National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies

« Previous: Chapter Three - Survey of Transit Agencies
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Review of No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13856.
×
Page 31

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NO-SHOW AND LATE CANCELLATION POLICY OVERVIEW As a supplement to the survey, respondents were asked to submit copies of their no-show and late cancellation policies, sample letters, and related materials. A total of 63 transit agencies provided no-show policies and/or supporting mate- rials; 61 of the 63 were provided by transit agency survey respondents and 2 were from transit agencies that did not complete the survey. These documents were used to clarify the policies described in the survey responses and to highlight innovative practices related to no-show/late cancellation policies and practices. Of particular interest were policies that appear to balance the needs of the transit agency to run an efficient operation with the needs of its customers to be able to access needed transportation. Particular attention was paid to iden- tifying policies that incorporate incentives for passengers not to incur no-shows and late cancellations. Additionally, the policies were screened to ascertain whether they appeared to meet the ADA regulatory requirements for no-show policies and for consistency with FTA findings published in recent ADA complementary paratransit compliance reviews and letters of findings in response to no-show-related complaints. The no-show and late cancellation policies were analyzed to identify innovative elements to highlight in this chapter. Transit agency representatives were contacted to elicit addi- tional information, as needed. This information will be used in chapter five to identify elements that should be considered when developing a no-show/late cancellation policy. The following elements are highlighted in this chapter: • Passenger incentives • Alternative approaches • Technology as a tool • Documentation and record keeping • Beyond the rider’s control • Passenger information. HIGHLIGHT 1: PASSENGER INCENTIVES The U.S.DOT regulations implementing the ADA address the issue of no-show policies in ADA complementary para- 24 transit service programs. Specifically, 49 CFR 37.125(h) states that The entity may establish an administrative process to suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the provision of complementary paratransit service to ADA paratransit eligible individuals who establish a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips. Several transit agencies provided no-show and late can- cellation policies that included a reward system for passen- gers who do not incur no-shows/late cancellations during a certain period of time. The idea originated with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada based in Las Vegas, followed by Utah Transit Authority (UTA), based in Salt Lake City (both are discussed here). Other programs, including ACCESS Paratransit in Pitts- burgh, Pennsylvania, and C-TRAN in Vancouver, Washing- ton, also have passenger incentive programs. RTC of Southern Nevada In 1999, the RTC recognized that it was experiencing a prob- lem with passengers booking five or six trips a day and then canceling them at the last minute. The system believed that it had a problem trying to balance its ADA requirement for no-trip denials with its public duty to operate an efficient transit system. The transit agency tried to incorporate FTA’s concern about frequent versus infrequent riders when devel- oping the policy, and it worked with its Citizens Advisory Committee to come up with a policy intended to balance the various concerns. It also wanted to provide a “good citizen incentive” to reward passengers who did not incur no-shows. Additionally, the agency focused on looking for patterns and practices of no-shows, not just occasional no-shows. Under RTC’s policy, after the first no-show the passenger is contacted by phone. At this time, the RTC will attempt to educate the person about its no-show policy. If the no-show was determined to be beyond the control of the passenger (e.g., they were in the hospital, there was a driver error, they were suddenly ill and unable to contact the RTC), then the no-show points will be reversed. Computer software has been developed to produce a letter for every no-show, so that passengers are made aware of no-show points assigned to them within a couple of days. From 1 to 5 penalty points are assessed, depending on how much advance notice is given for the cancellation or no-show. Suspension notices are sent CHAPTER FOUR REVIEW OF NO-SHOW AND LATE CANCELLATION POLICIES

25 out mid-month, giving customers until the end of the month (14 days) to appeal. Twice each year the RTC generates a report that shows how often passengers use the system and which passengers have not accumulated any no-show points. Free ride coupons are sent to those customers who have not accumulated any no-show points based on their frequency of use: • Passengers who have zero no-shows and make an aver- age of one round trip per week receive two free ride coupons. • Passengers who make an average of three round trips per week with zero no-shows earn six free ride coupons. • Passengers who make an average of 5 round trips per week with zero no-shows earn 10 free ride coupons. The no-show policy was adopted in February 2000. According to the RTC, at the time program began, approxi- mately 225 suspension notices were being issued each month; currently, 50 or 60 suspension notices are issued per month, with no-shows averaging approximately 2.5% of all scheduled trips. A