am    |       |        | a      |
| uler) |       | -6:30 | -6:30 | -6:30 |       |        | m-6:30 |
|       |       | pm    | pm    | pm    |       |        | pm     |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9:30  | 9:30  | 9:30  | 9:30  | 9:30   | RDO    |
| Sched | ####  | am    | am    | am    | am    | a      |        |
| uler) |       | -6:30 | -6:30 | -6:30 | -6:30 | m-6:30 |        |
|       |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm     |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (     | #     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9     | 9 am-6 | RDO    |
| Sched | ####  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | am-6  | pm     |        |
| uler) |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (Sch  | #     | 10    | 10    | 10    | RDO   | RDO    | 10     |
| edule | ####  | am-7  | am-7  | am-7  |       |        | am-7   |
| S     |       | pm    | pm    | pm    |       |        | pm     |
| uperv |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| isor) |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (A    | #     | 8     | 8     | 8     | 8     | 8 am-5 | RDO    |
| cting | ####  | am-5  | am-5  | am-5  | am-5  | pm     |        |
| Man   |       | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
| ager) |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Su  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| bscri |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| ption |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| U     |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| nit** |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **    | **Mon | *     | **W   | **    | **Fri | **Satu | **Su   |
| Posit | day** | *Tues | ednes | Thurs | day** | rday** | nday** |
| ion** |       | day** | day** | day** |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (Su   | #     | 8:30  | 8:30  | 8:30  | #     | 8:30   | #####  |
| bscri | ####  | am    | am    | am    | ####  | a      |        |
| ption |       | -5:30 | -5:30 | -5:30 |       | m-5:30 |        |
| Assis |       | pm    | pm    | pm    |       | pm     |        |
| tant) |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (Su   | 8:30  | 8:30  | 8:30  | 8:30  | 8:30  | #####  | #####  |
| bscri | am    | am    | am    | am    | am    |        |        |
| ption | -5:30 | -5:30 | -5:30 | -5:30 | -5:30 |        |        |
| Assis | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
| tant) |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| (Su   | 10    | 10    | 10    | 10    | 10    | #####  | #####  |
| bscri | am-7  | am-7  | am-7  | am-7  | am-7  |        |        |
| ption | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    | pm    |        |        |
| S     |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| uperv |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| isor) |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| N     |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| otes: |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| "RDO" |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| means |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| re    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| gular |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| day   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| off.  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| This  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| sch   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| edule |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| is    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| based |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| on a  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| Bid   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| Date  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| of    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| May   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| 16,   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| 2003; |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| the   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| sch   |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| edule |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| went  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| into  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| e     |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| ffect |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| on    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| Su    |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| nday, |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| June  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| 8th,  |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
| 2003. |       |       |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+

**Scheduling Procedures**

**First Transit Scheduling Unit**

As described in the Reservations Section of this report, First Transit
reservations staff members, using the StrataGen ADEPT paratransit
scheduling and dispatching software, schedule most trip requests. First
Transit schedulers, on an on-going basis, review trip reservations and
the Scheduling Unit schedules trips that were put on the standby list.

Each day, half the schedulers work on finalizing schedules for the
following day, while the other half work on scheduling trips that will
be made from two to four days into the future. Each day schedulers are
assigned to work on schedules for a particular carrier or carriers, but
will be assigned different carriers on different days.

During a typical day, a variety of reports are used to manage the
scheduling process. For example, several times a day a "Point Coding
List Report" is run to indicate addresses that were not in the ADEPT
database that were manually added when the reservation was made. One of
the schedulers is assigned to check the geo-coding to be sure it was
done correctly. (All schedulers are trained in this capacity.) An
example of a Point Coding List Report from September 7, 2003 is shown in
Attachment I.[^6]

Another report is the "Multi-Boro Report," which highlights routes that
appear to zigzag between boroughs. This report is run several times a
day. If a person-trip falls into this category, it will be removed from
that route and reassigned to a more direct route, if possible. About 150
trip segments are reviewed daily. A sample page from a Multi-Boro Report
from September 12, 2003 is included in Attachment J.

Throughout the day, schedulers work on trips that have been left on the
stand-by list (the trips that will be provided, but were not scheduled
during the call to the reservations staff). When standby trips have to
be forced into the schedule manually, the schedulers allow for 60
minutes for intra-borough trips and 90 minutes for inter-borough trips.

Once a trip is scheduled, a scheduling assistant calls the customer to
confirm the trip. On September 16, 2003, during the site visit, there
were 58 trips that had to be manually scheduled with callbacks for the
next day (more than 10,000 trips were scheduled for that day). When a
customer is contacted either via telephone or voice mail to confirm the
trip, it is recorded in the trip history file. If a customer is not
reached and there is no voice mail, additional attempts will be made
throughout the day. Passengers are instructed to call if they have not
heard back to confirm the trip. Schedulers indicated that they are
unsuccessful in contacting only a few passengers. If a passenger cannot
be reached, the trip is still scheduled.

During the month of May 2003, 248,593 trips were scheduled. The number
scheduled per day ranged from 2,499 on May 26, to 10,535 on a weekday.
For a sample day, May 15, 10,065 trips were scheduled and an additional
28 (0.3%) customers were authorized to use taxi vouchers.

Each day at noon the trips are "re-optimized," which means the computer
re-batches trips to optimize route assignments in order to create more
efficient and effective schedules. Each day's schedule is re-optimized a
total of four times (one to four days in advance). In most cases both
random and standing order/subscription trips are re-optimized (a few
program-related subscription trips have been permanently assigned to a
route or black car voucher service). A sample "Re-optimization Report"
is included in Attachment K. Table VIII.3 shows an excerpt from that
report.

Table VIII.3  Excerpt from a Re-Optimization Report Log

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Run Date</strong></td>
<td><strong>Re-Opt Date</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Rows Affected</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Process Time</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Minutes)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Wait List</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Illegal</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>09/08/03</td>
<td>09/09/03</td>
<td>1809</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>1.12</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>---</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>09/08/03</td>
<td>09/10/03</td>
<td>1663</td>
<td>788</td>
<td>1.03</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>09/08/03</td>
<td>09/11/03</td>
<td>148</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>07</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>09/08/03</td>
<td>09/12/03</td>
<td>517</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>03</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The "run date" is the date the Re-Optimization Report was run. The
"re-opt date" is the date of the trip. The "rows affected" columns show
the number of rows that had to be moved either up or down to fit a
specific trip in the schedule. The "process time" columns are how long
it took to run the report. The "wait list" columns are how many trips
were on the standby list before and after the re-optimization. The
"illegal columns" indicate the trips that violate ADEPT's parameters
before and after the re-optimization.

During the afternoon, the schedulers are actively working to refine the
schedules, particularly for the following day. Lunch breaks for drivers
are added (or removed if a route is less than six hours). Standby trips
continue to be reviewed and scheduled (or given to taxi or black car
service). Schedulers have the ability to open carrier parameters to
insert trips if they believe they will fit into the schedule without
adversely affecting other passenger trips. They can also assign trips to
a route that has slack time even if the carrier is not the first-choice
for a particular zone (as determined by the affinity settings for each
route). If during the schedule clean up any changes have been made to a
person's promised pick-up time, particularly if it is moved earlier, the
scheduling assistant calls the customer to verify that the customer
accepts the change.

After there are no more calls from customers in the queue for
reservations -- between 5:00 and 5:30 PM -- final edits are made to the
schedules. The "Trim-Slack Report" is generated (see example in
Attachment L) and an initial copy is faxed to carriers. At the end of
the scheduling process the number of hours for some routes are reduced
by transferring passenger trips to other routes. Empty routes have been
deleted and routes are trimmed, or shortened, to eliminate slack time at
the beginning and ends of routes. In some instances trips are reassigned
from one route to another to reduce slack time. Short routes are closed
and the trips on those routes are also reassigned. This is done to
reduce transportation requirements and costs. Managers indicated that
there is still available capacity through the use of "floaters" or
unassigned drivers and taxi vouchers and "black cars." The "Trim-Slack
Report" shows the final routes approved for the next day. Once the
schedulers are done -- between 6:00 and 7:00 PM -- the trip information
is made available to carriers and the carrier hold is unlocked, which
allows carriers to begin working with the trips.

First Transit creates a "Manifest Viewer File," which provides a
snapshot view of the schedules that were transmitted to carriers (as
they were developed by First Transit). This file is used if there are
questions or concerns between carriers and the Scheduling Unit.

Operators are allowed to change the schedules if they see problems and
based on assignments and events throughout the day of service. Operators
can reassign trips, make adjustments, and reassign entire routes, but
they may not change the passengers' promised times. As described in the
operator descriptions, some carriers make more changes than others
before the manifests are printed and distributed to drivers. Some
operators rely on their dispatchers to make changes in real-time during
the day.

The scheduling process results in a driver manifest for each route. The
manifests are produced on 11"x 17" computer printouts. Included on the
manifests are identification of the service provider, route and vehicle
numbers and driver identification number. Additionally, the manifest has
the service day and the beginning and end time of the driver's shift.
For each passenger trip there is a trip number and scheduled and
estimated pick-up and drop-off times as well as appointment times, when
applicable. Pick-up and drop-off locations, as well as any special
instructions are included on the manifests. The manifests also include
customer's names, identification of personal care attendants (PCA),
guests, customer's mobility aids, and fares. The manifests also include
spaces for recording time of trip and odometer readings as well as
cancellations, no shows and late trips. There appears to be no provision
for recording missed trips on the manifests. A sample manifest is
included in Attachment M.

**First Transit Subscription Unit**

The Subscription Unit handles all requests for subscription trips. A
letter describing the subscription process is provided to passengers who
would like to set up a subscription trip. A subscription request form is
completed that details the travel needs of the customer. At the time of
the review, subscription trips accounted for about 16% of all trips and
were only allowed for passengers traveling to/from the same
origin/destination pair at the same times at least three times a week.

Subscription trips are not usually anchored to a particular route unless
there have been complaints about the way a trip has been performed or
the customers have special needs that are better served by anchoring the
subscription trips to the same route. Anchored trips may shift to
different routes during optimization. The promised times are retained.
There are only a few group trips where several people travel together
from the same origin, or to the same destination. This fall, NYCT plans
to relax the requirements to allow subscription trips to be established
for repetitive trips that occur at least once a week (e.g., every Monday
at 1:00 PM with a return trip at 5:00 PM).

In December 2002, NYCT set up a system for providing black car vouchers
for some passengers who have standing order reservations for
appointments at the Veterans Administration hospitals located in the
Bronx and Brooklyn. This practice has been done to provide service for
passengers returning home from dialysis. Uncertainty as to when these
passengers will be able to begin their trip can cause scheduling
problems requiring dispatch of a vehicle for a passenger who was not
ready to be transported at their scheduled return time.

**NYCT Scheduling Management Unit**

NYCT provides management, quality control, and oversight to the First
Transit reservations, scheduling and command center functions. The NYCT
scheduling director reports to the command center officer. He, along
with three scheduling managers, are responsible for overseeing the
performance of First Transit and for managing issues related to
scheduling at each of the eight carriers. The director's specific duties
include overall management of the Scheduling Unit, as well as monitoring
the master route history. He also oversees schedule development and
execution for TFM and MV Transit. He has been working closely with MV, a
relatively new carrier, to improve that carrier's performance.

The three managers report to the director of scheduling and have
specific duties. One is assigned to oversee the development of holiday
schedules, billing resolution, daily scorecard reporting of carriers,
managing the Subscription Unit, and monitoring schedules for RJR and
PTC. The other two managers are responsible for managing the First
Transit Scheduling Unit. One also monitors schedules for Atlantic
Paratransit and Maggies; the other monitors schedules for American
Transit and Star Cruiser.

The NYCT Scheduling Management Unit troubleshoots when problems arise
with either the scheduling function or the carriers. For example, if a
carrier is having difficulties with particular schedules, the NYCT
manager will work with the carrier and First Transit to identify the
source of the problem and resolve it. They are also responsible for
identifying various ways to improve service.

**Scheduling Observations**

Two members of the review team met with the command center officer and
the NYCT scheduling director to discuss the functioning of the
scheduling personnel employed by NYCT and First Transit. One member of
the review team observed the scheduling staff while they worked on
September 16, 2003 and met with the First Transit scheduling manager. It
appeared that the First Transit staff worked together as a team in their
assigned roles. Reports were routed, schedules reviewed and modified,
and calls were being made to update customers with respect to their trip
status. That day a record for the number of trips scheduled was set --
10,814.

In February 2002, NYCT began phasing in an updated computer-assisted
paratransit scheduling and dispatching system, moving from the PASS
system to StrataGen's ADEPT software program. The first implementation
phase (from 2/1/02 to 5/1/02) centered on transitioning from PASS to
ADEPT. The implementation of the second phase, on 2/24/03 resulted in
additional computer program modifications designed to make the AAR
system route trips more efficiently and effectively. The time line for
these changes is described below:

-   April 2002 -- Changed outside-in to inside-out engine logic,

-   July 2002 -- First trip on each route at start of the first trip's
    window,

-   September 2002 -- Zones increased from 5 to 9,

-   November 2002 -- Re-optimization in place,

-   February 2003 -- Implemented affinity settings to routes, and

-   November 2003 -- Planned implementation of multi-batch logic.

Several parameters have been adjusted to attempt to improve how trips
are assigned by the automated system. One approach has been the use of
affinity settings described above), which anchor carrier routes to a
particular home zone or zones. A matrix imbedded in ADEPT assigns routes
to the carriers' home zones first, but may assign trips to a route
outside the home zone if needed (and as permitted by the affinity
settings). The home zone preference is accomplished by assigning a
weight to routes depending upon the trip origin. The routes operated in
the zone of the trip origin receive a favorable weight whereas those
operated in a distant zone receive an unfavorable weight. According to
NYCT and its operators use of the affinity factor has resulted in much
more efficient assignment of trips to routes. The nine zones used by the
affinity factor are shown on a map included in Attachment N. The zones
are:

-   Zone 1 -- The Bronx,

-   Zone 2 -- Manhattan North (above 67^th^ Street),

-   Zone 3 -- Manhattan South,

-   Zone 4 -- Brooklyn West (west of Flatbush Avenue),

-   Zone 5 -- Brooklyn East,

-   Zone 6 -- Queens North (North of Grand Central Parkway),

-   Zone 7 -- Queens South,

-   Zone 8 -- Rockaway, and

-   Zone 9 -- Staten Island.

In order to more accurately calculate route times, on-street ride checks
are performed to determine actual travel times. Adjustments are made to
system speeds used by the scheduling software on an on-going basis based
upon the ride checks. In addition, NYCT has established travel times for
approximately 10 problematic areas, typically river crossings. Different
times are used for direction of travel and for time of day using six
time periods. These speed zones, which have been input into the
scheduling parameters, were developed to address widely divergent travel
times by time of day and direction of travel in some areas. Subscription
trips have been run through the ride check program as well and some
adjustments were made to reflect the updated information.

Another approach to improving scheduling has been the development of
"Peter Pan" trips. Trips are selected for analysis based on customer
complaints (e.g., the ride is too long, the routing is too circuitous,
etc.). The NYCT scheduling staff will review these trips and determine
how these trips may best be scheduled to avoid future problems. The
analysis can include ghost runs or on-the-road travel time tests and so
on.

NYCT also sets parameters in the schedule that limit the trip duration
based upon distance traveled as described in NYCT policies. Another
feature built into the software is use of a\
--5/+20 minute window for scheduling trips rather than the --5/+25 NYCT
standard. The additional five-minute cushion built into the schedule
should assist in achieving better on-time performance.

NYCT managers indicated that the number of routes scheduled each day is
based upon historical experience for the particular day of the week. New
routes are added when the NYCT Scheduling Management Department
identifies the need for more service in a particular area. Some service
increases have been accomplished with existing vehicles with added
hours; others require additional vehicles and personnel. In March 2003,
as part of the effort to eliminate trip denials, NYCT reports that it
added a large number of new routes. The NYCT scheduling staff works with
carriers to make these changes as needed.

**Findings**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Recommendations**

1.  NYCT should continue to reprogram the scheduling software to
    discontinue the practice of offering pick-up times trips between 61
    and 65 minutes after the pick-up time requested by the customer.

2.  NYCT should consider regular review of actual service performance to
    identify significantly long travel times, significantly late trips,
    and missed trips. Scheduling procedures could then be modified based
    with a goal of eliminating significantly long and late trips.

3.  NYCT should consider preparing an additional report based on
    scheduled ride time to identify excessively long trips that might
    not be captured in the "Multi-Boro Report."

[]{.mark}

# IX. Transportation Operations {#ix.-transportation-operations .unnumbered}

The DOT ADA regulations for ADA Complementary Paratransit service
indicate that capacity constraints can result from poor service quality.
Specifically, they note that missed trips or the provision of untimely
trips or significantly long rides can constitute capacity constraints.
On-time performance and on-board ride times were therefore examined as
part of the review. In addition, this section of the report addresses
delivery of transportation service and dispatch operations to identify
procedures and practices that could affect service delivery. These
aspects of service provision were assessed as follows:

-   Consumer input was obtained on each issue through telephone
    interviews and through a review of complaints filed with FTA and
    with NYCT;

-   NYCT's service policies, procedures and standards in these areas
    were reviewed;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The review team visited each of the eight principal operating
    contractors and interviewed managers;

-   The dispatch function was observed and dispatchers were interviewed;

-   Drivers were interviewed;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Information on operations resources was collected;

-   NYCT's on-time performance and travel time reports were reviewed;

-   Actual pick-up and drop-off times reported on a randomly selected
    day were used to tabulate on-time performance to compare to reported
    performance; and

-   The review team analyzed trip length, including a comparison of
    travel times between ADA Complementary Paratransit trips and
    comparable fixed route trips.

> []{.mark}

**Consumer Comments**

Consumer input, as detailed in Section III, was gathered through
interviews with representatives of the disabled community, review of a
report provided by Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and AAR
complaint records for the first 7 months of 2003.

Transportation issues identified by representatives of the disabled
community and the Disabled in Action Report and a review of complaints
on file with AAR included:

-   Vehicles sometimes arrive early and leave before the pick-up time.
    One customer cited a vehicle arriving at 10:30 and departing at
    10:37 for an 11:30 pick-up. 1.3% of complaints on file with AAR were
    for early drivers.

-   Visually impaired customers are often stranded because the driver
    doesn\'t approach the customer and the customer is unaware that the
    vehicle has arrived.

-   People have been dropped off by as much as 1 1/2 hours early
    resulting in customers discontinuing use of the service.

-   Consumer representatives indicated that there is no effort to
    contact customer no-shows with the exception of one operator, RJR,
    which does it sometimes.

-   Customers are categorized as no-shows when the vehicle arrives late
    and the customer is no longer waiting for the ride. A consumer
    provided an audiotape, which purports to demonstrate dispatchers
    directing drivers to classify missed trips as customer no-shows.
    Verification of what is said on the tape has not been possible
    because of the poor quality of the audio. 4.4% of AAR complaints
    were for disputed customer no shows.

-   Missed trips from vehicles going to the wrong place are a problem.
    AAR has been addressing this problem by establishing standard
    pick-up locations. 26.3% of customer complaints on file with AAR
    were for missed trips, 4% were for incorrect addresses and 3.2% were
    for stranded customers.

-   Pick-ups are late in the evening. When a second vehicle is
    dispatched for a late pick-up it often arrives 1 1/2 hours late.
    15.8% of customer complaints were for late pick-ups.

-   AAR provides vouchers for Yellow Cab service for ambulatory
    customers who are stranded (missed trip). The vouchers are usually
    authorized after the trip is significantly late (1 hour). The number
    of vouchers available is limited by budget. Since Yellow cabs are
    not accessible to wheelchairs, the vouchers are not available to
    wheelchair users. 2.3 % of AAR complaints related to taxi vouchers.

