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

U.S. Department

of Transportation

**Federal Transit**

**Administration**

March 16, 2005

Mr. Richard C. Fernandez

General Manager

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

1600 Franklin Street

Oakland, California 94612

Mr. Thomas E. Margro

General Manager

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

300 Lakeside Drive

Oakland, California 94612

Dear Messrs. Fernandez and Margro:

Thank you for your response to the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA) letter and preliminary report of findings of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Complementary Paratransit compliance
review conducted at the East Bay Paratransit Consortium (EBP) from
February 24 to 28, 2003. Enclosed is the Final Report that incorporates
AC Transit's and BART's official response by attachment. As of the date
of this letter the Final Report became a public document and is subject
to dissemination under the Freedom of Information Act of 1974.

[]{.mark}

Enclosed with this letter is a progress table listing FTA's
understanding of the corrective actions either planned or taken by AC
Transit and BART in response to the preliminary findings contained in
the draft report. If you feel that our summarization of corrective
actions is inconsistent with your response, please inform us in writing
as soon as possible.

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

-   Identified responses that adequately address the finding;

-   Requested documentation of results and outcomes; or

-   Requested AC Transit and BART to clarify specific corrective actions
    based on AC Transit's and BART's response to the report findings.

Please use the enclosed table as the format to report progress to FTA on
the corrective actions AC Transit and BART have completed or intend to
implement as a result of our findings. Please identify each response by
item number (e.g., A.1, etc.). The requested documentation, along with
updates on the status of implementation of proposed corrective actions,
should be provided in quarterly reports to FTA. Each report should
include the planned and actual completion date of the corrective action;
the current status and contact person information for each corrective
action; and specific reporting requests cited in this letter and on the
enclosed table. The first report will be due on April 15, 2005, and
should include data for the months of January through March 2005, and
any actions completed prior to that date that have not already been
addressed. Additional reports will be due by July 15, 2005, October 15,
2005, January 15, 2005, and each calendar quarter thereafter until FTA
releases AC Transit and BART from this reporting requirement.

We recognize the progress that you have made in responding to the
findings of the assessment as presented in your August 27, 2003 letter.
In addition to these efforts, we request that your first progress report
more fully respond to the following findings, which are also addressed
in the progress table.

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

1\. [Finding]{.underline}: In general, the eligibility determination
process used by ATC on behalf of AC Transit and BART does not seem to
deny service to eligible individuals. In fact, ATC's approval rate for
full or partial eligibility of 99% indicates that its evaluation process
may be granting eligibility to individuals who are able to use fixed
route service.

[]{.mark}

> *[Corrective Action Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: East
> Bay Paratransit, through ATC, uses an eligibility process which was
> developed in concert with 21 transit agencies in the Bay Area in an
> effort facilitated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, our
> MPO. During the past three years, the denial rate at ATC has varied
> from 3% to 1%. That rate is typical of Bay Area agencies. In addition
> to those denied, approximately 2% of the initial applicants
> self-select out during the application process. Finally, 28% of the
> applicants who are not denied are granted only partial or
> "conditional" eligibility. That rate is similar to agencies nationally
> using rigorous eligibility processes.*
>
> *Staff from BART and AC Transit have reviewed the eligibility process
> and the outcomes of a sample of recent applications. There appear to
> be no systematic errors with the decisions being reached by the
> certification staff. Nevertheless, along with all the agencies in the
> Bay Area, EBPC is interested in strengthening the eligibility process.
> Therefore we will be implementing recommendations from a common
> program of improvements developed by a consulting team working for the
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission on behalf of the 21 Bay Area
> transit agencies on a schedule which has not yet been finalized.*
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **Additional Reporting: Please describe the changes to the eligibility
> process that AC Transit and BART, through EBP, have made or intend to
> make. In addition, please provide a schedule of implementing the MTC's
> recommendations.**
>
> []{.mark}

4\. [Finding:]{.underline} EBP has a suspension policy for riders in
which three no-shows in a calendar quarter could result in a 30-day
suspension. EBP has not suspended any riders for excessive no-shows for
at least two years. Nevertheless, this policy's threshold for potential
suspension may be an overly restrictive interpretation of the DOT ADA
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."