total of 2,015 customers (49.4% of the 4,082 customers who made six or more trips in a 6-month period) qualified last year for no-show incentive passes, and a total of 8,990 passes were awarded. UTA In 2000, the UTA was experiencing a high volume of no-shows, and the transit agency was contemplating a fare increase to help offset escalating costs. The agency estimated that it was losing approximately $700,000 annually because of no-shows. Since 2000, the UTA no-show policy has undergone three iterations. The initial policy was adopted in 2001 and was designed to emphasize a reduction in late cancellations, which were defined as cancellations occurring within 24 h of a scheduled trip. The Late Cancellation and No Show Policy 2001 was developed in consultation with the UTA Commit- tee on Accessible Transportation. The 2001 policy did not result in significant change and it was believed that no ser- vice suspensions were given during that time. In 2003, the UTA elected to develop a point system, based on the model developed by the RTC in Las Vegas. In addition to working with the Committee on Accessible Transportation, the UTA hosted 15 town meetings to dis- cuss the proposed policy changes. The 2003 policy also included a Responsible Rider Program, which rewarded riders who had a minimum of six one-way trips in a 6-month period and who had a good ridership record. A “good ridership record” was defined as not having any no-shows on their record. The rewards were presented for three ridership levels: • A “casual” rider who averaged one round trip per week was given bronze status and one free round trip. • A “frequent” rider who averaged three round trips per week was given silver status and five free round trips. • A “regular” rider who averaged four or more round trips per week was given gold status and a free monthly para- transit pass. The 2003 policy was significantly different from the 2001 policy and is credited with achieving a 40% reduction in no-shows. In 2004, the UTA made some adjustments to its no- show policy in response to customer comments, but did not change the Responsible Rider Program. Another enhancement made in 2004 was to send free ride coupons to customers when the UTA missed a trip (defined as when the vehicle arrives 36 min or more after the agreed on pick-up time). The coupons can also be redeemed for the removal of no-show points. Accord- ing to the UTA, this has proven to be a very successful program for customers, and the UTA has had the coupons used during the third step of the appeals process for removal of points that would have resulted in a service suspension. The UTA no-show policy is described in the transit agency’s eligibility determination materials, rider brochures, and in newsletters and passenger bulletins. Overall, it is believed that the 2004 policy is working well. In the first half of 2004 there were 51 Responsible Rider Program rewards. Of the registered riders, approximately 7% received service suspension notices and 4% were repeat violators. The over- all no-show rate is approximately 1.3%; the combined no-show/late cancellation rate is approximately 3.0%. HIGHLIGHT 2: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES In recent ADA compliance reviews, FTA suggested that transit agencies develop a method for relating the frequency of trip making to the calculation of no-show penalties and suspensions, but did not provide guidance on exactly what rate might be acceptable. For example, as described in chap- ter two, FTA commented in two ADA paratransit compli- ance reviews that their no-show policies should consider how frequently a passenger uses the service, rather than keying their policies to an absolute number. In response to this finding, Tucson drafted a new no-show policy based on a point system, which was submitted to FTA in a quarterly progress report. However, in a December 2004 letter, FTA provided clarification of its request for corrective action and also pointed out that the severity of the suspension (1 year for missing as few as 11 trips) was not reasonable. In the meantime, the transit agency developed a revised draft policy, based on the percentage of trips resulting in no-shows. Although the agency did not submit a response to the survey the executive director of the ADA paratransit service did sub- mit a copy of the revised draft no-show policy, which is described here. It should be noted that at the time this report was completed FTA had not commented on the revised draft

policy; therefore, it is not known whether the policy will be acceptable to FTA. Background The paratransit agency reported that the revised draft policy was developed to address customer no-shows that were cre- ating problems in four areas: First, no-shows waste the time of the driver (by) traveling to a location when there is no customer waiting for the service. This wasted trip reduces the driver’s productivity and inconveniences the rest of the passengers on that van. Second, such trips are a waste of taxpayers’ funds. The average cost of one Van Tran trip is $24.18 (July 2004); therefore, the average no-show costs the taxpayers $24.18. Third, placing a trip on the schedule when the trip will not be used can interfere with the ability of other customers to book trips at a time they would prefer to travel. Fourth, a pattern of such trip bookings followed by no-shows both reveals a disregard for the service and encourages more dis- regard for the service and its clientele. This behavioral pattern encourages a practice of such trip bookings just in case they may be needed (‘trip hoarding’). Draft No-Show Policy The transit agency defines a no-show as occurring when all five of the following circumstances have occurred: 1. The customer (or the customer’s representative) has scheduled ADA paratransit service. 