-   Trips have been as long as 3 hours, exceeding NYCT\'s standard of
    155 minutes (2 hours and 35 minutes) for trip length. Travel times
    are long in the evenings, causing some customers to avoid use of the
    service. 8.5% of customer complaints were for long ride times.

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

The Disabled in Action Report also raised the following additional
transportation related issues:

-   Pressure to accept early pick-ups.

-   Late pick-ups -- particularly during the afternoon; drivers appear
    to be reporting passenger pick-ups before they occur.

-   Unreliable service.

-   Stranded riders.

-   Inadequate back-up service -- long wait for approval, pre-payment of
    taxi fare, delayed reimbursement, limited to ambulatory customers.

-   Inexperienced drivers -- low driver pay rates and limited training,
    poor knowledge of routes. 6.8% of customer complaints were for rude
    drivers, 3.6% were for failure of drivers to assist customers, and
    1.9% of AAR complaints were for reckless drivers.

-   Inaccessible sedans.

-   Poor van maintenance -- high entry step, lift failures.

**Access-A-Ride Service Standards and Policies**

[]{.mark}

On-Time Performance Policies and Standards

[]{.mark}

NYCT has a performance goal of 95% for on-time AAR pickups. This goal is
included in the operator's contracts as a performance standard (article
104 C.2.). "On time" is defined as any time within the window of --5/+25
minutes from the pickup time agreed upon with the customer. For example,
for a negotiated pickup time of 8:00 AM, the vehicle is considered on
time if it arrives between 7:55 and 8:25 AM.

[]{.mark}

The Access-A-Ride Paratransit User's Guide advises customers to be ready
to travel from five minutes before until 25 minutes after the scheduled
pick-up time. The Guide also indicates that the driver will leave after
five minutes if the customer is not at the pick-up location. The User's
Guide advises customers to cancel trips before 5:00 PM on the day before
service and advises customers that a cancellation after that time will
be considered a late cancellation.

The User's Guide further instructs customers to call AAR if the vehicle
does not arrive within the 30-minute window. The AAR transit control
officer will obtain the estimated time of arrival from the driver to
which the trip is assigned, or will dispatch another vehicle and advise
the customer of the newly estimated arrival time. If a vehicle did not
arrive within the 30-minute pick-up window and is not readily available
at the time of the customer's call, the customer can request
authorization to use a taxicab or car service with the expense to be
reimbursed by NYCT. Authorization is confirmed by AAR transit control
officer issuance of an authorization number.

AAR's contracts with the operators provide definitions for the following
performance measures:

-   Contractor Early -- The vehicle operator arrives more than five
    minutes before the scheduled pick-up.

-   Late Pick-Up -- AAR pickup that occurs past the scheduled pick-up
    window.

-   Late Trip Cancellation -- Customer cancellation after 5:00 PM the
    night before a scheduled trip.

-   No-Fault No-Show -- The contractor fails to provide the scheduled
    trip to a customer for documented reasons beyond the control of the
    contractor. NYCT indicates that vehicle arrivals after the pick-up
    window, 25 minutes past the scheduled pick-up time, and before 45
    minutes after the scheduled pick-up time are categorized as no-fault
    no shows when the driver waits five minutes for the customer, and
    the operator is unable to locate the customer.

-   Customer No-Show -- The customer has not presented him/herself,
    declines the trip or is unable for any reason to take the trip when
    the vehicle operator has arrived and waited for the customer in
    accordance with contract standards and procedures. Section 3.22 of
    Attachment 1 of the contracts further indicates that the operator
    shall complete pick-ups within a 30-minute window running from 5
    minutes before to 25 minutes after the pick-up time scheduled with
    the customer.

-   Missed Trip (Contractor No-Show) -- Any trip not performed other
    than a Late Trip Cancellation, Customer No-Show, or No-Fault
    No-Show. NYCT further describes this to include a no-show reported
    by the operator more than 5 minutes before or 45 minutes after the
    scheduled pick-up time, or the vehicle never arrives at the correct
    location for the scheduled trip, or the vehicle arrives at the
    correct location within 5 minutes before and 45 minutes after the
    scheduled pickup time, but does not wait 5 minutes.

Regarding trip duration, NYCT's goal is to schedule 100% of the trips
using the following travel time standards:

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Miles**                             **Minutes**

  ≥ 0 and ≤ 3                           50

  ≥ 3 and ≤ 6                           65

  ≥ 6 and ≤ 9                           95

  ≥ 9 and ≤ 12                          115

  ≥ 12 and ≤ 14                         135

  ≥ 14                                  155
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[]{.mark}

**Operations**

Each of the eight operators provides service throughout the service
area, New York City. Through the scheduling process, passenger trips are
assigned to routes based upon nine service zones (see Attachment N).
Similarly, routes are assigned to carriers to concentrate carrier
operations within geographic areas to promote efficient delivery of
service.

The operators entered into five-year contracts during August 2001.
Several of the operators were providing AAR service through earlier
contracts. NYCT is in the process of purchasing fuel in bulk and making
it available to the operators at lower cost than direct purchases.
Operators are reimbursed for their direct cost of fuel by NYCT.

The review team interviewed the Project Managers for each of the eight
operators. The results of the interviews are reported as follows:

## A. Dispatching {#a.-dispatching .unnumbered}

[]{.mark}

***Access-A-Ride Command Center***

Customer calls for same day travel information are directed to the AAR
Command Center at 2 Broadway in Manhattan. The Command Center is staffed
and managed by First Transit under a contract to NYCT. NYCT staff
oversees the Command Center Operation. Command Center staff is
responsible for:

-   Accepting service day (Late) trip cancellations from customers;

-   Addressing customer inquiries on status of rides;

-   Reassignment of passenger trips from one carrier to another;

-   Carrier authorization to extend route times or open new routes;

-   Assignment of passenger trips to supplemental carriers;

-   Authorization of vouchers for customer use of taxis and black cars;
    and

-   Other same day service issues as they arise.

[]{.mark}

Reviewers observed three call takers and general operations in the
Control Unit during the morning and afternoon on September 11. Reviewers
observed transit control officers handle 55 calls. Calls observed are
summarized in Table IX.1.

Table IX.1  Command Center Observations

  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
  **Purpose of Call**                                    Number

  Late Cancellation                                      11

  Ride Check                                             25

  Route Extensions and New Route Additions               4

  Missed Trip                                            1

  Wrong Department                                       3

  Wrong Customer ID                                      1

  Schedule Change Request                                5
  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------

[]{.mark}

*Late Cancellations* -- The control officers were observed coding the
trip as a late cancel, requesting the customer's reason for canceling
the trip and entering the reason into the trip record. In one instance
the customer called while the driver was at the pick-up location. The
control officer contacted the operator's dispatcher and the dispatcher
indicated that he would code the trip as a no-fault no-show. According
to one of the control officers the procedure is to telephone the
operators dispatcher if the no-show has been received close to the
scheduled pick-up time so that the driver can be redeployed. Other than
this one instance none of the cancellations observed at the Control
Center appeared to be within an hour and a half of the scheduled pick-up
time. One customer, who had both a same day and future trip
cancellation, was transferred to reservations to make his future day
cancellation, after completing his same day cancellation.

*Ride Checks* -- When customers called to check on the status of their
ride, the control officer would review the status of the ride in the
scheduling dispatch system. If the system indicated that the ride was on
time and the call time was before the pick-up window had elapsed
generally the control officer would indicate that the ride was on time
and, when appropriate, remind the customer of the pick-up window. 19 of
the 25 ride-check observations fell into this category. If the route
appeared to be running late, the control officer would place the
customer on hold and contact the operator's dispatcher to obtain the
current status of the route and estimated time of arrival of the
vehicle. Six of the twenty-five ride check observations were for routes
that were running late. The six calls to dispatchers to get current
estimated arrival times took from one to four minutes to complete.

*Route Extensions and New Route Additions* -- The practice observed for
opening route extensions or new routes was observed as follows. If a
dispatcher for the contract carrier observes one or more routes running
late and has been unable to use lag time on the route or reassignment of
trips to other routes to restore on-time performance within a short
period (one hour +/-), the dispatcher may request a route extension or
new route to rescue customers and the service. (A route extension is an
extension of the time an active route is authorized by NYCT to continue
in service. A new route is initiation of service on a new route beyond
those previously authorized for the service day.) The dispatcher makes
the request to a transit control officer in the call center. The transit
control officer completes a form for the route authorization and
reassigns the passenger trips to be moved to an open or dummy route. The
request form is then referred to a supervisor for review and
authorization. The supervisor reviews the status of the late routes on
the scheduling and dispatch software to confirm that they are running
late and avoid authorization of service that is not needed. If the route
is not running late in the system the supervisor will not authorize
moving passenger trips and associated new routes or route extensions.
The review team observed a Command Center supervisor while she reviewed
and authorized one of the four requests from operators to increase
service. Initially she approved a new route for only two of the three
trips requested because the route for the third trip did not appear to
be running late. The reason for reassigning the third trip was to permit
a driver to end his route early thereby resulting in no net additional
vehicle hours to the operator. Because the reason for the request was
not clear the supervisor initially declined authorization but changed
her decision upon clearer presentation of the reason. Based on
observations of operator dispatchers they will often request
authorization to reassign trips before the route appears to be running
late in the system. They will do so based upon tight travel time
allowances for the route, traffic conditions, and driver's experience
and ability to recover from delays. Because of the time required to
authorize increased service and the urgency of dispatching vehicles to
avoid further service delay, several operators indicated that they will
dispatch drivers before authorized, even at risk that they will not
receive authorization and will not be reimbursed for the additional
service.

NYCT indicated that it plans to improve coordination between the Control
Center and Operator dispatchers by assignment of a dispatcher from each
operator to the Control Center. The proposed change in dispatch
operations was scheduled for late September and early October.

[]{.mark}

*Missed Trip* -- One customer called to report a missed trip. She made
the trip on her own. The trip record contained an incorrect address and
no phone number for the pick-up location.

*Wrong Department* -- Three calls were identified as being for the wrong
department. One, for trip reservations was transferred. Two were from
the same caller who had a same-day trip issue. The cause of the problem
appeared to be incorrect or incomplete information provided by the
Eligibility Department. The caller was referred back and forth between
the two departments until the control officer referred the issue to a
supervisor. The customer, who was applying for eligibility, lives out
side of the AAR service area. He was scheduled by the Eligibility
Department for an in-person assessment and, apparently through a form
letter, directed to reserve a trip with a black car service, which only
operates within the AAR service area. NYCT personnel rescheduled his
appointment and instructed him on how to obtain a ride on accessible
service to a transfer point with the AAR service provider. An internal
e-mail indicated that this is an on-going problem. It wasn't clear that
the systemic problem was corrected by providing different form letters
for service applicants who live outside of the service area or by some
other means.

*Wrong Customer Identification Number* -- In one instance a customer
called and indicated a driver was there to pick-up a customer with a
different name who was going to the same destination at the same time as
she was. No trip record could be found for the caller and the driver
left the location. Apparently the trip had been booked under the wrong
ID number and as a result the customer did not receive her trip and the
trip was recorded as a no-show for the customer whose ID number was
used.

*Schedule Change Requests* -- Five calls were observed in which
customers were seeking same day changes in their scheduled trips. In one
instance, a customer who had a 2:41 PM scheduled pick-up requested a
pick-up as soon as possible at 10:00 AM because she was not feeling
well. In an effort to accommodate this same day request for a change in
her trip the control officer telephoned several carriers, including
back-up carriers before one would accept the trip. The carrier who
accepted the trip scheduled the pick-up for 10:30 AM.

Another caller indicated that they would be unable to meet their pick-up
time because the doctor was delayed. The control officer indicated that
the procedure was to not accept request for later pick-up times more
than one-hour before the scheduled pick-up time. Because the request was
made more than one hour in advance, the caller was requested to call
back later. The trip was not changed in the trip record. As a result the
operator was not informed that the trip was no longer needed and
therefore was unable to use that driver to complete another trip.
Additionally, the customer was required to make at least one more call
to reschedule their trip.

[]{.mark}

***Operators***

**Atlantic Paratrans** -- Between nine and ten dispatchers were on duty
on the afternoon of Monday, September 15. Each dispatcher was managing
about 20-22 runs. Some time was spent observing the procedures used by
each to manage runs. Most dispatchers were observed polling drivers
frequently to check on the status of pick-ups and drop-offs. Actual
times were then entered into the automated system to allow estimated
pick-up and drop-off times to be updated. These dispatchers were also
identifying trips that were potentially late and were moving trips to
other available runs. The Dispatch Supervisor on duty was also observed
facilitating reassignment of passenger trips between dispatchers. He
would periodically ask if anyone had trips that they couldn't handle and
would then find another dispatcher with routes with slack time.

Two dispatchers, however, appeared to be somewhat behind in managing
assigned routes. One dispatcher was observed polling for and entering
actual times for 12:00-1:00 PM pick-ups at 2:50 PM. The other dispatcher
had several runs behind schedule (some by up to 65 minutes), but
appeared to be slow to reassign trips or seek the assistance of the
Dispatch Supervisor. On one run that was 65 minutes behind schedule, she
stated that, "the driver should have let me know sooner."

[]{.mark}

Dispatchers and drivers appeared to handle customer "no-shows" properly
with drivers radioing dispatch while at the pick-up location,
dispatchers attempting to contact riders, landmark information being
requested and entered into the no-show screen, and drivers waiting at
the pick up location for at least five minutes within the pick-up window
before classifying customers as no-shows.

[]{.mark}

Several early arrivals and early "call-outs" were noted (more than were
observed at other providers). As was the case at other providers,
dispatchers would typically just state that, "this is AAR calling; your
vehicle is outside waiting," rather than indicating that the driver was
early and if the rider could go early it would help. Dispatchers were
not observed to be pressuring riders to leave early and drivers waited
if riders indicated they were not ready to go, but it was easy to see
how some riders might interpret the calls as pressure to leave before
their scheduled pick-up times.

[]{.mark}

Dispatchers noted that between 3:00 and 5:00 PM the automated system
slowed down. When dispatchers would attempt to add actual pick-up times,
the system would take about 20 seconds to process the information and
update subsequent times. During this time, dispatchers were not able to
move to other screens or scan other runs. Several dispatchers indicated
that the system does slow regularly and noted that when things are busy
and every second counts, this delay in updating runs can have an impact
on efficiency of dispatching and, in turn, on-time performance. One
dispatcher noted that when slowdowns occur, he tends to put-off updating
runs so that his ability to scan runs and perform other tasks is not
affected.

[]{.mark}

In general, the dispatch operation appeared to be well organized and
managed given its size. There was some variation in apparent dispatcher
skill (which is not unusual for a large operation).

[]{.mark}

Based on a work schedule for the week of September 14-20, 2003, Atlantic
Paratrans employed 19 dispatchers, three Assistant Operations Managers
and eight Dispatch Supervisors who worked directly on the dispatch and
driver pull-out/pull-in functions. Dispatcher schedules are shown in
Table IX.2 below.

[]{.mark}

Two Assistant Operations Managers work morning shifts from between 4:00
AM to between 1:00-2:00 PM. The third Assistant Operations Manager works
from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Two managers work Sunday shifts, but none are
scheduled on Saturday.

[]{.mark}

Five of the Dispatch Supervisors work morning and early afternoon shifts
beginning between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM and running through 3:00 PM. Three
morning Dispatch Supervisors work Saturday mornings and one works Sunday
mornings. One Dispatch Supervisor is then scheduled from 2:00 PM to the
close of the operating day all seven days a week.

[]{.mark}

**[Table IX.3 − Atlantic Paratrans Dispatch Staffing, Based on September
14-20, 2003 Work Schedule]{.mark}**

  -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- -------------
  **Position**   **Mondays**    **Tuesdays**   **Wednesdays**   **Thursdays**   **Fridays**    **Saturdays**   **Sundays**

  Asst. Ops.     4am-1pm        4am-1pm        4am-1pm          4am-1pm         OFF            OFF             4am-2pm
  Manager                                                                                                      

  Asst. Ops.     4am-2pm        530am-2pm      530am-2pm        530am-2pm       OFF            OFF             4am-2pm
  Manager                                                                                                      

  Asst. Ops.     11am-8pm       11am-8pm       11am-8pm         11am-8pm        11am-8pm       OFF             OFF
  Manager                                                                                                      

  Dispatch       OFF            4am-1pm        4am-1pm          4am-1pm         4am-1pm        4am-1pm         OFF
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       OFF            4am-1pm        4am-1pm          4am-1pm         4am-1pm        4am-1pm         OFF
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       OFF            430am-130pm    430am-130pm      430am-130pm     430am-130pm    430am-130pm     OFF
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       5am-2pm        5am-2pm        5am-2pm          5am-2pm         5am-2pm        OFF             OFF
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       6am-3pm        6am-3pm        6am-3pm          6am-3pm         OFF            OFF             6am-3pm
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       2pm-close      2pm-close      2pm-close        2pm-close       2pm-close      OFF             OFF
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatch       OFF            OFF            OFF              OFF             OFF            2pm-close       2pm-close
  Supervisor                                                                                                   

  Dispatcher     430am-130pm    530am-230pm    530am-230pm      530am-230pm     530am-230pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     430am-130pm    430am-130pm    430am-130pm      430am-130pm     OFF            OFF             430am-130pm

  Dispatcher     430am-130pm    430am-130pm    430am-130pm      OFF             OFF            430am-130pm     430am-130pm

  Dispatcher     5am-2pm        5am-2pm        5am-2pm          5am-2pm         5am-2pm        415am-215pm     OFF

  Dispatcher     OFF            515am-215pm    515am-215pm      430am-130pm     430am-130pm    515am-215pm     730am-430pm

  Dispatcher     515am-215pm    OFF            OFF              515am-215pm     515am-215pm    715am-415pm     7am-4pm

  Dispatcher     530am-230pm    530am-230pm    530am-230pm      OFF             430am-130pm    8am-5pm         8am-5pm

  Dispatcher     545am-245pm    545am-245pm    545am-245pm      545am-245pm     545am-245pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     6am-3pm        6am-3pm        6am-3pm          6am-3pm         6am-3pm        OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     7am-4pm        7am-4pm        7am-4pm          7am-4pm         7am-4pm        OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     715am-215pm    715am-215pm    715am-215pm      715am-215pm     715am-215pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     OFF            OFF            12pm-9pm         12pm-9pm        12pm-9pm       12pm-9pm        12pm-9pm

  Dispatcher     1230pm-930pm   1230pm-930pm   1230pm-930pm     1230pm-930pm    1230pm-930pm   OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     1230pm-930pm   1230pm-930pm   1230pm-930pm     1230pm-930pm    1230pm-930pm   OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     OFF            1pm-10pm       1pm-10pm         1pm-10pm        1pm-10pm       1pm-10pm        OFF

  Dispatcher     2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm         2pm-11pm        2pm-11pm       OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm         2pm-11pm        OFF            OFF             2pm-11pm

  Dispatcher     1pm-10pm       OFF            OFF              530am-230pm     530am-230pm    2pm-11pm        1pm-10pm

  Dispatcher     2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm       OFF              OFF             2pm-11pm       2pm-11pm        2pm-11pm
  -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- -------------

[]{.mark}

Weekday morning dispatchers begin reporting at 4:30 AM. By 6:00 AM,
eight dispatchers are on duty and by 7:15 AM, 10 dispatchers are on
duty. Six afternoon/evening dispatchers report between 12:00 noon and
2:00 PM and work until between 9:00 and 11:00 PM. During the afternoon
peak period (3:00-5:00 PM), six to eight dispatchers are on duty. On
Saturdays and Sundays, there are five dispatchers during the morning,
six to seven during the mid-day, five through the afternoon peak and two
to four dispatchers during the later evening hours.