[]{.mark}

> *[Corrective Action Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}*:
> *East Bay Paratransit has had a threshold of possible suspension after
> three no-shows in a quarter since ADA service began in 1996. This
> policy was discussed in detail during a review of the Rider Policies
> in 1997 and was supported by both the rider advisory committee and the
> Boards of both operators at that time. Any change to the policy would
> need consultation with the EBPC consumer advisory committee. East Bay
> Paratransit will discuss this finding with the advisory committee and
> make a determination by January 2004 about whether or not to pursue a
> change in the policy.*
>
> *In general, East Bay Paratransit finds that counseling and warning
> individuals who no-show prevents the need for substantial numbers of
> suspensions. In FY 2000/2001 and FY 2001/2002, there were few
> suspensions, partly because of a transition to new reservation and
> scheduling software. However, the normal procedure has resumed. East
> Bay Paratransit believes that the current policy is fairly
> administered and does not represent an overly restrictive burden on
> the riders. This is indicated by the fact that, in FY 2002/2003, only
> 41 individuals were suspended for no-shows, out of an active ridership
> of over 10,000. East Bay Paratransit has a dedicated no-show clerk who
> monitors and counsels riders who no-show.*
>
> *Suspensions are not instituted for no-shows that are beyond the
> rider's control, no matter how frequent. In addition, no-shows are not
> imposed if the driver arrives past the end of the pick-up window and
> the rider has left. Riders who dispute a no-show on their record are
> afforded every opportunity to explain their circumstances, and the
> decision errs on the side of the rider. No-shows which prove to be
> beyond the control of the rider are removed from their records. EBP is
> confident that riders who are ultimately suspended are ones whose
> no-shows has become a practice of intentional no-shows and late
> cancellations.*
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **Clarification of Corrective Action:** **While EBP has procedures in
> place to limit the number of suspensions for no-shows, EBP's policy
> for suspending service for no-shows could result in suspension of
> service for a regular, daily rider who has one no-show for every 43
> trips. This rate of no-shows does not appear to be a pattern or
> practice of missing trips as described in 49 CFR Subpart 37 Appendix
> D. One way of addressing frequent riders in the no-show suspension
> policy is to consider trip frequency as part of the policy.**

[]{.mark}

> **Please identify what actions EBP plans to take to further review its
> policy of suspending service for three no-shows in a three-month
> period.**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

###### D. Scheduling of Trip Requests

2\. [Finding:]{.underline} The vehicle manifests do not display the
pickup window times or the negotiated pickup time. This can cause a
driver to be unaware that he/she is late and cause miscommunication with
customers.

> []{.mark}
>
> *[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: The
> pickup window will be printed on the driver manifest and the drivers
> will be trained about the relevance of the window to their schedule.
> Completion of this project at all five providers is expected by
> January 2004.*

[]{.mark}

> **Additional Reporting: Please provide a sample of the new driver
> manifest that shows the pickup window. In addition, please describe
> how drivers are being trained about the relevance of the pickup
> window.**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**E. Operations**

1\. [Finding:]{.underline} EBP appears to have a small, but consistent,
number of trip denials and missed trips each day. Eleven additional
potential denials were identified from ATC records for the sample day of
January 15, 2003. This represents less than 0.4% of requested trips. The
missed trips represents 1.2% of requested trips. EBP also reports a
small number of trip denials and missed trips from its sampling of trip
records.

# []{.mark}

# *[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: The small number of denials at EBP reflects a continuing commitment to analyze the system, improve efficiency, and shift capacity to reflect demand trends and denial times. We will continue to do so in the expectation of reducing the level further in the future.*

[]{.mark}

**Clarification of Corrective Action: Please describe specific steps
that AC Transit and BART, through EBP, will take to move toward no
denials. Also, please discuss steps that AC Transit and BART, through
EBP, will take to reduce the number of carrier missed trips.**

**Please provide a timetable for these proposed activities.**

[]{.mark}

3\. [Finding:]{.underline} 174 trips (7.6% of scheduled trips) were
reported as late cancellations and customer no shows on the sample day.
These cancellations and no-shows might provide capacity on the day of
service to schedule and serve denied and missed trips.

# *[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: The time freed up by cancellations and no-shows is used for medical "go-backs," urgent same day trip requests, and capacity for helping late runs including minimizing "missed trips." EBP believes that the amount of over-scheduling currently being used is appropriate.*

[]{.mark}

**Clarification of Corrective Action: EBP should conduct its daily
operations according to its best judgments. Nevertheless, as cited in
E.1., EBP must adjust its operations to eliminate its denials and reduce
its carrier missed trips.**

[]{.mark}

4\. [Finding]{.underline}: EBP appears to have a small number of
significantly late pickups. EBP reports approximately 0.2% pickups more
than one hour late in 2002. Based on the one-day sample conducted by the
assessment team, 1% of pickups and 1.3% of drop-offs were more than one
hour late.

[]{.mark}

[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: EBP
believes that the inconsistencies between the assessment team on-time
calculations and those of EBP are a result of differences in the
sampling methodology and volume. The team sampled approximately 300
trips. EBP samples 100% of the trips on five randomly selected sample
days each month. In FY 2002/2003, a total of approximately 100,000 trips
were sampled. The annual average was 0.14% pick-ups more than one hour
late.

