National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Current Status of Federal Regulations." 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 9

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.

This chapter presents an overview of current federal regu- lations along with a summary of recent guidance and inter- pretation relevant to the discussion of ADA paratransit no-show and late cancellation policies and practices. The chapter begins with a presentation of the relevant sec- tions of the regulations. Next, federal guidance and interpre- tations drawn from recent ADA complementary paratransit compliance reviews are described. The chapter concludes with a brief description of other resources that were identi- fied during the literature review. FEDERAL REGULATIONS Public entities that operate fixed-route transportation services for the general public are required by the U.S.DOT regula- tions implementing ADA to provide ADA complementary paratransit service for persons who, because of 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 ser- vice programs. Section 37.135(d) of the regulations required that ADA complementary paratransit services meet these cri- teria by January 26, 1997. The U.S.DOT regulations implementing ADA address the issue of no-show policies in ADA complementary paratransit 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 complemen- tary paratransit service to ADA paratransit eligible individu- als who establish a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips. Section 37.125(h) further states that transit systems must consider only missed trips (no-shows) that are within the control of the rider and not count against the individual trips that are missed for reasons beyond the person’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. 4 Section 37.125(h) also outlines steps that must be taken by a transit agency before any suspension of service is imposed. Specifically, 49 CFR 37.125(h)(2) states that Before suspending service, the entity shall take the following steps: (i) Notify the individual in writing that the entity proposes to suspend service, citing with specificity the basis of the pro- posed suspension and setting forth the proposed suspension; (ii) Provide the individual an opportunity to be heard and to present information and arguments; (iii) Provide the individual with written notification of the deci- sion and the reasons for it. Regarding the appeals process that must be made avail- able to individuals for whom a suspension is proposed, the regulation states that the requirements that apply to the process available to persons who are denied eligibility [as detailed in Section 37.125(g)] are to be used. These appeals requirements include: • Allowing the person an opportunity to be heard and to present information and arguments, • A separation of functions (i.e., a decision on the appeal by a person not involved with the initial decision to sus- pend service), and • A written notification of the appeal decision and the rea- sons for it. Finally, Section 37.125(h)(3) of the regulation states that “The sanction is to be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal”; that is, ADA complementary paratransit service must continue to be made available to the person until the appeal of his or her proposed suspension is decided. In the Construction and Interpretation of Provisions section of the regulation (Appendix D), there is significant additional information interpreting the intent of Section 37.125. There also is guidance on how several aspects of a no-show policy should be implemented. The applicable section of Appendix D included in the Federal Register (Vol. 56, No. 173, p. 45747) provides the following additional guidance: The rule also allows an entity to establish a process to suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the provision of paratransit service to an ADA eligible person who establishes a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips. The purpose of this process would be to deter or deal with chronic ‘no-shows.’ The sanction system—artic- ulated criteria for the imposition of sanctions, length of suspension periods, details of the administrative process, etc.—would be CHAPTER TWO CURRENT STATUS OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