Given that there are about 185 peak-hour runs on weekday mornings, each
dispatcher typically manages about 19-20 runs during the peak.

[]{.mark}

**Maggie's Paratransit (Maggie's)** -- The Maggie's operations center
has eight phone lines that come in to a call distribution system.
Callers are asked to indicate which extension (or functional area) they
are trying to reach and calls are then directed to those lines. Calls to
Dispatch are directed to the next available dispatcher. Dispatcher
workstations are arranged in a single room, which allows calls to easily
be directed to the dispatcher handling the route (or rider) in question.
Given the number of Dispatch workstations, the number of incoming lines
appeared adequate to handle expected call volumes.

[]{.mark}

The morning Dispatch Supervisor indicated that he (or another lead
dispatcher) reviews all assigned runs first thing in the morning.
Adjustments are made as needed and final manifests are then printed out
for drivers. He estimated that some adjustment is made to "about 3-4 of
every 10 runs." He also noted that he and other dispatchers meet with
someone from the scheduling group at least once a month. He noted that
they also bring issues to the scheduling group's attention as needed. He
indicated that a good working relationship exists between the Maggie's
dispatchers and the schedulers at the control center. The Dispatch
Supervisor said that problems are addressed and corrected as they bring
them to the schedulers' attention.

The Dispatch Supervisor indicated that the formal procedure for
requesting and getting approval for "rescue" routes or extended route
hours can make performing trips on-time a challenge. He noted that the
information has to show the run late (past the 25-minute pick-up window)
before a request for a "rescue" route can be made. Then, approval can
take an additional 10 minutes. To make the process more "workable," the
Maggie's Dispatch Supervisor indicated that they would make the changes
internally to extend a run or add a rescue run when they know it is
needed. Sometimes, the approval process will be done after the fact. He
indicated that they are willing to take the chance that the
extension/rescue would be approved. He noted that while the process can
be cumbersome, there is a good working relationship with the control
center and they rarely will have requests denied.

On the morning that the operation was observed, all six morning
dispatchers were on duty. Each dispatcher was handling between 12-14
runs. It did not appear that drivers were reporting each pick-up and
drop-off as they occurred. Instead, dispatchers were polling drivers
periodically to get information on pick-ups and drop-offs. Several
dispatchers indicated that they tried to poll each run at least once
every 45-60 minutes. Additional attention would then be given to runs
that were identified as being behind or drivers who needed assistance.

[]{.mark}

Maggie's dispatchers appeared to have very good control of all runs. The
dispatch room appeared calm and "under control" throughout the morning.
All dispatchers appeared to know the status of each run he or she was
managing. Several passenger trips that were running slightly behind
schedule were reassigned in a timely way. A few runs were observed to be
running 10-20 minutes behind the scheduled time, but all appeared to be
running at least within the pick-up window.

[]{.mark}

Reviewers observed that the StrataGen system shows trips to be running
"red" (i.e., a problem) even if the estimated drop-off time is before
the appointment time. Dispatchers noted that they system builds in some
time (believed to be about 5 minutes) to allow riders to exit vehicles
and get to their final destination. The drop-off will be flagged in the
system if the estimated time is less than five minutes before the
appointment time.

[]{.mark}

The Maggie's dispatchers indicated that in Queens there are many roads
that have similar names. The Forest Hills section of Queens was
called-up on a map on one of the workstations and dispatchers showed
that there were three street segments marked with "68." They said that
one might be a "street," another a "road" and another an "avenue," but
that the screen just showed the number. They said that this sometimes
causes a problem when trying to give drivers directions to an address.
This issue was pursued back at the control center the following day. It
appears that the system has the full street segment names stored but
that there was a display problem at Maggie's. There was speculation that
perhaps the Maggie's dispatchers were not displaying the information in
the correct way. The control center manager indicated that he would
contact Maggie's and address the problem.

[]{.mark}

Dispatchers noted that Nextel coverage on Staten Island could also be a
problem sometimes. They also noted that some drivers are not familiar
with all parts of Staten Island and that if radio coverage becomes a
problem they may not be able to reach the dispatch center for
assistance.

[]{.mark}

Reviewers observed the handling of three no-shows. In all cases,
dispatchers followed a standard routine of asking the drivers for the
time they arrived at the pick-up location. They then checked that time
against the promised pick-up time and the 25-minute pick-up window.
Dispatchers attempted to reach the customers by phone in each case. In
one case, the promised pick-up time was 8:22 AM and the driver
radioed-in at 8:24 AM. The driver indicated that they had arrived at
8:02 and had waited for 22 minutes (to be seven minutes inside the
pick-up window). The dispatcher called the customer's home number and
the person who answered indicated that the rider was not going that day.
The dispatcher then authorized the driver to no-show the customer and to
proceed. In the second case, the promised time was 9:10 AM and the
driver radioed-in at 9:20 AM. The driver reported that he had arrived at
9:12 AM and had waited for eight minutes within the window. The
dispatcher attempted to call the customer but found that the number
provided had been disconnected. The dispatcher then authorized the
driver to no-show the customer and to proceed. In the final case, the
driver arrived at 9:24 AM for a 9:05 AM promised pick-up. The driver
went to the door and was informed that the rider had left "just one
minute before." The dispatcher authorized the no-show since the driver
had arrived within the pick-up window.

[]{.mark}

One instance of an early arrival for a pick-up was also observed. In
this case, the driver arrived at 7:14 AM for a 7:28 promised pick-up
time. The driver requested that the dispatcher call the customer to see
if they were ready, which the dispatcher did. The rider indicated that
they were not ready and would be out "at the scheduled time." The
dispatcher informed the driver and the driver waited for the rider.
While there was no overt pressure on the rider (and the driver waited
without expressing any issues), it is possible to see how some riders
might feel pressured by these calls. When the rider answered the phone,
the dispatcher simply said, "This is Access-A-Ride calling; your vehicle
is outside waiting." The dispatcher did not say the vehicle was early
and ask if it was possible for the rider to board early.

[]{.mark}

As with other providers, there appeared to be some misinterpretation of
the schedules. Two times appear on the manifests, the time promised to,
or negotiated with, the customer, and the scheduled time, which is the
time that the driver is actually expected to arrive at the pick-up
location as estimated by the scheduling software. As dispatchers were
discussing assigned runs for the day and talking about runs that
appeared to be too tight, they mentioned that runs had promised times
that were only a few minutes apart. They would then indicate that there
was no way that the driver could get to both locations in the time
allowed. When it was pointed out that the scheduled times appeared to
allow more appropriate times between pick-ups, they would acknowledge
this, but would indicate that they manage runs based on the promised
times. A few of the dispatchers indicated that they do not like to "work
late in the window." They said that if they allow drivers to make
pick-ups "late in the window" it is too easy to start running behind if
there are any problems. They appeared to try to perform trips based on
the promised times and to reserve the 25 minute time period following
the promised time as a cushion, or contingency, to address service
delays. While it is important for dispatchers and drivers to be aware of
the customers expectations, as reflected by the promised time, and
arriving at pick-up locations early in the pick-up window rather than
late makes it easier to stay on schedule, drivers and dispatchers should
also be aware that the schedule times provide important guidance to
drivers in setting the sequence and time of their stops in a manner that
maximizes service efficiency.

[]{.mark}

Based on the work schedule that was effective for the week of August
18-24, 2003, Maggie's employs 10 full-time dispatchers and one part-time
weekend dispatcher. Dispatcher work shifts are shown in Table IX.4
below. There are six weekday morning dispatchers that have staggered
work shifts starting between 4:30 AM and 9:30 AM. Before 6:00 AM on
weekdays, there are two morning dispatchers. A third dispatcher reports
at 6:00 AM and a fourth reports at 6:30 AM. By 9:00 AM there are between
four and six dispatchers scheduled each weekday. Three of the morning
dispatchers work four-day weeks and have shifts that extend until 5:00
to 7:00 PM.

[]{.mark}

Three afternoon dispatchers, with staggered shifts that begin between
12:00 Noon and 1:30 PM, replace the three morning dispatchers. This
enables six to eight dispatchers to be available weekdays at 1:00 PM and
five to six dispatchers to be available up to 5:00 PM. The number of
dispatchers is reduced by one each hour between 5:00 and 7:00 PM. Two to
three dispatchers are available at 8:00 PM, one to two at 9:00 PM and
one dispatcher is then available at 10:00 PM. No Dispatch coverage is
provided after 10:00 PM on weekdays.

[]{.mark}

On weekends, there are only two dispatchers. One works a 6:00 AM to 4:30
PM shift and the second reports at Noon and works until 10:00 PM. As a
result there is only one dispatcher on duty for most hours of the day on
weekends with the exception of the mid-day (Noon to 4:30 PM) when the
shift overlap allows both to be on duty.

Table IX.4  Maggie's Dispatch Staffing Based on August 18-24, 2003 Work
Schedule

  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Position**   **Mondays**   **Tuesdays**   **Wednesdays**   **Thursdays**   **Fridays**   **Saturdays**   **Sundays**

  Dispatcher     4:30am-1pm    4:30am-1pm     4:30am-1pm       4:30am-1pm      4:30am-1pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     5:30am-2pm    5:30am-2pm     5:30am-2pm       5:30am-2pm      5:30am-2pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     6am-2:30pm    6am-2:30pm     6am-2:30pm       6am-2:30pm      6am-2:30pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher                   6:30am-5pm     6:30am-5pm       6:30am-5pm      6:30am-5pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     6:30am-5pm    9:30am-8pm     OFF              OFF             OFF           6am-4:30pm      6am-4:30pm

  Dispatcher     7:30am-6pm    7:30am-6pm     7:30am-6pm       7:30am-6pm      OFF           OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     8:30am-7pm    OFF            9:30am-8pm       9:30am-8pm      9:30am-8pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     12pm-10pm     12pm-10pm      12pm-10pm        12pm-10pm       12pm-10pm     OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     1pm-9:30pm    1pm-9:30pm     1pm-9:30pm       1pm-9:30pm      1pm-9:30pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     1:30am-10pm   1:30am-10pm    1:30am-10pm      1:30am-10pm     1:30am-10pm   OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     OFF           OFF            OFF              OFF             OFF           12pm-10pm       12pm-10pm
  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------

[]{.mark}

**MV Transportation (MV)** -- The manager noted that there are nine
total phone lines and that five lines are dedicated to the dispatch
function. If all five lines are in use, callers get a busy signal. In
the past, if dispatch lines were busy they were directed to voice mail.
The manager indicated that the use of voice mail was a problem and that
the voice mail was eliminated.

MV managers indicated that the night dispatchers are assigned the job of
reviewing route schedules received from First Transit. This staff either
moves trips between runs or highlights trips and runs that appear tight
and will need to be watched. The manager noted that having the night
dispatchers do this did not always work well, though, as they were
sometimes unable to focus enough attention on the task. He indicated
that MV was reconsidering this approach to reviewing and revising
routes.

[]{.mark}

MV drivers did not appear to radio-in each pick-up and drop-off.
Instead, dispatchers were observed periodically polling drivers for
actual pick-up and drop-off times. Observations of MV dispatch on Friday
afternoon, September 12, 2003, between 3:00 and 5:00 PM indicated that
dispatchers were somewhat behind on polling drivers. They appeared to be
focused primarily on getting pull-out mileage and times from drivers.
Even though several runs on the dispatch screen appeared to be running
behind (highlighted in red), little attention appeared to be given to
determining the exact status of those runs, moving trips between runs,
requesting rescue routes or route extensions, or otherwise managing
runs. At 4:45 PM, during the afternoon peak period, dispatchers appeared
to be 60-90 minutes behind on polling drivers for actual times.

[]{.mark}

On a second visit (Wednesday afternoon, September 17, 2003, between 3:00
and 5:30 PM), dispatchers were paying more attention to managing runs,
but reviewers observed several service problems that were causing a
number of routes to run late. One breakdown (Bus 922/Route 272) and one
accident (Bus 83/Route 133) were reported by radio during the two and a
half hours on-site. Dispatchers also noted that there had been a
breakdown in the morning as well and that some morning runs scheduled to
be back at 3:18 PM were running late and causing afternoon pull-outs to
be delayed. Trips on at least three runs on one dispatcher's screen (of
the 20 runs being managed) were running 50-60 minutes late.

[]{.mark}

Reviewers also observed the handling of three no-shows. In two
instances, the AAR procedures were followed, but in one case, the
no-show was reported and entered after the vehicle had left the pick-up
location and it appeared that the driver had only waited three minutes
for the customer, rather than the five minutes required by the
procedures. In one case, the driver reported arriving at 4:10 for a 4:00
PM promised pick-up. The driver radioed-in at 4:25 PM and the dispatcher
attempted to call the rider (with no success). The trip was authorized
as a no-show at 4:27 PM and the dispatcher requested a landmark from the
driver. In a second case, the driver reported arriving at 4:25 PM for a
4:20 PM promised pick-up. The driver radioed-in just before 4:45 PM and
the dispatcher authorized a no-show at 4:45 PM after not being able to
contact the rider by phone and after recording a landmark. In the third
instance, however, the driver reported a no-show while being polled by
the dispatcher about the status of the run. The driver simply reported
the time he had arrived and the time he had left and the dispatcher
entered this into the system. The trip had a promised time of 4:05 PM,
and the driver reported arriving at 4:20 PM and departing at 4:23 PM.

[]{.mark}

According to the work schedule in effect at the time of the visit, MV
employs 13 dispatchers and four Dispatch Assistants. The Dispatch
Assistants check drivers in and out and are the first point of contact
for all calls to the dispatch center. As calls are received they will
either look up the status of the trip using a computer workstation
located in the driver check-in area or will transfer the call to the
dispatcher handling the run to which that trip has been assigned.
Dispatchers manage runs and assist drivers as needed. Table IX.5 below
shows the work schedules for dispatchers and Dispatch Assistants.

[]{.mark}

Four or five morning dispatchers report between 5:45 and 6:45 AM on
weekdays. One additional dispatcher reports at 12:30 PM to assist with
covering lunch breaks. Two to three afternoon dispatchers report between
2:00 and 2:30 PM to replace the morning dispatchers. Two or three
evening dispatchers report between 9:00 and 11:00 PM and work through
the night.

[]{.mark}

During weekday morning peak hours, MV has four to five dispatchers on
duty. Only three to four dispatchers are on duty, however, during the
afternoon peak (3:00 to 5:00 PM). With about 85 peak hour runs, this
then suggests that each dispatcher is managing between 17 and 21 runs in
the morning and 21 to 28 runs in the afternoon.

[]{.mark}

On Saturdays, only one dispatcher is scheduled between 7:30 and 9:00 AM.
This increases to two dispatchers at 9:00 AM, to three dispatchers at
1:00 PM and to four dispatchers at 3:00 PM. Four dispatchers remain on
duty until 5:30 PM, three remain on duty until 10:30 PM and two are then
scheduled to work through the night.

[]{.mark}

On Sundays, two to three dispatchers are scheduled between 6:00 and 7:30
AM, three are on duty from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM, four dispatchers are
scheduled from 1-2:30 PM and then three dispatchers remain on duty
throughout the evening. Overnight, two dispatchers are scheduled.

[]{.mark}

Table IX.5  MV Transportation Dispatch Staffing Based on September 11,
2003

  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Position**   **Mondays**   **Tuesdays**   **Wednesdays**   **Thursdays**   **Fridays**   **Saturdays**   **Sundays**

  Dispatcher     545am-215pm   545am-215pm    545am-215pm      545am-215pm     545am-215pm   2pm-1030pm      OFF

  Dispatcher     545am-215pm   545am-215pm    545am-215pm      545am-215pm     545am-215pm   OFF             1pm-930pm

  Dispatcher     645am-315pm   645am-315pm    645am-315pm      645am-315pm     OFF           OFF             6am-230pm

  Dispatcher     645am-315pm   645am-315pm    645am-315pm      645am-315pm     OFF           OFF             645am-315pm

  Dispatcher     OFF           645am-315pm    645am-315pm      645am-315pm     645am-315pm   OFF             11pm-730am

  Dispatcher     1230pm-9pm    1230pm-9pm     1230pm-9pm       1230pm-9pm      1230pm-9pm    OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     2pm-1030pm    2pm-1030pm     OFF              OFF             2pm-1030pm    9am-530pm       9am-530pm

  Dispatcher     230pm-11pm    230pm-11pm     230pm-11pm       230pm-11pm      OFF           OFF             3pm-1130pm

  Dispatcher     OFF           230pm-11pm     230pm-11pm       230pm-11pm      645am-315pm   7am-330pm       OFF

  Dispatcher     OFF           9pm-530am      2pm-1030pm       230pm-11pm      2pm-1030pm    3pm-1130pm      OFF

  Dispatcher     9pm-530am     9pm-530am      9pm-530am        OFF             OFF           1pm-930pm       3pm-1130pm

  Dispatcher     OFF           OFF            9pm-530am        9pm-530am       9pm-530am     9pm-530am       9pm-6am

  Dispatcher     11pm-730am    OFF            11pm-730am       11pm-730am      11pm-730am    11pm-730am      OFF

  Disp. Asst.    330am-12pm    330am-12pm     330am-12pm       330am-12pm      330am-12pm    OFF             OFF

  Disp. Asst.    830pm-430am   830pm-430am    12pm-830pm       12pm-830pm      12pm-830pm    OFF             OFF

  Disp. Asst.    OFF           OFF            930pm-530am      830pm-5am       830pm-5am     6pm-230am       6pm-230am

  Disp. Asst.    12pm-830pm    12pm-830pm     1pm-930pm        1pm-930pm       1pm-930pm     OFF             OFF
  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------

One assistant dispatcher is scheduled in the early morning on weekdays
to cover morning pull-out. An afternoon assistant dispatcher starts work
at 12:00 noon and the overnight assistant dispatcher reports at 8:30 PM.
On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, a second afternoon assistant
dispatcher reports at 1:00 PM to help with afternoon pull-ins and
pull-outs.

[]{.mark}

On weekends, only one assistant dispatcher is scheduled (from 6:00 PM to
2:30 AM). For the rest of the days, other staff must cover the front
desk, check drivers in and out and handle ride status and other calls.
Given that regular dispatch staff levels are already low on Saturday
mornings, it appears that MV may also be low on the total number of
dispatchers/assistant dispatch staff at some times on the weekends.

[]{.mark}

**PTM Management (PT)** -- PT dispatchers are assigned approximately 17
to 20 routes. A review team member observed the PT dispatchers from 6:50
to 8:30 AM on Monday, September 15, 2003. Dispatchers monitor service
using the scheduling software. Dispatchers check the driver's location
relative to their route schedule every 30 minutes and enter the driver's
last actual pick-up or drop-off time into the computer. PT indicated
that drivers often have trouble reporting locations when dispatchers are
busy. As a result dispatchers often contact the drivers. PT also
maintains a "dispatch turnover log" on which they record vehicle
breakdowns, service no-shows, routes that are more than 45 minutes late
and driver checks. The form provides for hourly driver checks (see
Attachment O). The computer automatically updates the estimated times
for the rest of the route based upon the performed time entered by the
dispatcher. Routes that are running late will appear in red on the
display. This includes routes that are running later than five minutes
before scheduled drop-off or appointment times. Dispatchers can manually
override the estimated times generated by the computer, but not the
times promised to customers.

PT dispatchers indicated that the Command Center calls with
cancellations less than one hour before the scheduled time. The
dispatcher can then notify the driver of the cancellation. If the
cancellation is requested more than one hour in advance, the
cancellation is communicated to PT through the scheduling and tracking
software.