2. There has been no call by the customer or his/her rep- resentative to cancel the scheduled trip two or more hours before the start of the pick-up window. 3. The paratransit vehicle has arrived at the scheduled pick- up point within the specified 25-min pick-up window. 4. The driver has waited at least two full minutes beyond the beginning of the 25-min pick-up window, but the customer has failed to board the vehicle. 5. The driver (while sitting in the driver’s seat) cannot reasonably see the customer approaching the vehicle. The transit agency defines a cancellation as occurring when the customer (or the customer’s representative) calls and speaks to a paratransit reservation or dispatch staff mem- ber two or more hours before the beginning of the pick-up window and specifies that a scheduled trip is to be canceled. The agency computer system keeps track of each trip a customer has requested, scheduled, taken, cancelled, and no-showed. When a no-show occurs, the computer will cal- culate the percentage of no-shows that have occurred in that customer’s scheduled trips for the preceding 6 months. When the no-show percentage reaches 3%, the customer will be 26 advised verbally of the no-show policy and a letter will be sent to the customer’s residence with a copy of the policy enclosed. When the no-show percentage reaches 5%, the customer will be issued a notice of a 3-day suspension of ADA para- transit service, subject to the appeals hearing process. With each successive no-show, the percentage will be recalcu- lated. If the percentage is equal to or greater than 5%, each successive no-show (within 6 months of the last suspension) will result in the length of suspension as follows: • Second occurrence—5 consecutive day suspension. • Third occurrence—10 consecutive day suspension. • Fourth occurrence—15 consecutive day suspension. • Fifth occurrence—20 consecutive day suspension. • Sixth occurrence—25 consecutive day suspension. The agency will provide rides for a medical service appointment that occurs during any suspension period, but no additional ride(s) will be allowed. Summary The agency’s policy is designed to identify those customers who have a pattern and practice of violating the no-show pol- icy based on their frequency of use. All punitive or corrective measures are applied to those customers with a documented frequency of violations within the previous 6 months. No cor- rective action is applied to the infrequent violator; that is, one with no-shows of less than 5% of scheduled trips. The focal point of this policy is to first gain customer cooperation through education. Punitive measures are used only as a sec- ondary measure and only when (1) educational efforts have failed to gain the needed cooperation, and (2) there is a suffi- cient pattern and practice of no-shows to cause an accumu- lated no-show rate of at least 5% within a 6-month period. Few other systems mentioned using any type of percent- age basis for considering no-shows. This was the only policy submitted for this study to include as detailed a description of its (draft) no-show policy based on frequency of use. HIGHLIGHT 3: TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL ADA paratransit systems use a variety of technologies to enhance service provision, including handling gaps in sched- ules created as a result of no-shows and late cancellations. Based on comments from the survey and interviews with several transit agencies, it appears that there is a better chance of using the time resulting from a late cancellation than that from a no-show at the door. According to the sur- vey responses, the most commonly used technology applica- tions are computerized scheduling and dispatching (79.2%), AVL (28.0%), and MDTs (27.2%). Systems also were asked

27 an open-ended question about what technologies can be used to reduce the impact of no-shows and late cancellations. Many of the 83 responses described how MDTs and/or AVL can help expedite communications and provide information to dispatchers so that they can reassign trips to optimize routes. Many also described the ability to handle some same- day trip requests to fill slack time or simply using AVL to confirm the whereabouts of a driver in real time. MDTs and AVL From the survey responses and interviews, it appears that agencies that have MDTs and other technology tools believe that they are able to respond more quickly to reassign trips in the event of a no-show or late cancellation. In the survey, transit agencies were asked whether they were able to reas- sign the slack time created by passenger no-shows or late cancellations. Of the 128 responses to this question, 13.3% said “yes,” they could use the time, and 11.7% said “no,” they could not use the opening in the schedule. Another 75.0% indicated that they sometimes are able to make use of the time. When asked how the time was used, the responses could be divided into the following categories: • 55%—enable dispatchers to reassign trips or allow drivers to catch up on schedule. • 29%—use time for will calls, same-day service, or to clear wait list/unscheduled trips. • 11%—use time for breaks, reassign from a taxi, or assist other services within the system. • 5%—use late cancellation time but not no-show time to reassign trips. