Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
9 Another comment included in the report suggested an the manual suggests that a pattern or practice might be estab- approach for establishing a pattern or practice of no-shows, lished if a rider had three times this average rate (or 12% no- which might be applicable to this discussion: shows). Regardless of the method used, the measure should be able to be defended as a pattern or practice. One way to do this is to compare SUMMARY the measure that is considered excessive to the system wide aver- age for no-shows. For example, if there is a one percent no-show rate for the entire system, establishing a standard that would equal Much has been written about the topic of complying with the a three percent rate, even for frequent users of the service, would ADA paratransit regulations, particularly the debate over be defensible (EG&G Dynatrend 1993). accommodating all eligible trip requests. Although this addi- tional guidance does not establish what frequency of This comment appears to be the first occurrence of a sug- no-shows might constitute a pattern or practice or what gested formula for determining a pattern or practice of period of suspension might be considered "a reasonable no-shows and appears to be consistent with recent FTA com- period of time," it does begin to frame the issues and indi- pliance review findings. Applying the example given to a cates what types of policies FTA may not consider accept- system that has an average of 4% no-shows, the language in able based on recent ADA regulatory interpretations.