[]{.mark}

Dispatchers performed time checks and monitored route schedules for both
lateness and slack time. At PT the reviewer observed 29 actions. These
included 22 time checks, one early arrival at a pick-up location, two
cancellations, one trip moved and one customer no-show. The moved trip
resulted from the wrong customer boarding the vehicle and taking the
trip, resulting in the original customer being late. Additionally, there
was one instance in which the driver was directed to the wrong location.
When checked using the Geographic Information System (GIS), the wrong
location continued to appear. Eventually, through direct discussion
between the dispatcher and the customer the driver was redirected to the
correct location. The customer said that she has had the same problem
before and, more than once, requested that the erroneous directions be
corrected. It appears that the incorrect information is the result of a
problem with the GIS.

Dispatchers indicated that they moved trips based upon how late the
route is running, how tight the route is and how good the driver is. PT
dispatchers focus on service up to two hours in advance. By monitoring
service and taking corrective action, no more than one late or missed
trip occurs on a route as a result of a service problem. A PT dispatcher
indicated that some routes are very tight, such that a five-minute delay
in boarding a passenger can result in the remainder of the stops
scheduled for the route being late. The software system offers
suggestions on routes to move trips to. The PT dispatcher understood the
--5/+25 pick-up window. PT dispatchers require drivers to wait five
minutes for the customer after the beginning of the pick-up window. The
PT dispatcher indicated that when the vehicle arrives early, they will
call the customer before the pick-up window but if the customer fails to
show for his/her ride the dispatcher will not make a second call to the
customer within the pick-up window.

**TFM** -- TFM has a T1 line with 24 paths with one direct dial number.
The line is shared with its bus company. Seven lines are assigned to AAR
operations, four for dispatchers, two for supervisors and one general
line. All TFM drivers are equipped with Nextels.

TFM operates approximately 50 peak period routes with three dispatchers.
Dispatchers are assigned approximately 15 routes apiece. A review team
member observed the TFM dispatchers from 7:00 to 9:00 AM on Friday,
September 12, 2003. Dispatchers monitor service using the scheduling
software. Dispatchers check the driver's location relative to their
route schedule every 30 minutes and enter the driver's last actual
pick-up or drop-off time into the computer. The computer automatically
updates the estimated times for the rest of the route based upon the
performed time entered by the dispatcher. Routes that are running late
will appear in red on the display. This includes routes that are running
later than five minutes before scheduled drop-off or appointment times.
Dispatchers can manually override the estimated times generated by the
computer, but not the times promised to customers.

Dispatchers were observed performing time checks and monitoring both
schedule and monitor routes for lateness and slack time. At TFM the
reviewer observed 31 actions including 22 time checks, one trip
cancellation, three customer no-shows, one no-fault no-show and four
transfers of trips from one route to another. The 31 actions over the
two-hour period for approximately 15 routes indicate that there were one
or fewer contacts with each driver per hour. (One driver was contacted
four times during this period.) For one customer no-show the vehicle
arrived 10 minutes before the pick-up time scheduled with the customer.
The dispatcher called the customer 10 minutes before the scheduled time
and got no answer. This call was made outside of the --5/+25 minute
pick-up window that the customer is supposed to be available for a ride.
The dispatcher instructed the driver to categorize the customer as a
no-show if they did not appear before the scheduled time.

Dispatchers indicated that they moved trips based upon how late the
route is running, how tight the route is and how good the driver is. By
monitoring service and taking corrective action, no more than one late
or missed trip occurs on a route as a result of a service problem. The
software system offers suggestions on routes to move trips to. The TFM
dispatchers seemed competent and appeared to coordinate well with one
another in reassigning passenger trips from one route to another. In one
instance a trip was moved from one route to another and a second trip
was moved from the receiving route to yet another route to address a
late route. Also, two trips were moved to a rescue route.

**Star Cruiser** -- The telephone system at Star Cruiser has six lines.
All six lines are available on telephones throughout the operation.
Managers reported that the number of lines was adequate for the number
of dispatch stations and for administrative needs. Staff reported no
issues regarding phone capacity.

The morning Dispatch Supervisor reviews runs transmitted by the control
center first thing each morning. Some "fine-tuning" of the schedules is
done each day. This includes moving some trips between runs or making
minor adjustments to scheduled times.

The dispatchers on duty were observed regularly scanning the status of
runs. Both dispatchers indicated that they review runs when they first
come on duty to identify those that appear tight and those that have
more slack. They then will spend more time tracking runs they expect
will need assistance. During observations drivers did not report each
pick-up and drop-off. They did, however, contact dispatch if they needed
assistance. Otherwise, the dispatchers monitored the status of each run
with periodic polling.

Reviewers observed dispatchers handling two customer no-shows. In both
cases, dispatchers asked the drivers for the time they arrived at the
pick-up location. They then checked that time against the pick-up time
promised to the customer and the 25-minute pick-up window allowed for
arrival of the vehicle. Dispatchers attempted to reach the riders by
phone in both cases. They were not successful in either attempt.
Dispatchers then asked the drivers to describe a landmark and landmarks
and the arrival times were entered into the system. In one instance, the
driver arrived for a 10:00 am pick-up at 9:49 AM and the dispatcher
approved the no-show at 10:06 AM. In the second case, the driver arrived
at 9:18 AM for a 9:12 AM pick-up and waited until 9:26 AM. Just as the
dispatcher was authorizing the driver to proceed, the rider appeared and
boarded.

Both dispatchers indicated that some runs could be tight. They noted
that if there were any unexpected delays in riders boarding vehicles,
traffic, or other delays, drivers would begin to fall behind. Both
dispatchers felt that having a floater vehicle was very helpful since it
was not always possible to identify another vehicle with slack time in
the area to accept reassignment of the customer. Both felt a second
floater would be useful.

Observations during the morning peak period indicated that several runs
were tight. Dispatchers appeared to identify pick-ups that were
identified by the system as potentially late, however, and proactively
assigned these passenger trips to other drivers or to the floater
vehicle.

Reviewers also observed both dispatchers keeping the window that shows
cancellations open (in the lower corner of the dispatch screen) and to
constantly scan the window for new cancellations. These were then
communicated to drivers in a timely manner. Dispatchers indicated that
they usually communicate cancellations at the same time they poll
drivers on run status -- to minimize the number of driver interruptions.
Dispatchers also indicated that they often count on trip cancellations
to open-up slack time in runs that can be used to keep the system on
schedule.

Both dispatchers indicated that getting authorization for "rescue
routes" was sometimes difficult and that the authorization might not be
timely. They indicated that requests for rescue routes are only
entertained by the control center when a pick-up is 30 minutes behind.
One dispatcher said "That then only gives us 15 minutes to do the trip"
-- meaning that this was how long they had before being penalized for
the late pick-up. Both noted that a more timely process for getting
rescue routes approved would help.

Dispatchers received several calls from the control center asking about
the status of rides. Reviewers observed some cases, in which riders were
calling the control center well within the 25-minute period after the
promised time. The dispatchers indicated that they get a lot of calls
like that and that some riders either do not understand the "pick-up
window" or simply do not like to wait for the full 25 minutes after the
promised time.

Reviewers also observed dispatchers using the time promised to the
customer when communicating with drivers. For example, they might say,
"Have you made your 9:00 pick-up?" if the trip in question had a 9:00
promised time but a 9:15 scheduled time. This seemed to reinforce to
drivers that the time they needed to be watching (and performing) was
the promised time. And this then seemed to be causing some confusion in
terms of whether the schedules were reasonable. When pointing out runs
that were tight, the two dispatchers typically would note multiple trips
with similar or very close promised pick-up times. They did not seem to
pay attention to the scheduled times which were more spread-out and more
reasonable.

The dispatcher on duty indicated that a Scheduling Supervisor from the
NYCT meets with dispatch staff once a week to review scheduling and
dispatch issues. This was felt to be very positive and constructive.

Based on a work schedule provided dated September 1, 2003, Star Cruiser
employs two full-time Dispatch Supervisors and five full-time and one
part-time dispatcher. One Dispatch Supervisor works a daytime shift
(5:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekdays and 7:00 AM to 12:00 PM on weekends -- 70
hours total). The second Dispatch Supervisor works a night shift (6:00
PM to 6:00 AM Wednesday through Sunday -- 60 hours total). These and
other dispatcher shifts are presented in Table IX.6 below. In addition
to the Dispatch Supervisors, there are two morning dispatchers (one that
reports at 6:00 AM and a second that reports at 8:00 AM). There is also
a mid-day dispatcher, two afternoon/evening dispatchers, and one late
night/early morning dispatcher. On weekdays during peak operating hours,
there are a total of two to four staff scheduled -- one to three
dispatchers plus a Supervisor. During the evening and early morning
hours on weekdays, there are two to three people working in dispatch. On
weekends, two people cover dispatch at all hours except 6:00 AM to 7:00
AM when only one person is on duty.

During weekday peak periods, each dispatcher manages 17-28 runs. On the
day the operation was observed, two dispatchers were handling the
primary dispatch functions and were managing 55 runs between them. One
was handling the odd-numbered runs and the other the even-numbered runs.
The Supervisor on duty managed other aspects of the operation.

Table IX.6  Star Cruiser Dispatch Staffing Based on September 1, 2003
Work Schedule

  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------
  **Position**   **Mondays**   **Tuesdays**   **Wednesdays**   **Thursdays**   **Fridays**   **Saturdays**   **Sundays**

  Dispatch       5AM-5PM       5AM-5PM        5AM-5PM          5AM-5PM         5AM-5PM       7AM-12PM        7AM-12PM
  Supervisor                                                                                                 

  Dispatch       OFF           OFF            6PM--6AM         6PM--6AM        6PM--6AM      6PM--6AM        6PM--6AM
  Supervisor                                                                                                 

  Dispatcher     6AM-4PM       6AM-4PM        6AM-4PM          6AM-4PM         6AM-4PM       6AM-2PM         OFF

  Dispatcher     8AM-4PM       8AM-4PM        8AM-4PM          8AM-4PM         8AM-4PM       OFF             OFF

  Dispatcher     12PM-8PM      10AM-6PM       10AM-6PM         OFF             12PM-8PM      12PM-8PM        9AM-6PM

  Dispatcher     OFF           2PM-10PM       12PM-8PM         12PM-8PM        3PM-11PM      2PM-10PM        6AM-2PM

  Dispatcher     3PM-12AM      3PM-12AM       3PM-12AM         3PM-12AM        OFF           OFF             2PM-10PM

  Dispatcher     6PM-6AM       6PM-6AM        OFF              OFF             OFF           OFF             OFF
  -------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------

## Transportation

**Operators**

[]{.mark}

**Atlantic Paratrans** -- Two assessment team members visited the
Atlantic Paratrans of NYC, Inc. operations center on Monday, September
15, 2003. Reviewers interviewed staff, including senior managers as well
as operations staff and drivers. Driver training, turnover, availability
and run coverage was examined, and vehicle availability and condition
was analyzed.

The Atlantic Paratrans Manager noted that schedules are typically
received between 6:00 and 7:00 PM on the evening before the service day.
The evening dispatchers then review the schedules after the evening peak
(usually between 9:00 and 11:00 PM). Some adjustments are needed, but
the Manager noted that the schedules they receive are "pretty good." It
was noted that if schedule adjustments are needed, trips are moved
within or between runs but no trips are left unscheduled on open runs.

[]{.mark}

The Manager also noted that the central schedulers seem to be
continually revising and improving the schedules and they have been
getting better over time. He also indicated that there is a good working
relationship between the schedulers at First Transit and NYCT and the
Atlantic dispatchers and Supervisors.

[]{.mark}

It was the Manager's opinion that there were operating issues in 1999
and 2000 when the system grew rapidly but that in the past few years,
service quality has improved significantly. He noted that in the
1999-2000 period, Atlantic Paratrans' operation grew by about 100
vehicles in a\
nine-month period. Driver recruitment and other operating problems
emerged during this period of rapid growth. He also noted that a tight
labor market at that time contributed to difficulty in recruiting and
retaining drivers.

[]{.mark}

Vehicle and run records for August 18-24 were reviewed. At that time,
Atlantic Paratrans operated a fleet of 210 AAR vehicles. On August 25,
2003, ten additional vehicles were assigned to Atlantic Paratrans
increasing their AAR fleet to 220 vehicles. Between 196 and 221 weekday
runs were assigned to Atlantic Paratrans at that time. Peak service
requires that 184-187 vehicles be available. About 113-117 weekend
routes were typically assigned.

[]{.mark}

The Atlantic Paratrans Manager noted that they operate one "999" vehicle
(a floater vehicle). He noted that this vehicle is "under the control of
the central control dispatchers."

[]{.mark}

Vehicle availability reports for August 18-25, 2003, were reviewed to
determine if enough vehicles were available to cover peak service
requirements. Summary information from these reports is provided in
Table IX.7 below.

[]{.mark}

[Table IX.7  Atlantic Paratrans Vehicle Availability Reports, August
18-25, 2003]{.mark}

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **D       | **Total   | *         | *         | **Total   | **Peak    |
| ay/Date** | Vehicles  | *Vehicles | *Vehicles | Av        | Period    |
|           | A         | at        | Held for  | ailable** | Requ      |
|           | ssigned** | Main      | Maint. or |           | irement** |
|           |           | tenance** | Repair**  |           |           |
|           |           |           |           |           |           |
|           |           | **        |           |           |           |
|           |           | Vendors** |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Mon.,     | 210       | 9         | 11        | 190       | 186       |
| 8/18      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Tues.,    | 210       | 7         | 11        | 192       | 186       |
| 8/19      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Wed.,     | 210       | 7         | 11        | 192       | 187       |
| 8/20      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Thurs.,   | 210       | 7         | 11        | 192       | 186       |
| 8/21      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Fri.,     | 210       | 10        | 12        | 188       | 185       |
| 8/22      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Mon.,     | 220       | 10        | 9         | 201       | 184       |
| 8/25      |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

(Note: reports are not prepared on weekends since far fewer vehicles are
needed for service)

[]{.mark}

There were enough vehicles available each day to cover peak period
requirements. Prior to the receipt of 10 new vehicles, there were 3-6
vehicles available as spares beyond those needed for scheduled runs. On
August 25, with the 10 new vehicles, there were 17 vehicles available as
spares.

[]{.mark}

As of September 8, 2003, Atlantic Paratrans employed 373 drivers with
average tenure of 3.74 years. 333 (89.3%) of Atlantic Paratrans drivers
had worked for Atlantic Paratrans for more than one year. A review of
the daily operations sheets for the week of August 18-24, 2003, which
show driver assignments by run and the use of extra board drivers,
indicated that no runs were cancelled due to a lack of drivers. There
appeared to be an adequate number of available extra board drivers to
cover scheduled days off as well as service-day absences. The Atlantic
Paratrans Manager indicated hat he couldn't remember the last time they
had cancelled a run due to the lack of availability of drivers. Atlantic
Paratrans does not appear to have a problem with driver recruitment or
retention.

[]{.mark}

New drivers receive nine days of classroom training. Three of these days
are spent on disability awareness and passenger assistance techniques
training. Trainees are then "apprenticed" to experienced drivers for
on-the-road training. On-the-road training lasts between one and two
weeks depending on the skill of the trainee. It was noted that only
about two to three of ten trainees in each class successfully complete
the training course and that as a result, the company is constantly
recruiting drivers.

[]{.mark}

Drivers who complete the training course are started on 6.5-hour runs
but are paid for a full eight hours. This gives them time to review
schedules and plan their day. They are gradually moved up to runs of
between 8 and 10 hour runs in duration.

[]{.mark}

Starting pay for drivers is \$10.25 per hour. During the first year of
employment the pay rate gradually increases to \$12.38 per hour. Based
on the current contract, maximum pay is \$15.00 per hour. Drivers also
receive health benefits (\$15 individual or \$59 family weekly
contribution). There are six paid holidays, one personal day and a paid
birthday leave each year. Drivers also get one week of paid vacation
after one year and two weeks of paid vacation after two years.

The manager noted that drivers who are hired for eight-hour runs are
paid the full eight hours even if some of the hours on that run are
trimmed, or removed during scheduling by First Transit. Drivers also
receive overtime if runs are extended beyond eight hours. The Manager
noted that there are about 1,800 hours of overtime paid per week.

The Manager indicated that the workforce is relatively stable and that
most turnover is due to transfer by drivers to other parts of the
company. Atlantic Paratrans is a major school bus operator and also a
fixed route operator and paratransit drivers often transfer to better
paid positions in these other divisions. Even with this internal
migration, however, the Manager did not feel that driver turnover was a
significant problem at the current time.

[]{.mark}

**Maggie's Paratransit** -- Two assessment team members visited the
Maggie's Paratransit Corporation operations center on Monday, September
15, 2003. Reviewers interviewed staff, including senior managers as well
as operations staff and drivers. Driver training, turnover, availability
and run coverage was examined, and vehicle availability and condition
was analyzed.

[]{.mark}

Maggie's Paratransit operates a fleet of 115 AAR vehicles. About 84-85
vehicles are needed to cover peak-hour runs on weekdays. Maggie's is not
authorized to operate a "floater" vehicle. About 30-31 spares are
therefore available.

[]{.mark}

Vehicle availability reports for the week of August 18-22, 2003, were
reviewed to identify the number of vehicles available for service each
day compared to the number of peak-hour vehicles needed to cover all
assigned routes. The information collected is provided in Table IX.8
below.

[]{.mark}

Table IX.8  Maggie's Paratransit Vehicle Availability Reports, August
18-22, 2003

  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------------
  **Day/Date**   **Total      **Vehicles   **Vehicles   **Total       **Peak-Period
                 Vehicles     "Down"**     Held for     Available**   Requirement**
                 Assigned**                Maint. or                  
                                           Repair**                   

  Mon., 8/18     115          5            3            107           84

  Tues., 8/19    115          6            1            108           85

  Wed., 8/20     115          4            2            109           85

  Thurs., 8/21   115          4            3            108           85

  Fri., 8/22     115          5            3            107           84
  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------------

(Note: reports are not prepared on weekends since far fewer vehicles are
needed for service)

[]{.mark}

As shown, 23 to 24 spare vehicles were available during peak periods on
these days. Maintenance staff and operations managers indicated that
they always have enough vehicles to cover assigned runs.

[]{.mark}

As of September 8, 2003, Maggie's Paratransit employed 169 drivers.
Average period of employment for these drivers was slightly less than
one year with 99 (59%) of its drivers having less than one year's
experience.

[]{.mark}

Managers indicated that trainees are paid a \$6.00 per hour. New drivers
then start at \$11.00 per hour. Maximum hourly wage for drivers is
\$15.00. After 90 days, drivers also are eligible for medical coverage
(\$17 per week individual, \$57 per week family). There are also five
paid holidays and drivers also get their birthdays off with pay.

[]{.mark}

New drivers receive 10 days of training. Drivers spend the first day, as
well as days three thru seven, in a classroom setting. Sensitivity
training and passenger assistance is taught on days three and four. The
second day and days nine and ten are spent on the road. On day two,
trainees ride with experienced drivers and observe what they do. On days
nine and ten, trainees drive and perform all other duties and are
observed by driver-trainers. The second day "ride along" is used to
allow trainees to get a first-hand knowledge of the job early in the
training to be sure that the job is what they thought it would be.

[]{.mark}

**MV Transportation** -- Two assessment team members visited the MV
Transportation, Inc. operations center on Friday, September 12, 2003,
and again on Thursday, September 18, 2003. Reviewers interviewed staff,
including senior managers as well as operations staff and drivers.
Driver training, turnover, availability and run coverage was examined,
and vehicle availability and condition was analyzed.

[]{.mark}

MV Transportation operates a fleet of 110 AAR vehicles. It is typically
assigned about 134-148 runs per weekday, about 41 runs on Saturdays and
about 51 runs on Sundays. On weekdays, about 85 to 87 vehicles are
needed to cover peak operations.

[]{.mark}

Four vehicles that were returning from morning runs were inspected. All
appeared to be generally clean and in fair to good condition given age
and mileage. A few minor problems were noted, however. The tailpipe on
one vehicle was noted to be loose (the rear hanging bracket was
missing). The Quality Control officer saw the problem, but the vehicle
was not taken in for maintenance before the next run. The door to the
battery tray (mounted on the passenger-side skirt) of one vehicle also
appeared to not be secured (broken latch). Again, the vehicle remained
in the yard for the next run.