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) in Washington State has MDTs on its paratransit vehicles and for the past few years trip requests have been transmitted to drivers by means of these MDTs without using paper manifests. This approach provides greater flexibility, allowing dispatchers to make changes to schedules throughout the day. According to the paratransit manager, the STA is able to use excess capac- ity generated by no-shows and late cancellations because of this flexibility. In addition, if a customer claims that he or she waited for a vehicle whereas the driver says the passenger was a no-show that information will be date and time stamped, when the driver reports the no-show. Because the location was captured as part of the trip disposition, the STA is able to determine whether the driver was in the right place at the right time or if the driver was not there and the passenger is correct. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston Metro) has had a similar experience. According to the director of transportation programs, Houston Metro is able to use the capacity generated by cancellations and the nontraveled leg of a “no-ride” (i.e., no-show). Houston Metro encourages patrons to call the agency as soon as they real- ize they are not taking a trip, even if it is at the pick-up time; the theory being that cancellations and no-rides will gener- ate excess capacity on routes, which is now available to dispatchers to handle same-day demand, sometimes called “unrouted” trips. Houston Metro noted that it is important for the dispatch system to have direct control over the drivers. Some systems have decentralized dispatching or the schedules must go though a third party. Responding quickly to unrouted trips generated every few minutes in a large system such as Hous- ton Metro’s requires a same-day router to focus on the unrouted trips and a large enough dispatch staff to ensure that driver routes (trip times) are consistently updated throughout the day. Updated routes are critical to sound routing deci- sions. AVL is also invaluable for finding the closest vehicle to a waiting rider so that a trip can be assigned. Interactive Voice Response Interactive voice response (IVR) technology allows customers to use the keypad on their touch tone telephone to communi- cate with the computer’s database to cancel a trip, check scheduled pick-up times, and book trips. A few transit agen- cies, including Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Hillsbor- ough Area Regional Transit (HARTline), and Niagara Fron- tier Transportation Authority (NFTA) in Buffalo use this technology. DART has been using IVR technology for several years. Customers can book, cancel, and confirm trips. HARTline, in Tampa, is also phasing it in, because the IVR promises to be another tool for consumers to use at their convenience. The superintendent of paratransit reported that HARTline introduced IVR at the request of customers. It is credited with reducing telephone hold times. Also, customers may cancel and confirm reservations. HARTline is testing the potential to use IVR to make reservations. In that case, an individual would be able to select from a menu of 10 predetermined ori- gins and destinations; 5 would be preset (such as home), the other 5 would be user defined. HARTline also uses an auto- mated module that allows the IVR information to be auto- matically written into the computer file. NFTA indicated that it is using IVR for confirming and canceling trips. NFTA’s dispatcher retrieves recorded messages left by means of IVR and incorporates the changes into the computer. It should be noted that transit agencies using IVR must also provide an equivalent opportunity for individuals who cannot use the technology to perform the same functions. For example, someone who is deaf and uses a TTY (text telephone) or relay service cannot use IVR. Instead, they must contact an individual to make the request or leave a message on an answering machine (using the relay service)

during the same times that IVR technology is available to other customers. HIGHLIGHT 4: DOCUMENTATION AND RECORD KEEPING Most scheduling and dispatching software includes at least two mechanisms for capturing no-show and cancellation data: in real time using the dispatch screen or during trip ver- ification using data entered from driver manifests. Data fields also can be user-defined to capture specific elements such as late cancellations. Some programs are able to differentiate between cancellations at the door (refusals) and a no-show or different timing cutoffs for different types of cancellations. Furthermore, software vendors have developed standard no-show/cancellation reports to capture basic trip data useful for tracking and managing no-shows and cancellations. These reports usually can be generated daily to capture information about which customers have incurred no-shows immediately following the event or monthly to provide summary statis- tics. Vendors are also developing suspension modules, which may be used to automatically track and assign suspensions, generate suspension letters, and reactivate suspensions once they have expired. Ad hoc reporting is another option. Often users will download the data and import it into spreadsheets to create their own reports. The Whatcom Transportation Authority in Bellingham, Washington, uses an older commercial software program and is satisfied with it. Whatcom has developed a set of custom reports to manage its no-show policy, and actively collects and analyzes a variety of information about its passengers and their trip-making because it is helpful for understanding customer behavior. The system also actively supports regular communication with riders and the system’s no-show literature encourages people to call to resolve no- show problems. Specifically, Whatcom has developed a Definition of Sta- tus No-Show Tracking & Call Sheet for daily tracking and management of its no-shows. The form includes a column