[]{.mark}

**Additional Reporting: Please provide FTA with the statistics on
pickups that were more than one hour late (total and percent) for the
sample days selected by EBP in the months of October 2004 to March
2005.**

[]{.mark}

5\. [Finding]{.underline}: The definition of the 20-minute on-time
window (0/+20) does not appear to be effectively communicated to service
providers and drivers. The contracts between ATC and the service
providers cite a contract penalty for pickups completed more than 30
minutes after the scheduled pickup time. As a result, the service
providers' incentive is to pick customers up within 30 minutes of the
scheduled pickup time (0/+30), not 20 minutes. Operator manuals do not
address the on-time pickup window and only an estimated pickup time
appears on the drivers' manifests. Several observations were made of
scheduled pickup times on driver manifests that were outside of the
customer's 20-minute pickup window. Most drivers interviewed did not
know what the pickup window is. As a result, the driver is usually
unaware of what the customer is expecting for a pickup time. This can
result in miscommunications between driver and customer and can
contribute to late and early pickups.

[]{.mark}

[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: As
stated in the response to D.2. above, the manifest will be revised to
include the pickup window. Drivers, dispatchers, and call center agents
will receive training prior to implementation which is expected by
January 2004.

AC Transit's and BART's contract with ATC contains incentives and
disincentives relating to on-time performance and missed and very late
trips which are related closely to the window. ATC's contracts with
their sub-contracted service providers are developed by ATC based on
their experience of service provider management.

[]{.mark}

**Additional Reporting: Please provide a sample of the new driver
manifest (as requested in D.2). In addition, please provide information
about how driver are being trained about the relevance of the pickup
window (as requested in D.2).**

**Clarification of Corrective Action: Please clarify whether ATC's
contract incentives and disincentives are tied to the precise (0/+20)
pickup window, or to another window, such as (0/+30). If the contracts
of ATC and the providers are tied to another window, please explain the
rationale.**

[]{.mark}

6\. [Finding:]{.underline} EBP does not have a standard for on-time
performance for drop-offs for appointments and does not measure on-time
performance for drop-offs.

[]{.mark}

[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}: EBPC
finds that it is more accurate to measure on-time performance for all
trips based upon the single measure pickup time. A reverse engineered
pickup time is created for all appointment arrival times requested by
the passenger. This pickup time includes time for travel and shared
rides. Timeliness of drop- off is monitored through passenger surveys,
complaints, and ride diaries.

[]{.mark}

**Clarification of Corrective Action: FTA encourages AC Transit and BART
to monitor the timeliness of EBP trips for which the rider requested a
drop-off time. 49 CFR Part []{.mark}37.131(f)(3) of the DOT's ADA
regulations requires that transit entities not constrain capacity by
"any operational pattern or practice that significantly limits the
availability of complementary paratransit service." This section of the
regulations specifically cites patterns or practices of untimely pickups
as an example of such a capacity constraint. Just as substantial numbers
of untimely pickups limit the utility and, therefore, availability of
service to people with disabilities, so do a substantial number of
untimely drop-offs. For many passenger trips, the timeliness of the
drop-off is more critical to the utility of the service than the
timeliness of the pickup. Such trips are those with an appointment time
such as trips to work, school, medical appointments, recreational
events, etc. Substantial numbers of significantly late drop-offs for
appointments can limit the utility of the service to customers and
constitutes a capacity constraint. In order to ensure that EBP is not
constraining capacity by providing a substantial number of significantly
late drop-offs, it is necessary to measure on-time performance in
meeting customers requested drop-off or appointment times.**

Since EBP already collects the required data, computing on-time drop-off
performance should only require a small additional effort.

**F. Resources**

[]{.mark}

3\. [Finding:]{.underline} Operating resources, including drivers and
vehicles, appear to be adequate to serve existing travel demand.
Flexible capacity for some carriers may be insufficient to respond to
absences, demand spikes, and real time scheduling of trips that are
currently denied.

[Corrective Actions Proposed by AC Transit and BART]{.underline}:
Because EBP has five service providers and the capability to easily
shift trips between carriers even on the day of service, we believe
there is adequate capacity to respond to the issues mentioned above.

[]{.mark}

**Clarification of Corrective Action: EBP and its five service providers
may be flexible in terms of shifting trips between carriers. However, as
cited in E.1., EBP must adjust its operations to eliminate its denials
and reduce its carrier missed trips.**

[]{.mark}

We recognize the efforts that AC Transit and BART have already made to
correct the deficiencies identified in the draft report, and we
anticipate your continued endeavors to take further corrective actions
as noted in this letter. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance
that you and your staffs have provided us during this review. If you
have any questions about this matter, please contact me or Mr. David
Knight, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at (202) 366‑0805 or at his
electronic mail address: *david.knight@fta.dot.gov.*

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

Mr. Derrin Jourdan

> Civil Rights Officer, Region IX
>
> Federal Transit Administration
>
> 201 Mission Street, Suite 2210
>
> San Francisco, California 94105-1800

Sincerely,

\[signature\]

Michael A. Winter

Director, Office of Civil Rights

Enclosure

cc: Leslie Rodgers, FTA Region IX Administrator

Derrin Jourdan, FTA Region IX Civil Rights Officer