[]{.mark}

With the help and guidance of NYCT contract management staff, MV
Transportation recently implemented a more efficient vehicle turn-around
procedure. Doorways at the facility were modified to allow vehicles to
pull-through and be checked-in and checked-out in a more efficient
manner. MV Transportation staff indicated that there had been some
difficulty in the past with turning vehicles around in the time allowed
by the schedules. This reportedly has improved.

[]{.mark}

The maintenance supervisor indicated that because some vehicles run "24
hours," getting them cleaned every day is sometimes a problem. Drivers
also indicated that minor maintenance issues are sometimes not addressed
because the vehicles were needed for scheduled runs.

[]{.mark}

Vehicle availability reports for weekdays between August 19 and August
25, 2003, were reviewed to determine the number of vehicles available
for service each day compared to the number of peak period vehicles
needed to cover all assigned runs. The information collected is provided
in Table IX.9 below.

[]{.mark}

**[Table IX.9 − MV Transportation Vehicle Availability Reports
Weekdays,\
August 19-25, 2003]{.mark}**

  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------------
  **Day/Date**   **Total      **Vehicles   **At a       **Total       **Peak-Hour
                 Vehicles     in the Shop  Vendor for   Available**   Requirement**
                 Assigned**   for PM or    Repairs or                 
                              Repair**     In                         
                                           Accident**                 

  Tues., 8/19    100          22           1            77            85

  Wed., 8/20     100          8            6            86            85

  Thurs., 8/21   100          13           3            84            85

  Fri., 8/22     100          15           6            89            85

  Mon., 8/25     100          22           7            71            85
  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ---------------

[]{.mark}

Vehicle availability records for weekends are not prepared since far
fewer vehicles are needed on weekends and availability is not an issue.
In August 2003, MV Transportation operated a fleet of only 100 vehicles.
In the last month, 10 additional vehicles have been added to the fleet
and as noted at the beginning of this section, their fleet is now 110
vehicles. In August 2003, however, it can be seen that the maintenance
shop was reporting far fewer vehicles available for service on some days
than were needed to cover peak period routes. On Tuesday, August 19,
2003, only 77 vehicles were reported ready for service while the peak
requirement was 85. And on Monday, August 25, 2003, only 71 vehicles
were available while 85 were needed. The MV Transportation Manager
indicated that maintenance staff often reports vehicles as unavailable
for service but that many of these vehicles have only minor problems
that do not prevent them from being used if necessary. When needed,
these vehicles can be placed in service. He indicated that MV
Transportation "has enough vehicles, it is a matter of going to the shop
to get the buses released." He indicated that he has been working on
developing better communication between his Quality Control Officer and
his Maintenance Manager.

[]{.mark}

Based on an interview with the MV Transportation Manager, it was clear
that this provider has gone through significant staffing changes in the
past year. The current Manager has been in that position for about a
year. He was a former NYCT employee who indicated he had come out of
retirement to help turn the operation around. He indicated that in the
past year, since he started, he had replaced the Maintenance Manager,
and three of the Dispatch Managers and about half of the dispatchers
were new employees.

[]{.mark}

A review of the MV Transportation driver-training curriculum indicated
that new drivers receive at least 10 days (80 hours) of training. This
includes nine days of classroom training and at least one day of
"behind-the-wheel" training. Additional behind-the-wheel training is
scheduled as needed. Three of the nine classroom days are spent on
disability awareness and passenger assistance techniques training.

[]{.mark}

As of September 8, 2003, MV Transportation had 250 drivers with an
average of one year of employment. Approximately half the drivers had
more than one year of employment. The Assistant Manager indicated
problems having enough drivers to cover runs on Sundays, indicating that
MV Transportation may have difficulties with driver recruitment and
retention.

[]{.mark}

**PTM Management (PT)** -- Operators can review schedules through their
computer system as First Transit develops them during the day before
service delivery but may not alter the schedule. Operators normally
receive access to their schedules for service between 5:30 and 7:00 PM
on the evening before service. On evenings before holidays schedules are
sometimes delivered before 5:00 PM and when there are computer system
problems the schedules can be delivered as late as 3:00 AM on the
service day. After the schedules are handed off to the operator, the
operator is free to alter the schedules. Operators address modifications
to the schedules in different ways. PT's night dispatcher reviews the
next day's schedules and flags potential problems. Operators have the
latitude to move passenger trips from one route to another among the
routes assigned to them or to change estimated times in the schedules
but not the times promised to customers. Extension or addition of routes
requires approval by the AAR Command Center. Common schedule problems
encountered are: geo-coding errors, address errors, problems with some
of the manual insertion of passenger trips that override the software
parameters onto routes. Operators print the drivers' manifests on the
night before service.

PT drivers arrive 15 minutes before their first pull out to review
schedules and prepare for their runs. They are not paid for this time.

The new computer scheduling was activated in May of 2002. There were
problems with the schedules during an implementation period of
approximately one year. The overall effect of the new schedules has been
an increase in productivity. PT's Project Manager also indicated that
schedules have improved with trip times that better reflect traffic
conditions and denser trip patterns on routes. The denser trip patterns
resulted from assigning trips to routes based upon an "affinity" factor
in the scheduling process that groups trips that are near to each other
on one route.

NYCT also faxes a "trim slack" report to each operator. The report
identifies the time that each route will begin or end. The operators
then notify their drivers when their route begins if there's a change in
the start time.

The PT morning dispatchers review their routes and enter any
cancellations onto the manifests of drivers who have not yet reported to
work. Some operators are authorized by NYCT to operate "floater" or
unassigned drivers to be available to respond as the need arises. PT has
one floater for eight hours on Fridays. When problems arise during the
service day dispatchers can add service by extending routes (having
drivers work beyond their assigned work hours by working late or
beginning early) or adding routes. PT indicated that many routes are
about five hours long providing opportunity to extend routes to as much
as eight-hour work shifts. Prior approval of the AAR Command Center is
needed for route extensions. PT also indicated that routes must appear
late in the computer system before the Command Center will authorize a
route extension and that it can take two to three hours after a problem
has been identified by the dispatcher to get authorization. It is the
practice of PT to extend or add routes prior to getting Command Center
approval in order to minimize delay to customers. By doing so the
operator is making best efforts to serve the customer when there is a
service problem but is taking a risk that the "rescue" will not be
approved and the operator will not be paid. PT indicated that on
occasion they have a stranded passenger and return the trip to the
command center for reassignment to another carrier.

**Star Cruiser Transportation (Star Cruiser)** -- Two assessment team
members visited the Star Cruiser operations center on Thursday,
September 11, 2003. Reviewers interviewed staff, including senior
managers as well as operations staff and drivers. Driver training,
turnover, availability and run coverage was examined and vehicle
availability and condition was analyzed.

Star Cruiser operates a fleet of 60 AAR vehicles. It is typically
assigned about 70 runs per weekday and 55 vehicles are needed to cover
peak-hour runs. Star Cruiser also operates one "floater" vehicle to
assist with same day service issues and has four spare vehicles.

Star Cruiser has implemented a very efficient vehicle turn-around
procedure. As vehicles return from runs a maintenance supervisor
inspects them. Vehicles are then cleaned, fueled and made ready for the
next run. Maintenance issues reported by drivers are also handled as
needed.

Maintenance staff and operations managers indicated that they always
have enough vehicles to cover assigned runs and runs rarely, if ever, go
uncovered due to a lack of vehicles.

Seven randomly selected vehicles were inspected at pull-out on September
11, 2003, for general condition and cleanliness. All appeared to be in
very good condition. It was noted that Star Cruiser has a 509/19A
Compliance Officer who supervises pull-out to make sure all vehicles
that leave the yard meet state and federal requirements and are in good
condition.

As of September 8, 2003, Star Cruiser employed 112 drivers with an
average term of employment of 1.4 years. 72 drivers (64%) had been
employed for more than one year. Star Cruiser managers indicated that
the workforce seemed to be relatively stable and that turnover was not a
major issue.

It was noted by managers that drivers start at \$10.50 per hour and
receive \$12.00 per hour after one year. After 90 days, drivers are
eligible to receive medical benefits (paid 100% by the company) and
contributions to a retirement account.

Star Cruiser management reported that new drivers receive 85 hours of
classroom training and at least 34 hours of on-the-road training.
Classroom training includes "Passenger Assistance Techniques"
instruction. It was noted that about half of all new hires successfully
complete the full training. To discourage applicants from going through
the training and then going to another paratransit or transportation
company, Star Cruiser holds the pay due for training time in an account
and gives this to the employee only after they have worked for several
months.

**Transit Facility Management (TFM)** -- Operators can review schedules
through their computer system as First Transit develops them during the
day before service delivery but may not alter the schedule. Operators
normally receive access to their schedules for service between 5:30 and
7:00 PM on the evening before service. On evenings before holidays
schedules are sometimes delivered before 5:00 PM and when there are
computer system problems the schedules can be delivered as late as 3:00
AM on the service day. After the schedules are handed off to the
operator, the operator is free to alter the schedules. Operators address
modifications to the schedules in different ways. The afternoon
dispatcher for TFM reviews the schedules, as First Transit develops
them, and flags potential problems. TFM is adding a scheduler to review
schedules between 6:00 and 9:00 PM and make adjustments and corrections
as needed. Operators have the latitude to move passenger trips from one
route to another among assigned routes or to change estimated times in
the schedules but not the times promised to customers. Extension or
addition of routes requires approval by the AAR Command Center. Common
schedule problems encountered are: geo-coding errors, address errors and
problems with some of the manual insertion of passenger trips that
override the software parameters onto routes. Operators print the
drivers' manifests on the night before service.

The TFM dispatcher supervisor reviews routes when he reports to work at
9:00 AM and fixes problem routes by transferring trips to other routes.
Some dispatchers review the routes they're dispatching before they begin
work. In the event of absences, other dispatchers work over time and/or
supervisors perform dispatcher functions.

All of the operators have union drivers but with different unions and
contracts. Currently there is no provision for driver review of
schedules before pull out at TFM. TFM is renegotiating the contract with
its drivers union. The negotiations include provision for a paid
15-minute pre-trip inspection, which would include review of schedule
manifests by drivers.

TFM indicated that they had some problems with drivers checking in at
the dispatch window on time but pulling out of the garage late for their
route. The dispatch window and the yard are currently located away from
each other. TFM is reorganizing its space to locate the dispatch window
nearer to the yard to improve supervision and correct this problem.

The new computer scheduling was activated in May of 2002. There were
problems with the schedules during an implementation period of
approximately one year. The overall effect of the new schedules has been
an increase in productivity. According to TFM's Project Manager
passenger trips increased by 25-33 % from 12,000 +/- in December 2002 to
15-16,000 in March of 2003. During the same period the number of routes
increased from 68 to 71 (4.5%). The Project Manager attributed the
increased efficiency to better fit of routes to peaks in demand,
improved schedules and denser trip patterns on routes. The denser trip
patterns resulted from assigning trips to routes based upon an
"affinity" factor in the scheduling process that groups trips that are
near to each other on one route. At TFM the productivity increased to
1.7 person trips per hour.

NYCT also faxes a "trim slack" report to each operator. The report
identifies the time that each route will begin or end. The operators
then notify their drivers when their route begins if there's a change in
the start time.

According to the TFM Project Manager the time required from
identification of need by the dispatcher and approval by the Command
Center of these "rescues" can significantly delay service to affected
customers. It is the practice of TFM to extend or add routes prior to
getting Command Center approval in order to minimize delay to customers.
By doing so the operator is making best efforts to serve the customer
when there is a service problem but is taking a risk that the "rescue"
will not be approved and the operator will not be paid. TFM reported
that on occasion "rescues" that have been dispatched have not been
approved.

[]{.mark}

**Driver Interviews**

While conducting site visits to the contract carriers, the review team
interviewed a total of 53 drivers. Drivers were randomly selected as
they finished or before they began their runs. Team members interviewed
a mix of new and veteran drivers, with from two weeks to 13 years of
experience as AAR drivers. Team members asked each driver a series of
questions that covered the following topics:

-   Training received,

-   Condition of the paratransit vehicles,

-   Quality of daily manifests,

-   Level of dispatch support provided, and

-   Their understanding of operating procedures (particularly the
    on-time performance window and no-show procedures).

Table IX.10 presents the number of driver interviews by carrier and by
the range of time drivers have worked for AAR.

Table IX.10 Driver Interviews

  ----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
  Carrier                 Number of Interviews   AAR Experience

  American                7                      1 month to 8 years

  Atlantic Express        7                      4 to 8 years

  Maggie's                9                      1 to 2 years

  MV                      8                      5 months to 1+ years

  Professional            2                      7 months to 3 years

  RJR                     5                      1 to 13 years

  Star Cruiser            9                      5 months to 3 years

  TFM                     6                      2 weeks to 2 years
  ----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

Following are some of the key observations gathered from the driver
interviews:

-   Training was helpful and good. Each carrier trains its own drivers.

-   Most drivers said that their carriers maintained the vehicles well.
    The general exception was that the opinions of MV drivers' on
    maintenance varied greatly.

-   Drivers said most vehicles were fine. Older vehicles (more than two
    years) had relatively more problems, though still were in good
    condition.

-   Many drivers thought that their daily manifests were too tight. Some
    also thought that the routing was often not logical.

-   There was an inconsistent understanding among drivers of the
    difference between the estimated time and the negotiated pickup
    times listed on the manifest.

-   Not all drivers knew the correct pickup window of --5 minutes/+25
    minutes.

-   Most drivers understood the correct procedures for passenger
    no-shows. Most drivers also understood the correct procedures if
    they arrive early at a pickup address.

-   Most drivers knew that they were supposed to get dispatcher
    permission to re-arrange the order of pickups and drop-offs on the
    manifest. But other drivers made changes and told the dispatcher
    after the fact or not at all.

[]{.mark}

##  Performance 

**NYCT Reports**

The assessment team reviewed the disposition, or coding, of trips from
what was scheduled by NYCT on the evening before service to the ultimate
performance of the trip. The team reviewed AAR's performance reports,
AAR's data file for a randomly selected weekday, Thursday, May 15, 2003,
and a sample of manifests as completed by drivers for each of the
operating contractors for the same service day. The purpose of this
review was to affirm that NYCT's performance reports are representative
of the information being reported by drivers and recorded in AAR's
database and properly reflect service performance.

Each of the operators prepares computer reports on the disposition
service performance and submits the reports to NYCT. The actual
passenger pick-up and drop-off times reported are taken from the
information recorded by drivers on their manifests. According to NYCT
managers, analysts, assigned to each of the four Compliance Managers,
review and reconcile performance reports. Analysts review a sample of
trips and customer no-shows. If incorrect reporting of information by
the operator is identified, the operator is advised and further actions
are taken to correct the problem if warranted. NYCT managers also
observe whether morning and afternoon driver pullouts onto their routes
are on time.

Sample manifests from 24 randomly selected routes (three from each of
the eight major operators) were examined to verify accuracy of pickup
and drop-off data that had been entered into NYCT's database. The random
sample consisted of 203 completed trips taken by clients on May 15,
2003. Of the 203 trips, pickup times on the manifests varied from that
in NYCT's database in 18 instances, or approximately 9% of the time.
Drop off times varied in 10 cases, or about 5% of the time.

Of the 18 differences:

-   Seven listed ranges of times on the manifest, but a single pickup
    time had been entered on the master spreadsheet,

-   One had a pickup time that was unreadable on the manifest, but had
    an entry in the spreadsheet.

-   Two had pickup times on the manifest that had been transposed when
    transferring data to the master spreadsheet,

-   Three indicated earlier pickup times on the manifest than reported
    on the master spreadsheet, and

-   Five indicated later pickup times on the manifest than reported on
    the master spreadsheet.

In the eight cases that had ranges or an illegible number it is NYCT's
default procedure to have the operator use a time entered into the
scheduling system by the dispatcher when performing time checks on
drivers. This procedure would account for these eight differences and
should result in representative times in the NYCT database. Likewise,
the transcription errors and early pickup times should not cause the
data reported by NYCT to be unrepresentative of service.

Of the five cases above (2.5% of the 203 trips sampled) with **later**
pickup times on the manifest than that reported on the master
spreadsheet, time differences ranged from 3 to 10 minutes later than
reported, with an average difference of 6 minutes. Only one case was
later than 25 minutes from the promised pickup time. This potentially
represents an underreporting of late pick-ups by 0.5%.

Of the 10 cases with manifest drop-off times that differed from the
master spreadsheet:

-   One had no drop-off time on the manifest, but had an entry in NYCT
    database,

-   One had a drop-off time that was unreadable on the manifest, but had
    an entry in the NYCT database,

-   Six (three pairs) had drop-off times on the manifest that had been
    transposed when transferring data to the NYCT database, and

-   Two indicated earlier drop-off times on the manifest than that
    reported on the NYCT database.

    As with pick-up times, none of the differences observed appear to
    skew the NYCT reported data. Accordingly, the NYCT database appears
    representative of the information provide by drivers on their
    manifests and has been used as a basis for further analysis of
    service performance.

AAR categorizes the disposition of scheduled trips as follows:

-   Late Trip Cancellation (CX_L) -- Customer cancellation after 5:00 PM
    the night before a scheduled trip.

-   Customer No-show (NSCNS) -- The customer has not presented
    him/herself, declines the trip or is unable for any reason to take
    the trip when the vehicle operator has arrived and waited for the
    customer in accordance with contract standards and procedures.

-   No-Fault No-Show (NSNNS) -- The contractor fails to provide the
    scheduled trip to a customer for documented reasons beyond the
    control of the contractor. The Contract Standards of Performance
    (Article 104) further reserves the right for NYCT to declare either
    a contractor or no-fault no-show, as applicable, when the contractor
    is unable to appear at the designated location within 45 minutes
    after the scheduled pick-up time. NYCT has indicated that operator
    vehicle arrivals after the pick-up window but within 45 minutes of
    the scheduled pick-up time are categorized as no-fault no shows.

-   Contractor No-Show (NSSNS) -- Any trip not performed other than a
    Late Trip Cancellation, Customer No-Show, or No-Fault No-Show. NYCT
    further describes this to include a no-show reported by the operator
    more than 5 minutes before or 45 minutes after the scheduled pick-up
    time, or the vehicle never arrives at the correct location for the
    scheduled trip, or the vehicle arrives at the correct location
    within 5 minutes before and 45 minutes after the scheduled pickup
    time, but does not wait 5 minutes.

-   Served (S) -- The trip was completed.

-   Taxi -- AAR authorized the customer to use a taxi or black car to
    complete the trip.

**Trip Disposition**

49 CFR §37.131(f)(3)(B) prohibits transit entities from limiting service
availability through patterns or practices that result in substantial
number of missed trips. For purposes of measuring performance against
the regulatory criteria, missed trips are defined as trips that were not
served when the customer was available for the trip throughout the
30-minute (-5/+25) pick-up window. It would appear that all of the trips
categorized as contractor no-shows and no-fault no-shows are missed
trips. Some taxi trips may be missed trips if the customer chose not to
use the authorization and make the trip. Because of lag time in customer
and black car payment requests and possible failure to request
reimbursement for completed trips, AAR could not confirm the number of
authorized taxi trips that were completed. Also some customer no-shows
may be missed trips if the pick-up location was incorrectly recorded on
the manifest and/or the vehicle driver unknowingly went to the wrong
location, in spite of AAR's efforts to avoid or minimize such problems.