to indicate the reason for the no-show and whether Whatcom reversed the no-show after discussing it with the passenger. The form also indicates how many no-shows each customer has accumulated to date and whether a vehicle was sent back to pick-up the passenger after the apparent no-show. Space is provided to document the attempts made to contact the customer and who ultimately was reached to resolve the sta- tus of the no-show. Whatcom also generates monthly reports to capture sta- tistics about no-shows, including details on the number of follow-up calls made to discuss an apparent no-show, num- ber of no-shows, number of warning letters, number of suspensions, etc. The form also includes a breakdown of the percentage of no-shows for nursing homes served by the pro- 28 gram. That level of detail helps Whatcom to immediately identify problems that are agency-based so that they can be resolved promptly. The manager of specialized transportation noted that “even if we get the call a minute before the driver shows up, we save time.” For him, “no-shows are a cost of doing busi- ness.” He reports that in the late 1990s, Whatcom experi- enced no-show rates of 5% to 6%. With the implementation of a new no-show policy, Whatcom’s no-show rate is now approximately 1.5%, and very few suspension notices are issued each month. HIGHLIGHT 5: BEYOND THE RIDER’S CONTROL Section 37.125(h) of the ADA regulations states that transit systems must consider only missed trips (no-shows) that are within the control of the rider and must not count trips against passengers that are missed for reasons beyond the individual’s control, which may include trips missed because of operator error. Specifically, 49 CFR 37.125(h)(1) states that Trips missed by the individual for reasons beyond his or her con- trol (including, but not limited to, trips which are missed due to operator error) shall not be a basis for determining that such a pattern or practice exists. A good example of clearly defining what is meant by “beyond the rider’s control” has been adopted by King County Metro in Seattle. King County Metro has developed a comprehensive ACCESS Program No-Show Policy and Administrative Procedures manual, which includes detailed information about how staff should handle no-shows and late cancella- tions. The manual includes eight sections: (1) cancellations, (2) suspension for rider no-shows, (3) flowchart of the pro- cess, (4) excuse procedures, (5) review process, (6) appeals process, (7) sample letters, and (8) passenger brochure. Of particular interest to this discussion is section 4 (reproduced here), how ACCESS handles no-show excuses. In particular, the policy is very clear under what circumstances a no-show is or is not to be excused. No Shows or Cancels are EXCUSED when the trip is missed for the following reasons. Check the Excuse box on the Supplemental Data tab, and enter reason in Excuse Details, and your user name in Excused By. (Categories are shown in BOLD.) The customer is SICK. FAMILY emergency: Death or illness of family member, or other family emergency. MOBILITY AID failed. LATE connecting transportation: late transfer trip, airplane, train, etc., caused the customer to miss the trip. APPOINTMENT CANCELLED/DELAYED for reasons not the cus- tomer’s fault. Use also for site closures.

29 Adverse WEATHER: Snow, Extreme heat or Extreme cold. ACTS OF GOD: Flood, earthquakes, etc. STAFFING ERROR: The calltaker did not make all the cancel- lations the client requested; or customer just found out the ride was scheduled for the wrong day, time, or location or the customer thought he/she cancelled the ride using Ride- line. My trip time was not changed, so I was not ready, and no one told me. OTHER: Refer Customer to customer service. No Shows or Cancels are NOT EXCUSED when the trip is missed for the following reasons: Customer didn’t want to travel today. Customer changed their mind about using appointment. Customer didn’t know that he/she had a ride scheduled or was sup- posed to call to cancel. Customer got another ride. Customer told someone else he/she was not planning to travel (driver, facility, etc.) or someone else booked the ride for him/her. Customer does not want to ride with specific driver or passenger, or on a specific vehicle. King County Metro developed a procedure to properly code information about why customers were missing particu- lar trips so that the transit agency could more accurately cap- ture information about excused and nonexcused no-shows. The data are entered into the scheduling and dispatching soft- ware program. Although its software program has a sus- pension module, King County developed its own in-house process to manage no-shows and late cancellations and does not use that module. The program generates a letter for each no-show. The letter is then sent so that the customer knows a penalty is being assessed and to encourage them to call Metro ACCESS to discuss the status of their no-shows with agency staff. The no-show policy has been enforced since 2002. Before the policy went into effect, Metro spent 4 months educating its customers about the policy, sent out letters, and included relevant information in its newsletter. In 2002, Metro had an 11% no-show rate for the first 7 months of the year; this rate dropped to 8% after the outreach effort. By 2004, the rates dropped to approximately 5.8% (that rate includes some trips that other systems might define as advance cancellations). King County does not require written documentation for excused no-shows, although staff does watch for a pattern of repeat excuses that may indicate a person is having repetitive problems. FIGURE 18 Sun Metro/LIFT door hanger for no-shows.