NYCT provided the reviewers a table, Paratransit Summary Statistics,
identifying the disposition of trips for each day during the month of
May (Attachment P). For the month, of 248,593 trips scheduled 15,578
(6.3%) were late cancellations, 7,165 (2.9%) were customer no shows,
1,769 (0.7%) were no-fault no-shows, 390 (0.2%) were carrier no-shows,
and 223,692 (90.0%) were completed by contract operators. During the
month 747 vouchers were redeemed for trips completed by taxis or black
cars (Attachment P). Because there can be a substantial lag from the
date of travel until the voucher is redeemed, these vouchers are not
reconciled by travel date. As a result the number of trips made by
voucher cannot be precisely identified. However, the redeemed vouchers
during May equals 0.3% of scheduled trips during May. NYCT officials
indicated that they subtract multiple requests for the same trip and
trips for which taxi vouchers were issued from their performance
reports. As a result the reported figures in Attachment P will be
greater than the numbers presented for a sample day as discussed below.

The review team selected May 15 as a sample day to perform a more
detailed review of trip disposition. Table IX.11 presents the
disposition of trips for that day. As noted above these numbers do not
include trips for which taxi vouchers were authorized.

Table IX.11  Trip Disposition for May 15, 2003

  --------------------- --------- --------- --------------- ----------------
  Disposition                     Number    \% of Scheduled \% of Trips not
                                            Trips           Cancelled

  Scheduled                       10,065                    9,473

  Late Cancellation     CX_L      592       5.9%            

  Customer No-Show      NSCNS     314       3.1%            3.3%

  No-Fault No-Show      NSNNS     118       1.2%            1.2%

  Carrier No-Show       NSSNS     37        0.4%            0.4%

  Scheduled/Completed   S         8,968     89.1%           94.7%

  Taxi Vouchers (Early) TAXI      28        0.3%            

                                                            

  Will Call/Same Day    WC        1         0.0%            

  Wait List/Same Day    WL        6         0.1%            

                                                            

  Illegal Trip/System   WXO       1         0.0%            
  --------------------- --------- --------- --------------- ----------------

Reviewers looked at the number of taxi vouchers authorized to determine
how many of the trips that were not completed by operators might have
been completed through the use of a voucher. Vouchers issued on May 15
for trips to be made on May 15 are presented in Table IX.12. It appears
that the taxi vouchers issued for the Taxi category were coded
incorrectly. As one might expect, most vouchers were authorized for the
no-show categories. Same day vouchers were authorized for 1.7% of the
scheduled trips. Applying the 0.3% of vouchers redeemed during the month
of May results in estimated use of the vouchers in approximately 20% of
the time that they are authorized.

Table IX.12  Vouchers Authorized by NYCT on May 15, 2003 by Category

+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
|                 |     |       | Vou   |       |       |           |
|                 |     |       | chers |       |       |           |
|                 |     |       | Autho |       |       |           |
|                 |     |       | rized |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Disposition     |     | N     | Taxi  | Black | Total | > \% Of   |
|                 |     | umber |       | Car   |       | > Trips   |
|                 |     |       |       |       |       | > in      |
|                 |     |       |       |       |       | >         |
|                 |     |       |       |       |       |  Category |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
|                 |     |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Scheduled       |     | 1     |       |       |       |           |
|                 |     | 0,065 |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Late            | C   | 592   | 4     |       | 4     | 0.7%      |
| Cancellation    | X_L |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Customer        | NS  | 314   | 32    | 31    | 63    | 20.1%     |
| No-Show         | CNS |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| No-Fault        | NS  | 118   | 29    | 10    | 39    | 33.1%     |
| No-Show         | NNS |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Carrier No-Show | NS  | 37    | 20    |       | 20    | 54.1%     |
|                 | SNS |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Sche            | S   | 8,968 | 26    | 12    | 38    | 0.4%      |
| duled/Completed |     |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Taxi Vouchers   | T   | 28    | 3     |       | 3     | 10.7%     |
| (Early)         | AXI |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
|                 |     |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+
| Same Day        |     |       | 114   | 53    | 167   |           |
| Vouchers        |     |       |       |       |       |           |
+-----------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+

[]{.mark}

Assuming 20 % of the vouchers are actually used results in estimated
disposition of trips as presented in Table IX.13. For example if 20
vouchers were authorized for carrier no-shows it is estimated that four
would actually be used to complete the trip, reducing the number of
trips not completed because of carrier no shows from 37, as presented in
NYCT's data, to 33. 38 trips categorized as served were incorrectly
categorized and, based upon review of a log of messages for taxi voucher
authorizations, were typically some form of no-show or late
cancellations. Vouchers were not used for 30 of these 38 trips
categorized as completed. This constitutes 0.3% of scheduled trips. As a
result these other categories are slightly understated in Table IX.13.

[Table IX.13  Estimated Trip Categories for May 15, 2003]{.mark}

  --------------------- ------- -------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------
                                         Vouchers     Estimated   Totals   \% Of
                                         Authorized   Use @ 20%            Scheduled
                                                                           Trips

                                                                           

  Disposition                   Number                                     

  Scheduled                     10,065                            10,065   

  Late Cancellation     CX_L    592      4            1           591      5.9%

  Customer No-Show      NSCNS   314      63           13          301      3.0%

  No-Fault No-Show      NSNNS   118      39           8           110      1.1%

  Carrier No-Show       NSSNS   37       20           4           33       0.3%

  Scheduled/Completed   S       8968     38           8           8,930    88.7%

  Not Completed         None                                      38       0.4%

  Taxi Vouchers (Early) TAXI    28       3            1           27       0.3%

                                                                           

  Same Day Vouchers                      167          35          35       0.3%
  --------------------- ------- -------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------

[]{.mark}

The 314 customer no-shows were reviewed to determine whether the vehicle
reportedly arrived at the pick-up location between the scheduled pick-up
time (5 minutes into the pick-up window) and the end of the pick-up
window (25 minutes after the scheduled pick-up time). In all 314
instances the reported vehicle arrival time was within this twenty-five
minute period. According to the trip logs customers disputed some of the
no-shows as potential problems with things such as wrong addresses and
passengers who were delayed in appearing when the vehicle arrived.

A no-fault no-show occurs when the operator arrives after the end of the
pick-up window (25 minutes after the scheduled time), but less than 45
minutes after the scheduled time. From a customer service perspective
these trips are missed trips, the vehicle did not arrive within the
agreed upon time and the trip was not completed. These trips are
captured in a separate category for contractual purposes. Operators are
not penalized for late trips until they are more than 45 minutes late.
Of the 118 trips categorized as no-fault no-shows in 12 (10%) instances
the vehicle arrived more than 45 minutes after the scheduled time. This
could be due to circumstances beyond the operators control and
appropriately categorized as a no-fault no-show. For 59 trips including
the 12 above, (50%) the vehicles arrived between 25 and 45 minutes after
the scheduled time. These are no-shows for which the contractor is not
penalized. For 17 trips (14%) the vehicle arrived more than 5 minutes
early or before the pickup window communicated to the customer. These
early arrivals could be carrier no-shows if the vehicle departed early
or disputed no-shows if the vehicle awaited the customer. Finally, on 42
trips (36%) the vehicle arrived within the pick-up window. These could
be trips where the driver arrived at an incorrect address or otherwise
missed connections with the customer. From the perspective of customer
service at least 50% of the no-fault no-shows are missed trips by the
contractor and the remaining 50% are potential missed trips.
Accordingly, for the sample day there were an estimated 82 (0.8%) missed
trips. Whereas 49 CFR 37.131(f)(i)(B) states that there be no
substantial number of missed trips, it is important to take particular
care in defining and categorizing no-shows so as to accurately identify
"missed trips" so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken to
eliminate patterns of missed trips.

[]{.mark}

**On-Time Performance**

[]{.mark}

NYCT provided a report on Paratransit On Time Performance for the period
February through July 2003 (Attachment Q). The report identified trips
completed and late trips by month for each of the eight operators. Not
included were trips completed by taxi or black car or the three back-up
carriers.

**[Table IX.14 - NYCT Paratransit On-Time Report Summary]{.mark}**

  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------- ------------ --------- ------------ -----------
                  February      March         April     May          June      July         Totals

  Completed Trips **178,554**   **225,750**   216,517   224,438      217,578   220,061      1,282,898

  Early & On Time **163,594**   **208,877**   199,190   205,355      201,012   206,455      1,184,483

  Late Trips      14,960        16,873        17,327    **19,083**   16,566    **13,606**   98,415

  \% Early & On   91.6%         92.5%         92.0%     **91.5%**    92.4%     **93.8%**    **92.3%**
  Time                                                                                      
  --------------- ------------- ------------- --------- ------------ --------- ------------ -----------

[]{.mark}

NYCT measures only late pick-ups. It does not measure late drop-offs or
early pick-ups. Early and on-time trips for the period were 92.3% of
completed trips ranging from 91.5% in June to 93.8% in July. The number
of late trips dropped from a high of 19,083 in May to 13,606 in July.
Since an increase in completed trips from 178,554 in February to 225,750
in March, the number of completed trips appears to be stable. It appears
that there has been a steady improvement in on-time performance. This
could be attributable to seasonal traffic conditions as well as service
improvements reported by NYCT.

Among the operators RJR has the best on-time performance, ranging from
96.6% in May to 98.2% in March. Contributing to this performance level
is an experienced operator and favorable operating environment. RJR's
primary service area is Staten Island. TFM has the lowest on-time
performance ranging from 84.6% in June to 89.2% in March. TFM is a newer
contractor.

In order to develop an independent estimate of on-time performance, the
review team assessed AAR trips for a sample day of Thursday, May 15,
2003. Using an AAR data file the reviewer identified on-time, early, and
late pick-ups and drop-offs for 8,968 trips completed by the eight
operators. On-time pick-ups are those with a reported pick-up time
within the pick-up window provided to customers from 5 minutes before
until 25 minutes after the scheduled time. Early pick-ups are those
performed more than 5 minutes before the scheduled time. If the pick-up
occurs more than 25 minutes after the scheduled time it is considered a
late pick-up. Drop-offs are considered late if they occur after the
appointment time or the drop-off time given to the customer. Early
drop-offs have not been considered although dropping customers
excessively early for appointments would not likely meet the test of
comparability to fixed route service. Information is reported on
drop-offs only for those trips that the customer requested an
appointment time.

Table IX.15 - On-Time Performance for Access-A-Ride -- May 15, 2003

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 29%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="5"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Pick Ups</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Drop Offs</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">Completed Trips </td>
<td colspan="2">8,968</td>
<td colspan="2">4,248</td>
<td>13,216</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="7"></td>
<td colspan="2">On Time </td>
<td colspan="2">Number</td>
<td colspan="2">6,634</td>
<td colspan="2">3,799</td>
<td>10,433</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2">%</td>
<td colspan="2">74.0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0%</td>
<td>74.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Early  </td>
<td colspan="2">Number</td>
<td colspan="2">1,603</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td>1,603</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2">%</td>
<td colspan="2">17.9%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0%</td>
<td>12.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">On time &amp; Early </td>
<td colspan="2">Number</td>
<td colspan="2">8,237</td>
<td colspan="2">3,799</td>
<td>12,036</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2">%</td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>91.8%</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">89.4%</td>
<td>91.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Late </td>
<td colspan="2">Number</td>
<td colspan="2">731</td>
<td colspan="2">449</td>
<td>1,180</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="7"><p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></td>
<td colspan="2">  </td>
<td colspan="2">%</td>
<td colspan="2">8.2%</td>
<td colspan="2">10.6%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>More Than 10 Minutes</td>
<td>Number</td>
<td colspan="2">384</td>
<td colspan="2">254</td>
<td colspan="2">638</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td>%</td>
<td colspan="2">4.3%</td>
<td colspan="2">6.0%</td>
<td colspan="2">4.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>More than 35 Minutes</td>
<td>Number</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"></td>
<td> </td>
<td>%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.6%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>More than 60 Minutes</td>
<td>Number</td>
<td colspan="2">10</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td> </td>
<td>%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.1%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

For the sample day, 91.8% of pick-ups were on-time or early. This
percentage is comparable with the 92.3% reported by NYCT for the six
months from February through July, indicating that the sample day is
representative of overall service performance. 6,634 of the pick-ups
were within the pick-up window and 1,603 (17.9%) of the pick-ups were
early. A concern with the large number of early pick-ups is the
potential for customers to be pressured to accept a trip before they are
ready. If this were to occur it could discourage customers from using
the service and could be considered a constraining practice, which is
not allowed by the USDOT ADA regulations. It may be appropriate for NYCT
to monitor early pick-ups to assure that customers are not pressured to
accept trips before they are ready.

On-time drop-offs of 89.4% is comparable to the rate of on-time
pick-ups. Of particular concern with drop-offs is the need to meet
appointment times such as medical appointments or the beginning of work
or school. For an employee this means that they might expect to be late
once in every ten trips or approximately once every two weeks. Chronic
lateness could jeopardize riders' employment or require rescheduling of
appointments with the associated inconvenience. Given the importance to
customers of meeting appointment times, NYCT should consider monitoring
performance for drop-offs as well as pick-ups.

The reviewers looked at the extent to which pick-ups or drop-offs are
late. Of the completed drop-offs, 6% were more than 10 minutes late and
none were more than 35 minutes late. This results in 94% of drop-offs
made less than 10 minutes late. This means that every 4 weeks they will
be late by less than 10 minutes once, and between 10 and 35 minutes
once.

3.9% of completed pick-ups were less than 10 minutes late. As indicated
in Table IX.15, 4.3% of all pick-ups were more than 10 minutes late with
0.6% more than 35 minutes late and 0.1% more than 1 hour late.

It should be noted that these late trips do not include trips completed
through the use of vouchers. As discussed in the Trip Disposition
section of this chapter, of the 167 vouchers authorized for May 15 it is
estimated that approximately 20% (33) were used. Since vouchers are
typically offered after trips are late, as indicated by NYCT practices
and the logs for taxi authorizations, these estimated 33 trips are most
likely late and possibly very late. If these trips were added to the
late trips in the NYCT reports it would increase the late trips by about
0.4%.

At MV Transportation, a chart showing on-time performance for the months
of August and September 2003 was on display in the administrative
offices. Figure IX.1 below shows the on-time performance that was shown
on that chart. Apparently data was not available for September 3. The
information for this one operator provides an indication of the extent
to which on-time performance varies by day. The chart showed that
weekday on-time performance in August typically was between 88-94%. In
September, weekday performance was somewhat lower, running typically
between 84-90%. On weekends, though, much lower on-time performance was
noted.

Figure IX.1 - On-Time Performance Noted by MV Transportation, August
1-September 16, 2003

![](media/image1.wmf)

Table IX.16 shows the weekend on-time performance charted by MV
Transportation during this period. As shown, Saturday on-time
performance often ran only 79-85% and Sunday on-time performance was
only 84% on August 24 and September 14, and only 83% on September 7,
2003.

> Table IX.16 Weekend On-Time Performance Indicated on Chart by MV
> Transportation, August 2 -- September 14, 2003

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Day/Date**                      **Charted On-Time Performance**

  Saturday, August 2                82.96%

  Sunday, August 3                  90.71%

  Saturday, August 9                87.54%

  Sunday, August 10                 92.73%

  Saturday, August 16               93.33%

  Sunday, August 17                 94.33%

  Saturday, August 23               78.55%

  Sunday, August 24                 84.28%

  Saturday, August 30               82.07%

  Sunday, August 31                 88.46%

  Saturday, September 6             85.08%

  Sunday, September 7               83.00%

  Saturday, September 13            89.82%

  Sunday, September 14              83.59%
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

MV Transportation management noted that on weekends MV Transportation is
required to cover all of the service area because fewer providers
operate during the late evening/early morning hours. Drivers are less
familiar with the full area. And, because there are fewer total vehicles
on the road at this time, the opportunity to reassign trips between
vehicles if there are in service problems is reduced. Managers also
noted that they had some issues covering runs with available drivers on
Sundays. All of these factors have a negative affect on weekend on-time
performance.

**AAR On-Board Ride Times**

As part of this review, the team analyzed AAR's on-board ride time
(travel time) performance including a review of policies and procedures,
a sample day of travel time data and a comparison of the travel time of
actual ADA Complementary Paratransit trips with comparable fixed route
trips.

[]{.mark}

Policies and Procedures

[]{.mark}

NYCT's goal is to *schedule* 100% of trips using the travel time
standards in Table IX.17.

**Table IX.17 − Scheduled Travel Time Standards**

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  **Miles**                               **Minutes**

  [\>]{.underline} 0 and [\<]{.underline} 50
  3                                       

  [\>]{.underline} 3 and [\<]{.underline} 65
  6                                       

  [\>]{.underline} 6 and [\<]{.underline} 95
  9                                       

  [\>]{.underline} 9 and [\<]{.underline} 115
  12                                      

  [\>]{.underline} 12 and                 135
  [\<]{.underline} 14                     

  [\>]{.underline} 14                     155
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

NYCT has no stated goal for *actual* performance in meeting the
scheduling travel time standards and does not measure trip duration.

The scheduling parameters limit the duration for passenger trip
schedules. Also each operator is subject to liquidated damages for poor
on-time performance. The scheduling limitations and late trip
disincentives are intended to prevent substantially long trips.

NYCT's categories overlap. For example, trips of three miles are
included in both the first and second categories. The first category
includes trips greater than or equal to zero miles and trips less than
or equal to three miles and the second category includes trips greater
than or equal to three miles and less than or equal to six miles. For
analytical purposes, the trip categories were taken to mean:
[\<]{.underline}3 miles, \>3 to 6 miles, \>6 to 9 miles, and so on. The
mileage refers to map mileage calculated by ADEPT (and for the
reviewer's analysis based on MapQuest routing).

Review of On-Board Travel Time

A sample day -- Thursday, May 15, 2003 -- was randomly selected for this
analysis. First, the average trip length was calculated based on
completed trips operated during that sample day. Actual pick-up and
drop-off times were used, not scheduled travel times. Reported odometer
readings were used for mileage, recognizing that trips may not have been
direct if they involved shared rides. In addition to overall averages,
the data was aggregated into categories coinciding with the travel time
standards set by NYCT. For example, trips \< 50 minutes, trips from 51
to 65 minutes, and so on. Within each category, the data were scanned to
look for lengthy trips that exceeded the ride time standards (based on
actual on-board travel time and actual odometer readings).

Table IX.18 summarizes the results of this analysis. Using reconciled
data for May 15, 2003, there were 8,968 completed trips. Of those, 8,774
trips (97%) were included in this analysis. The 194 trips that were
excluded were trips that did not have recorded odometer readings and/or
actual pick-up/drop-off times. This figure includes trips that were
provided by taxi, black car and contractors that did not reconcile data.

The average travel time for all trips was 42 minutes; the overall
average trip distance (based on odometer readings) was 9.3 miles. 68% of
all trips were 50 minutes or less. Of those, the average travel time was
36 minutes and the average trip distance was 5.8 miles. 81% of all trips
were 65 minutes or less and 95% of trips were 95 minutes or less. 23
trips (less than 1%) were more than 155 minutes (2 hours and 35
minutes), which is the maximum travel time standard for any trip set by
NYCT.

The second part of the analysis included a comparison of actual on-board
travel times for a sample of long ADA Complementary Paratransit trips
with fixed route travel times as a means of assessing whether these
paratransit trip lengths are significantly longer than comparable fixed
route trips between the same origin and destination at the same time of
day. For this analysis, a sample of 70 long AAR trips was selected from
trips provided on May 15, 2003. The average travel time for the sample
was 105 minutes and the average actual trip (odometer) mileage was 23
miles. The average trip mileage calculated by MapQuest for the sample
trips was 13 miles.