HIGHLIGHT 6: PASSENGER INFORMATION The no-show policies included a variety of examples of passenger information including rider brochures, newslet- ters, passenger bulletins, and sample letters. The survey revealed that 79.8% (99 of 124) of the survey respondents pro- vide information about their no-show/late cancellation policies in passenger brochures. Information about no-show policies was provided during the eligibility determination process by 50 (40.3%) of the respondents, 39 (31.5%) describe the policy on their Internet website, and 35 (28.2%) noted that they used passenger bulletins. Some systems also provide recorded information about their no-show policies during those times when customers are placed on hold; others include the pol- icy with letters to customers advising them that they were a no-show or late cancellation. During interviews, most paratransit managers stated that they were moving toward a system of contacting passengers after every no-show either by telephone or card or letter, to advise them a no-show had been recorded and to educate them about the policy. The RTC in Las Vegas, Whatcom, Spokane Transit, King County, NFTA, and the Regional Transpor- tation Program in Portland, Maine, all contact passengers each day in the event of an apparent no-show. All stated that the primary purpose of the initial contact is to educate customers, especially new customers, so that they under- stand the problems associated with a passenger no-show. Several transit agencies, including Sun Metro/LIFT in El Paso and the Central Florida Regional Transportation Author- ity (LYNX) in Orlando, reported that paratransit drivers leave a note or door hanger at the passenger’s residence if on arrival the individual is an apparent no-show. Examples of two door hangers are shown in Figures 18 and 19. Both use bright orange paper for maximum visibility, and the Sun Metro/ LIFT door hanger includes additional information about the no- show policy on the inside in both English and Spanish. Another element that needs to be clearly documented is the appeals procedure. The UTA in Salt Lake City has docu- mented a step-by-step appeals process for passengers to fol- low, which is provided with letters of suspension. The appeals process is included here. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY ADA PARATRANSIT APPEALS PROCESS (For Riders Who Choose to Appeal a Suspension) STEPS MUST BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER LISTED BELOW OR YOU WILL LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE SUS- PENSION. STEP #1 To appeal your service suspension, you must make either a verbal or written appeal of suspension to the Customer Support Administrator. 30 This must be done within 7 calendar days after the date of the Letter of Suspension. STEP #2 If you disagree with the decision made in Step #1, your appeal is sent for an automatic second review. This review will be made by the Riverside Division Manager. You will be notified in writing of the Divi- sion Manager’s decision. STEP #3 If you disagree with the decision made in Step #2, you may appeal that decision. To make your appeal, you must send a WRITTEN request to UTA’s ADA Compliance Officer. Your written request for FIGURE 19 ACCESS LYNX door hanger for no-shows.

31 SUMMARY This chapter highlights examples of innovative practices identified from an examination of the no-show and late can- cellation policies submitted by 63 transit agencies, supple- mented by telephone interviews with paratransit managers at selected properties. Instead of describing examples of no-show/late cancella- tion policies in their entirety, the policies were analyzed to highlight innovative practices in the following six categories: (1) passenger incentives, (2) alternative approaches, (3) tech- nology as a tool, (4) documentation and record keeping, (5) beyond the rider’s control, and (6) passenger information. In chapter five, the findings of this project are synthesized into a list of those features to consider when developing no-show/late cancellation policies. appeal must be received by UTA within 5 calendar days after the date of the written decision in Step #2, from the Riverside Division Manager. Contact Information: Address: Utah Transit Authority P.O. Box 30810 Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0810 Attention: Customer Support Administrator Salt Lake Area 287-4672 Toll Free 1-888-743-3882, ext. 4672 Fax 287-4565 TTY 287-4657 ADA Compliance Officer Salt Lake Area 287-3536 Toll Free 1-888-743-3882, ext. 3536 FAX 287-4675 ALTERNATE FORMAT UPON REQUEST

Next: Chapter Five - Features to Consider When Developing No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies »
Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 60: Practices in No-Show and Late Cancellation Policies for ADA Paratransit examines current and innovative practices of U.S. transit agencies in the development and implementation of passenger no-show and late cancellation policies for paratransit programs operated under the regulatory requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The report reviews the administration, community response, and effectiveness of policies in small, medium, and large transit agencies. The report addresses policies as a way to improve system productivity, efficiency, and capacity, and as a means to better service riders with disabilities who may experience difficulties with the advance reservation aspect of most ADA complementary paratransit operations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!