> Table IX.18 - Average Trip Length for May 15, 2003

+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
|                        | **\# Trips** | **Average \# | **Average \# |
|                        |              | Minutes**    | Miles**      |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Total Trips Included | 8,774        | 42           | 9.3          |
| in Analysis**          |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips                | 6,005        | 26           | 5.8          |
| [\<]{.underline}**     |              |              |              |
| **50 minutes**         | 68%          |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips 51-65          | 1,142        | 58           | 13.3         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | 13%          |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips 66-95          | 1,200        | 78           | 17.3         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | 14%          |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips 96-115         | 269          | 104          | 22.6         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | 3%           |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips 116-135        | 95           | 124          | 26.7         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | 1%           |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips 136-155        | 40           | 143          | 28.0         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | \<1%         |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Trips \> 155         | 23           | 179          | 36.4         |
| minutes**              |              |              |              |
|                        | \<1%         |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

NYCT's customer service staff assisted the review team in developing
fixed route trip itineraries to compare with the actual on-board travel
times for the sample of AAR trips. The fixed route itineraries were
based on travel from the same origin to the same destination at the same
time of day and day of week as the comparable AAR trip. The shortest
fixed route trip time was calculated for each trip as well as a trip
time using only busses.

A software program ("OTIS") was used to generate fixed route
itineraries. Fixed route customer service personnel use this software to
plan trip itineraries for customers. The following information was
entered for each AAR trip:

-   Origin address and borough,

-   Destination address and borough,

-   Desired departure or arrival time, and

-   Date.

Other assumptions included:

-   Minimize transfers,

-   Use all modes (bus, subway, rail), and

-   No restrictions based on disability.

The computer typically generated multiple itineraries. For analysis
purposes, the first itineraries were selected for the "fastest" trip and
"bus-only" options. The itineraries included the following information
for each segment of the trip:

-   Departure location (i.e., bus or subway stop),

-   Departure time,

-   Subway line or bus route \# & head sign,

-   Fare,

-   Arrival location (i.e., bus or subway stop), and

-   Arrival time.

The OTIS program calculated:

-   Walk time and distance from origin to stop,

-   Walk time and distance from stop to destination,

-   Total fare, and

-   Total trip time (including walking to and from stops).

The reviewers added 5 minutes to the trip time calculated by OTIS to
each fixed route trip to account for wait time at the initial bus stop.
The wait time assumes buses arrive every 10 minutes and passengers
arrive randomly throughout the 10-minute period, resulting in an average
waiting time of 5 minutes.

Using trip information from the sample drawn for May 15, 2003, Table
IX.19 shows the results for the "fastest trip" and "bus-only" options
generated by OTIS compared to the AAR travel time. The table shows the
time of day that the trips were made, the origin and destination for
each trip, the estimated Map Quest and actual AAR mileages, the travel
times on AAR, and the OTIS estimated door-to-door travel times for the
"fastest trip" and "bus-only" options. The table also indicates the
number of transfers required to complete the trip on fixed route.

The set of columns on the right side of the table compares the AAR
travel time with the "fastest route" and "bus-only" options. A minus
sign (-) means that the AAR travel time was less than the comparable
fixed route travel time. The table also includes ratios of paratransit
to the fixed route times. The AAR and fixed route trips have the same
travel time when the ratio is 1.0. Ratios less that 1.0 mean that AAR is
quicker; ratios greater than 1.0 mean that the AAR trip is longer than
fixed route.

The table shows that 43 (61%) of the AAR trips took less time or the
same time as the bus-only trips. 10 (14%) of the trips could not be made
using buses only (designated by N/A). The table also shows that 21 (30%)
of the AAR trips were faster than or equal to the "fastest route" fixed
route trips. The analysis indicates that when the AAR trip is very long,
the comparable trip on fixed route is also long. For example, trip #46
was 124 minutes on AAR. However, the comparable trip itinerary for the
"bus-only" option showed a total travel time -- including walk time
to/from the stops at each end plus 5 minutes wait time at the origin --
of 211 minutes, which is 87 minutes longer. Similarly, for that same
trip, the "fastest route" travel time was 174 minutes, which is 50
minutes longer than AAR. The Map Quest mileage indicates the driving
distance for that trip was about 21 miles. The AAR trip was 22 miles
long based on reported odometer readings.

The **bold** entries in the table indicate trips that have ratios
greater than 1.5 (in other words, the AAR trips were more than 50%
longer than comparable fixed route trips. Trip #1 indicates ratios of
1.8 for "bus-only" and 2.7 for "fastest route". Upon closer analysis,
however, it should be noted that this trip is still relatively short (a
paratransit ride time of 32 minutes and a bus-only travel time of 18
minutes). It is unlikely that a paratransit trip of 32 minutes would be
considered significantly long even if longer than a comparable fixed
route trip, given the characteristics of a shared route system and added
time for some riders to board and alight vehicles. In contrast, trip #36
has a "fastest route" ratio of 2.1. The AAR travel time for that trip
was 103 minutes; the "fastest route" travel time was 48 minutes (for a
difference of 55 minutes). The "bus-only" travel time was 113 minutes,
which is 10 minutes longer than the trip on AAR.

The six entries that are both bold and shaded indicate AAR trips that
appear to be significantly long compared to both "bus-only" and "fastest
route" trips. These trips also appear to have mileages that are
considerably longer than the direct driving distance calculated by Map
Quest. For example, trip #68 had an AAR travel time of 207 minutes -- in
excess of NYCT's standards. The estimated travel time for the "bus-only"
option was 138 minutes; the estimated travel time for the "fastest
route" trip was 76 minutes. The odometer mileage was 40 and the Map
Quest mileage was estimated to be about 18. These results indicate that
this trip was significantly long compared to both fixed route
itineraries.

Table IX.19  Travel Time Comparison: Access-A-Ride vs. Bus-Only &
Fastest Travel Time

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="6"></th>
<th></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>Access-A-Ride</strong></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong>Bus Only (BO) Itinerary</strong></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong>Fastest Route (FR) Itinerary</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><strong>#</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>Time</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>PU Address</strong></th>
<th><strong>DO Address</strong></th>
<th><strong>MapQuest</strong></th>
<th><strong>Actual Mileage</strong></th>
<th><p><strong>Ride Time</strong></p>
<p><strong>(mins)</strong></p></th>
<th><p><strong>Travel Time</strong></p>
<p><strong>(mins)</strong></p></th>
<th><strong># Transfers</strong></th>
<th><p><strong>Difference</strong></p>
<p><strong>Para-BO</strong></p>
<p><strong>(mins)</strong></p></th>
<th><p><strong>Ratio</strong></p>
<p><strong>Para/BO</strong></p></th>
<th><p><strong>Travel Time</strong></p>
<p><strong>(mins)</strong></p></th>
<th><strong># Transfers</strong></th>
<th><strong>Difference Para-FR (mins)</strong></th>
<th><strong>Ratio Para/FR</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>18:00</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1120 Ave of Americas, NY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>7th Ave &amp;&amp; W 32nd St, NY</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>32</strong></td>
<td><strong>18</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>14</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.8</strong></td>
<td><strong>12</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">635 W 165th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">3835 Sedgwick Ave, BX</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3</td>
<td>15:45</td>
<td colspan="2">470 Seaview Ave, SI</td>
<td colspan="2">43 Red Cedar La, SI</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4</td>
<td>11:06</td>
<td colspan="2">525 E 68th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">300 Amsterdam Ave, NY</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>09:30</td>
<td colspan="2">55 E 9th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">75 Maiden Lane, NY</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6</td>
<td>16:30</td>
<td colspan="2">133 E 41st St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">11034 73rd Road, QU</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7</td>
<td>12:00</td>
<td colspan="2">31-14 30th Ave, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">45-36 49th St, QU</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td><strong>29</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>16</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>8</td>
<td>09:45</td>
<td colspan="2">105 Bennett Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">2222 Broadway, NY</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9</td>
<td>11:15</td>
<td colspan="2">1325 Morris Park Ave, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">11020 71st Rd, QU</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>119</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-71</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-51</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10</td>
<td>07:15</td>
<td colspan="2">6220 Bay Pkwy, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">182 Remsen St, BN</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11</td>
<td>13:00</td>
<td colspan="2">7734 Austin St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">6620 Queens Blvd, QU</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>12</td>
<td>11:00</td>
<td colspan="2">6726 Groton St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">200 E 72nd St, NY</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>123</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-70</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13</td>
<td>16:20</td>
<td colspan="2">3525 Decatur Ave, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">2801 Schley Ave, BX</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>14</td>
<td>08:00</td>
<td colspan="2">416 Saint Pauls Ave, SI</td>
<td colspan="2">E 42nd St &amp; 1st Ave, NY</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-53</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>15</td>
<td>10:00</td>
<td colspan="2">1445 54th St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">15 W 47th St, NY</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>16</td>
<td>09:00</td>
<td colspan="2">699 Ocean Ave, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">88 3rd Ave, BN</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td><strong>31</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>28</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>17</td>
<td>07:00</td>
<td colspan="2">85 East 46th St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">330 W 34th St, NY</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>153</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-93</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>18</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">130 W Kings-bridge Rd, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">1150 Commonwealth Ave, BX</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>19</td>
<td>19:00</td>
<td colspan="2">15819 99th St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">134 Frost St, BN</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-43</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-31</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>20</td>
<td>08:50</td>
<td colspan="2">160 W 85th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">150 William St, NY</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td><strong>35</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>30</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>21</td>
<td>20:00</td>
<td colspan="2">40 W 51st St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">3260 Cruger Ave, BX</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>115</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-48</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>22</td>
<td>08:30</td>
<td colspan="2">2365 E 13th St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">989 Ave of Americas, NY</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>171</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-103</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>23</td>
<td>08:00</td>
<td colspan="2">3817 Maple Ave, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">66 John St, NY</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>151</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-81</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>24</td>
<td>23:00</td>
<td colspan="2">1335 Ave of Americas, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">27 N Burgher Ave, SI</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>130</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-59</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>25</td>
<td>09:30</td>
<td colspan="2">829 Green- wood Ave, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">13411 109th Ave, QU</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>172</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-97</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>26</td>
<td>17:10</td>
<td colspan="2">465 Hudson Ave, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">20830 Grand Central Pkwy, QU</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>143</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-66</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>27</td>
<td>19:00</td>
<td colspan="2">380 Henry St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">35 Bevy Ct, BN</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>129</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-49</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>28</td>
<td>13:30</td>
<td colspan="2">120 E 23rd St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">74 Fieldway Ave, SI</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>190</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-108</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>29</td>
<td>17:10</td>
<td colspan="2">335 Madison Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">9945 67th Rd, QU</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td><strong>51</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>34</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>30</td>
<td>16:15</td>
<td colspan="2">260 11th Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">1170 Hoe Ave, BX</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>132</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>31</td>
<td>13:00</td>
<td colspan="2">520 E 72nd St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">1305 Dahill Rd, BN</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>32</td>
<td>12:40</td>
<td colspan="2">340 Jay St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">1050 Clove Rd, SI</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>129</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>33</td>
<td>16:40</td>
<td colspan="2">100 E 77th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">19713 118th Ave, QU</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>144</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-44</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>34</td>
<td>10:00</td>
<td colspan="2">11023 Monterey St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">330 W 42nd St, NY</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>157</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-57</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>35</td>
<td>10:15</td>
<td colspan="2">1730 Carroll St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">159 E 74th St, NY</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>126</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td><strong>63</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>38</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>36</td>
<td>10:30</td>
<td colspan="2">100 Fort Washington Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">60 Lafayette St, NY</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>103</td>
<td>113</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td><strong>48</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>55</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.1</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>37</td>
<td>16:45</td>
<td colspan="2">380 W 33rd St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">171 Meisner Av, SI</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>121</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>38</td>
<td>10:45</td>
<td colspan="2">1141 E 229th St, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">1186 Broadway, NY</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>106</td>
<td>177</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-71</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>39</td>
<td>11:30</td>
<td colspan="2">16816 144th Dr</td>
<td colspan="2">7 W 81st St, NY</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>135</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>40</td>
<td>12:30</td>
<td colspan="2">983 Park Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">6-31 Beach 9th St, QU</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>217</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-105</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>139</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>41</td>
<td>8:30</td>
<td colspan="2">191 Bay20th St, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">429 E 52ndSt, NY</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>115</td>
<td>156</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-41</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>42</td>
<td>09:30</td>
<td colspan="2">125 Beach 19 St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">150 Claremont Ave, NY</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>43</td>
<td>11:30</td>
<td colspan="2">623 W 204th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">6403 20th Ave, BN</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>118</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>44</td>
<td>14:30</td>
<td colspan="2">825 Ocean Pkwy, BN</td>
<td colspan="2">1145 E 229th St, BX</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>144</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>45</td>
<td>19:15</td>
<td colspan="2">23810 Hill- side Ave, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">8910 85th St, QU</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td><strong>67</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>57</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>46</td>
<td>14:50</td>
<td colspan="2">120 W 106th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">3115 Brighton 4th St, BN</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>211</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-87</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>174</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-50</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>47</td>
<td>17:15</td>
<td colspan="2">330 West 34th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">11911 192nd St, QU</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>126</td>
<td>156</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td><strong>74</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>52</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>48</td>
<td>18:40</td>
<td colspan="2">1711 2nd Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">22132 107th Ave, QU</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>127</td>
<td>138</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>49</td>
<td>13:30</td>
<td colspan="2">1185 Park Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">207 Beaumont St, BN</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>128</td>
<td>208</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-80</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td><strong>80</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>48</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>50</td>
<td>10:30</td>
<td colspan="2">1305 Ellison Ave, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">40 Wall St, NY</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>135</td>
<td>191</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-56</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td><strong>81</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>54</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>51</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">10539 Remington St, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">214 W 140th St, NY</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>136</td>
<td>154</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>52</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">161 Fort Washington Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">9413 211th St, QU</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>137</td>
<td>167</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>103</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>53</td>
<td>12:30</td>
<td colspan="2">125 Barclay St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">8248 135th St, QU</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>138</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td><strong>65</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>73</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.1</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>54</strong></td>
<td><strong>09:00</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>3536 76th St, QU</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>180 Varick St, NY</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>13</strong></td>
<td><strong>139</strong></td>
<td><strong>82</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>57</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.7</strong></td>
<td><strong>53</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>86</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>55</td>
<td>15:00</td>
<td colspan="2">4 Broad St, SI</td>
<td colspan="2">5439 Metropolitan Ave, QU</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>140</td>
<td>185</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-45</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>132</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>56</td>
<td>15:10</td>
<td colspan="2">12 W 12th St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">1660 Andrews Ave, BX</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>141</td>
<td>115</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td><strong>48</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>93</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>57</td>
<td>16:30</td>
<td colspan="2">501 7<sup>th</sup> Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">24319 145th Av, QU</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>149</td>
<td>152</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>58</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">120 E 23rd St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">5709 Marathon Parkway, QU</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>152</td>
<td>161</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>18:00</td>
<td colspan="2">20512 Hollis Ave, QU</td>
<td colspan="2">31 W 28th St, NY</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>155</td>
<td>177</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td><strong>77</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>78</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.0</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>60</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">1740 Broad-way, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">216 Shotwell Ave, SI</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>156</td>
<td>140</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>0</td>
<td><strong>80</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.1</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>61</strong></td>
<td><strong>16:35</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>310 E 14th St, NY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>67 Pierpont Pl, SI</strong></td>
<td><strong>19</strong></td>
<td><strong>40</strong></td>
<td><strong>162</strong></td>
<td><strong>104</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>58</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.6</strong></td>
<td><strong>87</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>75</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>62</td>
<td>10:00</td>
<td colspan="2">2965 Marion Av, BX</td>
<td colspan="2">225 Parkside Ave, BN</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>167</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td><strong>107</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>60</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>63</td>
<td>16:00</td>
<td colspan="2">345 Hudson St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">16805 115th Av, QU</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>173</td>
<td>173</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td><strong>83</strong></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td><strong>90</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.1</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>64</td>
<td>18:45</td>
<td colspan="2">100 Church St, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">188 Beach 61st St, QU</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>185</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td><strong>58</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>172</strong></td>
<td><strong>3.3</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>65</strong></td>
<td><strong>16:30</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>55 Water St, NY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>455 Schenectady Ave, BN</strong></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td><strong>35</strong></td>
<td><strong>187</strong></td>
<td><strong>93</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>94</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.0</strong></td>
<td><strong>41</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>146</strong></td>
<td><strong>4.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>66</td>
<td>19:00</td>
<td colspan="2">860 5th Ave, NY</td>
<td colspan="2">1663 56th St, BN</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>190</td>
<td>153</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td><strong>80</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>110</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.4</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>67</strong></td>
<td><strong>11:35</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>248 Roebling St, BN</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>14210 Pershing Cres, QU</strong></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>52</strong></td>
<td><strong>200</strong></td>
<td><strong>57</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>143</strong></td>
<td><strong>3.5</strong></td>
<td><strong>71</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>129</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.8</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>68</strong></td>
<td><strong>15:20</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1555 3rd Ave, NY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>11205 203rd St, QU</strong></td>
<td><strong>18</strong></td>
<td><strong>40</strong></td>
<td><strong>207</strong></td>
<td><strong>138</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>69</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.5</strong></td>
<td><strong>76</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>131</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>69</td>
<td>06:00</td>
<td colspan="2">3954 Victory Blvd, SI</td>
<td colspan="2">1845 Mcdonald Ave, BN</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>208</td>
<td>204</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td><strong>148</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>60</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.4</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>70</strong></td>
<td><strong>14:10</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>275 7th Ave, NY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>231 Graham Ave, BN</strong></td>
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td><strong>35</strong></td>
<td><strong>212</strong></td>
<td><strong>121</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>91</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.8</strong></td>
<td><strong>43</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>169</strong></td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="17"><table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 100%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Source: NYCT – OTIS Trip Planner &amp; Access-A-Ride manifest
information. Notes: BN=Brooklyn, BX=The Bronx, NY=New York City
(Manhattan), QU=Queens, SI=Staten Island.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="17"><strong>Bold – Fixed Route to Access-a-RideTravel Time
Ratio Greater than 1.5; Shaded – <mark>Significantly long Access-A-Ride
Trips</mark></strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Findings**

**1 Dispatch**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[]{.mark}

**2 Transportation**

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

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

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

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

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

6.  MV Transportation appears to have a high percentage of its passenger
    equipment assigned to maintenance and repair. In August of 2003, 14
    to 29% of MV Transportation's fleet was assigned to maintenance and
    repair and insufficient vehicles were assigned to meet peak service
    requirements. Since that time the MV fleet has increased from 100 to
    110 vehicles.

7.  Operators appear to have an adequate force of drivers to perform
    assigned routes.

**3 Performance**

1.  For a sample day of May 15, 2003, 94.7% of scheduled trips were
    completed, 3.3% were Customer No-Shows, 1.2% were categorized as
    No-Fault No-Shows, 0.4% were Carrier No-Shows and 0.4% were other.

2.  Taxi and black car vouchers were issued for 167 (1.7%) of the
    scheduled trips for May 15, 2003. Voucher redemptions accounted for
    0.3% of scheduled trips for the month of April 2003. Based upon this
    redemption rate it appears that approximately 20% of the vouchers
    were used. Because of lag time in redeeming vouchers it is not
    possible to accurately estimate the utilization rate. Based upon
    these numbers, 1.4% of trips otherwise classified could be missed
    trips. These are trips that were not completed by the customer and
    the vehicle did not arrive within the pick-up window agreed to with
    the customer.

3.  It appears that more than 50% of the trips categorized as No-Fault
    No-Shows or 0.2% of scheduled trips may be missed trips. In total
    missed trips for May 15, 2003, are estimated at 0.9% of scheduled
    trips including Carrier No-Shows (0.4%), No-Fault No-Shows (0.2%),
    and unused vouchers 0.3%

4.  Taxi vouchers appear to effectively provide a backup service to
    prevent customers from being stranded. However, the apparent low
    utilization of the vouchers by customers (estimated at 20%) and
    authorization of some vouchers for trips that are already late may
    indicate that the vouchers have limited effectiveness in reducing
    the number of missed and late trips. The late authorization for
    customer use of vouchers, the initial customer outlay of money for
    the taxi fare and time and effort required for reimbursement may
    limit the attractiveness of vouchers to customers.

5.  For the sample day of May 15, 2003, 91.8% of pick-ups were on-time
    or early. This is consistent with on-time performance of 91.5 to
    93.8% as reported by NYCT. For May 15 0.6% of pick-ups were more
    than 35 minutes after the pick-up window or 1 hour after the pick-up
    time negotiated with the customer. 0.1% of pick-ups were more than 1
    hour after the pick-up window or 1 hour and 25 minutes after the
    negotiated time.

6.  On-time performance internally tracked by MV Transportation
    indicated some performance issues on weekends. Managers at this
    provider indicated that because there were fewer vehicles on the
    road on weekend evenings, the opportunity to reassign trips between
    runs if in-service problems developed was more limited than on
    weekdays.

7.  NYCT does not have a performance standard nor does it track
    performance for on-time drop-offs. On-time drop-off performance is
    often more critical a concern to consumers than on-time pick-up
    performance, particularly for trips to appointments for work,
    school, medical services, etc.

8.  NYCT's goal is to *schedule* 100% of trips using distance-based
    travel time standards. The distance parameters overlap potentially
    causing confusion. NYCT does not have a travel time policy for
    actual performance of trips and does not measure performance based
    upon\
    AAR trip travel times.

9.  Based on reconciled trip information for May 15, 2003, the average
    travel time for all trips was 42 minutes; the overall average trip
    distance (based on odometer readings) was 9.3 miles. 68% of all
    trips were 50 minutes or less. Of those, the average travel time was
    36 minutes and the average trip distance was 5.8 miles. 81% of all
    trips were 65 minutes or less and 95% of trips were 95 minutes or
    less. 23 trips (less than 1%) were more than the maximum travel time
    standard for any trip set by NYCT (155 minutes or 2 hours and 35
    minutes).

10. The average travel time for sample of 70 long trips from May 15,
    2003, was 105 minutes and the average travel distance was 23 miles.
    The average trip mileage calculated by MapQuest for the sample trips
    was 13 miles.

11. The analysis identified approximately six trips from the sample of
    70 long trips that appeared to be significantly long considering the
    trip distance, AAR travel time and comparable fixed route travel
    times. An additional 16 long AAR trips from the sample that took
    more than 30 minutes longer than fixed trips by the "fastest route"
    could also be considered significantly long.

**Recommendations**

**A Dispatch**

1.  NYCT should consider having call takers respond to routine requests
    without transferring customers to other AAR departments. NYCT should
    consider having call takers, or unit managers, act as customer
    agents in resolving issues rather than referring customers to other
    departments. This practice can reduce the number of incidents of
    customers making multiple calls to resolve issues.

2.  NYCT should consider instructing control unit dispatchers to avoid
    the practice of contacting operator dispatchers to check rides that
    are being performed within the pick-up window.

3.  When vehicles arrive early, operator dispatchers should be
    instructed to inform the customer that their vehicle has arrived
    early and is ready for them if they chose to leave early. NYCT might
    consider providing such guidance in the form of a script for the
    dispatchers.

4.  NYCT should remind drivers that they are not authorized to classify
    a customer as a no-show without dispatcher approval.

5.  Operator dispatchers should be instructed to call all no-shows
    during the pick-up window, including those who may have already
    received an early call, before classifying the customer as a
    no-show.

6.  NYCT should consider changing the procedure for early customer
    requests (made more than an hour before the trip time) for
    unavoidable changes to same day trips. It is recommended that the
    trip be cancelled, so the slack time is made available for use by
    the dispatcher for another trip, and that a will call trip request
    be created.

7.  NYCT should consider reinstructing dispatchers on the significance
    of the different trip times used in the scheduling software.

8.  NYCT should encourage MV to consider expanding its staff of
    dispatchers and providing additional training for its dispatchers.
    Additional training might also be appropriate for dispatchers at
    other operators as well.

9.  NYCT should emphasize the importance of clearly communicating
    incorrect information, such as bad street addresses, incorrect GIS
    locations, etc., to the responsible department. The staff
    responsible for correcting errors should follow up with the
    department or customer who has identified the problem to assure that
    it has been corrected.

10. NYCT should take steps to authorize rescue runs more expeditiously
    to avoid late and missed trips. Centralized dispatch coordination,
    as proposed by NYCT, should facilitate speedier approval of rescue
    runs.

11. It is recommended that NYCT analyze the computer system to identify
    and eliminate slowdowns or to allow other functions to be performed
    on the system while run times are being updated.

**B Transportation**

1.  NYCT should consider refresher training for drivers to include:
    reading and understanding the estimated and negotiated times on the
    manifests; understanding the pick-up window; and procedures for
    obtaining authorization for route changes.

2.  NYCT should encourage MV Transportation to increase focus on vehicle
    maintenance to assure adequate fleet availability to meet peak
    service needs.

    **C Performance**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  NYCT should consider increasing its focus on early authorization of
    "rescue runs," floater vehicles and other flexible capacity to
    reduce the number of missed trips and late pick-ups.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  It is recommended that NYCT review the apparent low on-time
    performance at certain times on weekends. Floater vehicles, more
    slack time spread throughout runs, or other solutions to late night
    weekend performance should be considered.

2.  NYCT should consider establishment of a performance standard for
    on-time drop-offs and track performance against the standard.

3.  NYCT should revise its travel time standard to eliminate overlapping
    time categories.

4.  NYCT should consider applying its ride time standard for scheduling,
    or other revised standard, to performance of service.

5.  NYCT should measure travel time performance and review trips with
    significantly long AAR travel times when compared to fixed route
    trips with the same trip characteristics. The analysis should be
    performed to determine the cause of the long ride times and to
    identify and implement remedial action to eliminate significantly
    long trips.

# X. Resources {#x.-resources .unnumbered}

Information about the adequacy of resources available to provide the ADA
Complementary Paratransit service as required by the USDOT ADA
Regulations was collected and examined as part of the review. This
included:

-   Input from consumers;

-   Information about the vehicle fleet and the availability of vehicles
    to cover scheduled routes;

-   The number of drivers and the availability of drivers to cover
    scheduled routes; and

-   The operating budget for the service and the process used to
    estimate funding needs.

Following is a summary of observations in each of these areas.

**Consumer Comments**

Consumer input, as detailed in Section III, was gathered through
interviews with representatives of the disabled community, review of a
report provided by Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and AAR
complaint records for the first 7 months of 2003.

Resource issues identified by representatives of the disabled community
and the Disabled in Action Report and a review of complaints on file
with AAR were concern about inconsistent vehicle maintenance and a high
driver turnover rate that they attributed to low pay rates. One
indicated that drivers were insensitive. Otherwise there appeared to be
no concerns directly related to resources.

[]{.mark}

**Vehicle Fleet and Vehicle Availability**

[]{.mark}

NYCT Managers indicated that the vans in the passenger fleet are
configured with five passenger seats and two spaces for wheel chairs.
The passenger fleet is owned by NYCT and leased to each of the operators
for a fee of \$1 per vehicle per month. The equipment is insured by MTA
as part of a bulk insurance policy.

NYCT managers indicated that they assign vehicles to operators
sufficient to serve peak route assignments plus spare vehicles equal to
or exceeding 10% of the number needed to meet peak service requirements.
Assignment of vehicles to each of the operators is presented in Table
X.1.

A randomly selected weekday, Wednesday, August 20^t^, 2003, was selected
to review equipment availability against equipment needs. Since the size
of the AAR fleet has been expended, the fleet size and assignment at the
time of the field assessment is also presented in the table. The "%
Spares" column represents the percentage of vehicles in the current
fleet not needed for service on the sample day. Assuming peak service
requirements have not changed significantly from August 20, 2003, to
September 12, 2003, the overall percentage of spare vehicles is 23% and
ranges from 13% for RJR to 35% for Maggies. In all instances the spares
exceed 10% and in all but one instance they exceed 15%. Accordingly the
fleet capacity appears adequate to serve current needs and future
service growth.

[Table X.1 - AAR Fleet Roster]{.mark}

+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| Carrier         | D   | Vehi |      |         | Assi |       | \% |
|                 | riv | cles |      |         | gned |       | Sp |
|                 | ers |      |      |         | Ro   |       | ar |
|                 |     |      |      |         | utes |       | es |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
|                 |     | T    |      | Av      | T    | Peak  |    |
|                 |     | otal |      | ailable | otal | P     |    |
|                 |     | F    |      | for     |      | eriod |    |
|                 |     | leet |      | Service |      |       |    |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
|                 |     | 9    | 8    | 8/      |      | 8/20  |    |
|                 |     | /12/ | /20/ | 20/2003 |      | /2003 |    |
|                 |     | 2003 | 2003 |         |      |       |    |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
|                 |     |      |      |         |      |       |    |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| American        | 323 | 225  | 225  | 205     | 230  | 187   | 2  |
| Transit         |     |      |      |         |      |       | 0% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| Atlantic        | 373 | 220  | 210  | 192     | 196  | 187   | 1  |
|                 |     |      |      |         | -221 |       | 8% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| Maggies         | 169 | 115  | 115  | 109     | N/A  | 85    | 3  |
|                 |     |      |      |         |      |       | 5% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| MV              | 250 | 110  | 100  | 86      | 145  | > 85  | 2  |
| Transportation  |     |      |      |         |      |       | 9% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| PTM Management  | 131 | 75   | 65   | 60      | 88   | 58    | 2  |
|                 |     |      |      |         |      |       | 9% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| RJR             | 126 | 70   | 70   | 66      | 78   | 62    | 1  |
| Paratrransit    |     |      |      |         |      |       | 3% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| Star Transit    | 112 | 60   | 60   | 56      | 70   | 52    | 1  |
| Corporation     |     |      |      |         |      |       | 5% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| Transit         | 111 | 70   | 70   | 55      | 77   | 55    | 2  |
| Facility        |     |      |      |         |      |       | 7% |
| Management      |     |      |      |         |      |       |    |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+
| TOTAL           | 1   | 945  | 915  | 829     | 688  | 771   | 2  |
|                 | 600 |      |      |         |      |       | 3% |
+-----------------+-----+------+------+---------+------+-------+----+

[]{.mark}

On the sample day MV, PTM and Transit Facilities Management had only one
or two vehicles available beyond what was needed for service. PTM had
92% of its fleet available for service on August 20, 2003, indicating a
potential shortage in equipment. Subsequent expansion of its fleet by
ten vehicles should have adequately addressed this potential shortage.
MV and Transit Facilities Management had 86% and 79% of their fleets
available for the service day, respectively. The number of vehicles
unavailable for service indicates potential equipment or maintenance
problems. MV managers indicated that some vehicles reported as
unavailable could be placed in service if needed. MV drivers also noted
problems with equipment maintenance.

NYCT transportation and maintenance supervisors inspect 20% of the fleet
each month during unannounced field surveys. NYCT also reviews pre-trip
inspections twice a month and reviews preventative maintenance logs of
each of the operators. Ten dollars in liquidated damages is assessed to
the operator for each violation of contract requirements for the
vehicles.

[]{.mark}

**Personnel**

As discussed in other parts of this report staffing of the call center,
scheduling and dispatch functions appears to be adequate and not limit
service. Capabilities of dispatchers appeared to vary, which is to be
expected in a large organization in which the experience of the
dispatchers also varies significantly. In addition, as observed during
this review, staff involved in management of AAR service at all levels
appeared to be professional, highly experienced and dedicated to
provision of public service.

Reviewers analyzed driver tenure based upon drivers who were employed on
September 8, 2003. The results are presented in Table X.2.

Table X.2 - Driver Tenure

  --------------------- --------- ---------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- -----------
  Carrier               Drivers   Tenure                                                        

                                  Average    Less                 1 to 3               More     
                                  Years      Than 1               Years                Than 3   
                                             Year                                      Years    

                                             Number   \%          Number   \%          Number   \%

  American Transit,     323       2.24       128      39.6%       101      31.3%       94       29.1%
  Inc.                                                                                          

  Atlantic Paratrans of 373       **3.74**   40       **10.7%**   41       **11.0%**   292      **78.3%**
  NYC, Inc.                                                                                     

  Maggies Paratransit   169       **0.96**   99       **58.6%**   70       41.4%       0        0.0%
  Corp.                                                                                         

  MV Transportation     250       1.01       126      50.4%       124      49.6%       0        0.0%

  PTM Management Corp.  131       1.01       76       58.0%       50       38.2%       5        3.8%

  RJR Paratransit Corp. 126       3.07       31       24.6%       47       37.3%       48       38.1%

  Star Cruiser          112       1.44       40       35.7%       72       64.3%       0        0.0%
  Transportation                                                                                

  Transit Facility      111       1.19       34       30.6%       77       **69.4%**   0        0.0%
  Management                                                                                    

  TOTAL                 1595      **2.10**   574      36.0%       582      36.5%       439      27.5%
  --------------------- --------- ---------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- -----------

The lowest tenure rates belong to some of the newer operators. The
current contracts have been in effect since August of 2001,
approximately two years before September 2003. Maggies, one of the newer
operators, had average driver employment of less than one year.
Atlantic, a long time contractor, has the highest tenure rates with an
average period of driver employment of 3.7 years. Only 10.7 % of its
drivers have worked for less than 1 year, while 78.3 % have worked for
more than three years.

Each of the operators employs union drivers. TFM, Maggies, Atlantic and
MV all have labor contracts with ATU. ATU driver hourly compensation is
\$11.00 initially, \$12.38 after one year and \$12.73 after two years.
Drivers also receive four paid holidays and one paid sick day and are
eligible to participate medical insurance, sharing the premium costs
with the operator. PT also reported starting salaries of \$11.00 per
hour with annual increases and co-paid medical insurance, but no
retirement program.

School bus operators (which pay approximately \$15 an hour), fixed route
operators and other AAR contract operators compete for drivers. TFM
operates fixed route services, which draw from their AAR driver pool.
TFM reported driver shortages and problems in retaining drivers with an
attrition rate of 80% from application through testing and training to
two weeks of operation. With a recent training class they reported
losing 16 of 20 applicants during drug testing, an additional applicant
during training and 2 during the first two weeks of operation. PT
indicated that turnover is normal and that recruitment efforts have
improved with increases in unemployment. Short periods of tenure for
drivers at Maggies and MV Transportation may also be an indication of
problems with recruiting and retaining drivers. Given the apparent
stability of the labor force of the three long-term operators: American,
Atlantic, and RJR, the stability of the newer contractors labor force
may be expected to improve over time. This improvement may be
accelerated with higher unemployment rates increasing the available work
force.

TFM and PT recruit drivers through newspaper ads, TFM also uses bumper
stickers and social service agencies. PT also uses dispatchers as
back-up drivers when needed.

**Planning, Budgeting, and Funding**

[]{.mark}

Table X.3 shows NYCT Paratransit budget and expenditures between 2000
and 2003.

Table X.3  Access-A-Ride Operating Budget and Expenditures FY2000 --
FY2003

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -------------- ------------
              Capital      Operating               Operating      
              Budget       Budget                  Expenditures   

  Year        Amount (000) Amount      Change from Amount (000)   Change from
                           (000)       Previous                   Previous
                                       Year                       Year

  2000        \$0          \$88,860                \$85,212       

  2001        \$12,583     \$115,936   30%         \$109,858      29%

  2002        \$11,289     \$140,654   21%         \$129,858      18%

  2003        \$12,430     \$153,889   9%                          
  ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -------------- ------------

[]{.mark}

NYCT managers described the budget process as follows. NYCT's fiscal
year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31. The NYCT President
begins the annual budget process in May with the issuance of guidance
memo and budget targets. NYCT departments, including the Department of
Buses, Division of Paratransit, develop budget proposals in early June.
In mid-June NYCT's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) develops a
preliminary budget and financial proposal for review with the NYCT
President and submittal to the MTA. In mid-July MTA submits the budget
to the MTA Board for approval.

NYCT's OMB estimates passenger demand for the upcoming year. Estimates
are based upon model projections of the annual market for ADA
Complementary Paratransit services in New York City. The model
projections are based upon the demographics of the City. Factors used in
the model are applied to the most recently available number of AAR
registrants and requested and completed AAR passenger trips. The
projection of completed trips is applied to a productivity factor based
upon empirical data for AAR for recent years to estimate the number of
vehicle hours for each operator. The estimator adjusts allocation of
vehicle hours among operators, as needed, to remain within contract
limits. NYCT managers indicated that NYCT could amend contracts to
increase vehicle hours as needed. Contract rates are applied to vehicle
hours to estimate budget amounts for each of the operators. In similar
fashion, the empirical call volumes are used to project call volumes for
the budget year. NYCT applies contract rates to the call volume to
estimate the budget for operation of the call Center by First Transit.
NYCT estimates the budget for remaining management and eligibility
staffing directly. NYCT managers indicated that the number of these
positions is stable although there has been recent expansion in the
scheduling and eligibility staffs. Building overhead is paid directly by
MTA and is not included in the AAR budget.

New York state general revenues, through MTA, (\$128 million); New York
City (\$20.5 million); and fare revenues (\$5 million) finance the
\$153.5 million AAR budget.

[]{.mark}

**Findings**

1.  Financing of AAR services appears to have strong support from MTA
    and public officials as evidenced by an increase in the operating
    budget from \$88,860 million for the year 2000 to \$153,889 million
    for 2003. Funding does not appear to limit delivery of ADA
    Complementary Paratransit services.

2.  The NYCT budget process appears to effectively address the
    anticipated market demand for service through the use of a
    demographic based model and trends in use of AAR service.

3.  The present fleet appears adequate in size to serve current demand
    with a cushion for increased demand.

4.  Staffing of the call center and scheduling appears to be adequate
    and not limit service. Staff involved in management of AAR service
    at all levels appeared to be professional, highly experienced and
    dedicated to provision of public service.

5.  MV dispatch staff appeared to be taxed managing assignments of 28
    runs per dispatcher. All other dispatch functions appear to be
    adequately staffed.

6.  The availability of drivers for some of the newer carriers may limit
    service. The stable labor force of long-term carriers indicates that
    current limitations of labor may be corrected by the passage of
    time.

**Recommendations**

[]{.mark}

1.  MV should be encouraged to consider increasing the number of
    dispatchers it assigns to work in order to reduce the number of
    routes assigned per dispatcher.

2.  AAR should monitor the adequacy of the driver work force for each of
    its operators and provide assistance, as appropriate, in driver
    recruitment.

**Attachment A.**

**New York City Transit Response**

**Attachment B.**

**On-Site Review Schedule**

**Attachment C.**

**List of Operators**

**Attachment D.**

**ADA Transportation Assessment Application**

**Attachment E.**

**Eligibility application receipt confirmation**

**Attachment F.**

**NYCT's "No-Show/Late Cancellation Policy"**

**Attachment G.**

**Access-a-Ride Paratransit Service User's Guide**

**Attachment H.**

**MTA New York City Transit Telephone Directory**

**for**

**Customers with Disabilities**

**Attachment I.**

**Point Coding List Report**

**Attachment J.**

**Sample Page from a Multi-Boro Report**

**Attachment K.**

**Re-optimization Report**

**Attachment L.**

**Trim-Slack Report**

**Attachment M.**

**Sample Manifest**

**Attachment N.**

**Affinity Factor Map Zones**

**Attachment O.**

**Dispatch Turnover Log**

**Attachment P.**

**NYCT Trip Disposition During May 2003**

**Attachment Q.**

**Paratransit On-Time Performance February - July 2003**

[^1]: Source: 2000 National Transit Database

[^2]: ^1^

[^3]: ^1^

[^4]: US Census

[^5]: ^2^

[^6]: Names and client ID numbers have been removed from sample reports.