5developed through the public planning and participation process for the entity’s paratransit plan, and the result reflected in the plan submission to FTA. It is very important to note that sanctions could be imposed only for a ‘pattern or practice’ of missed trips. A pattern or prac- tice involves intentional, repeated, or regular actions, not iso- lated, accidental, or singular incidents. Moreover, only actions within the control of the individual count as part of a pattern or practice. Missed trips due to operator error are not attributable to the individual passenger for this purpose. If the vehicle arrives substantially after the scheduled pickup time, and the passenger has given up on the vehicle and taken a taxi or gone down the street to talk to a neighbor, that is not a missed trip attributable to the passenger. If the vehicle does not arrive at all, or is sent to the wrong address, or to the wrong entrance to a building, that is not a missed trip attributable to the passenger. There may be other circumstances beyond the individual’s control (e.g., a sud- den turn for the worse in someone with a variable condition, a sudden family emergency) that make it impracticable for the individual to travel at the scheduled time and also for the indi- vidual to notify the entity in time to cancel the trip before the vehicle comes. Such circumstances also would not form part of a sanctionable pattern or practice. Once an entity has certified someone as eligible, the individ- ual’s eligibility takes on the coloration of a property right…. Consequently, before eligibility may be removed ‘for cause’ under this provision, the entity must provide administrative due process to the individual. If the entity proposes to impose sanctions on someone, it must first notify the individual in writing (using accessible for- mats where necessary). The notice must specify the basis of the proposed sanction (e.g., Mr. Smith scheduled trips for 8 a.m. on May 15, 2 p.m. on June 3, 9 a.m. on June 21, and 9:20 p.m. on July 10, and on each occasion the vehicle appeared at the sched- uled time and Mr. Smith was nowhere to be found) and set forth the proposed sanction (e.g., Mr. Smith would not receive service for 15 days). The entity would provide the individual an opportunity to be heard (i.e., an in-person informal hearing before a decision maker) as well as to present written and oral information and arguments. All relevant entity records and personnel would be made available to the individual, and other persons could testify. It is likely that, in many cases, an important factual issue would be whether a missed trip was the responsibility of the provider or the passenger, and the testimony of other persons and the provider’s records or personnel are likely to be relevant in decid- ing this issue. While the hearing is intended to be informal, the individual could bring a representative (e.g., someone from an advocacy organization, an attorney). The individual may waive the hearing and proceed on the basis of written presentations. If the individual does not respond to the notice within a reasonable time, the entity may make, in effect, a default finding and impose sanctions. If there is a hearing, and the individual needs paratransit service to attend the hearing, the entity must provide it. We would emphasize that, prior to a finding against the individual after this due process procedure, the individual must continue to receive service. The entity cannot suspend service while the matter is pending. The entity must notify the individual in writing about the decision, the reasons for it, and the sanctions imposed, if any. Again, this information would be made available in accessible formats. In the case of a decision adverse to the individual, the administrative appeals process of this section would apply. The sanction would be stayed pending an appeal. There are means other than sanctions, however, by which a transit provider can deal with a ‘no-show’ problem in its system. Providers who use ‘real-time scheduling’ report that this tech- nique is very effective in reducing no-shows and cancellations, and increasing the mix of real-time scheduling in a system can probably be of benefit in this area. Calling the customer to recon- firm a reasonable time before pickup can head off some prob- lems, as can educating consumers to call with cancellations ahead of time. Training of dispatch and operator personnel can help to avoid miscommunications that lead to missed trips. In summary, some of the important additional aspects of no-show policies included in this excerpt from the interpre- tive section of the regulation are that: • The specifics of the no-show policy must be developed through the public planning and participation process. • A “pattern or practice” of missed trips involves inten- tional, repeated, or regular incidents. • Missed trips caused by scheduling errors or vehicles arriv- ing late for pick-ups should not be held against the rider. • Issues related to disability or to sudden emergencies that make it impracticable for riders to keep scheduled pick-ups or to call and cancel in a timely way can also be considered “beyond the rider’s control.” • ADA paratransit eligibility is to be treated at the level of a “property right” and the administrative process used in imposing sanctions must be careful to provide full due process. • Before sanctions can be imposed, transit agencies must notify riders in writing and list, in detail, the no-shows that have been recorded against them. • An informal hearing process must be provided for rid- ers to dispute the no-shows recorded or to offer reasons that the missed trips were beyond their control. • Transportation to this hearing must be provided, if needed. • After this informal hearing, if sanctions are to be imposed, riders must be notified in writing of this and given the specific reasons for the decision. • Riders then must be allowed to request a formal appeal (under appeal procedures similar to those used when applicants are denied eligibility). • Access to the ADA complementary paratransit service must be continued through the hearing and appeal process. • Approaches other than sanctions and suspensions for addressing no-show problems are encouraged. RECENT FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATIONS FTA is responsible for ensuring compliance with ADA and U.S.DOT regulations. As part of its compliance efforts, FTA, through its Office of Civil Rights, reviews formal complaints filed with its office and conducts periodic reviews of fixed- route transit and ADA complementary paratransit services operated by grantees. The information included here represents

publicly available regulatory interpretations and guidance offered by FTA based on ADA paratransit compliance reviews, related transmittal letters and letters of findings, and responses to consumer complaints that pertain to the topic of no-show and late cancellation policies. Two primary concerns related to no-show/late cancella- tion policies have been identified by FTA during recent reviews of grantee ADA complementary paratransit pro- grams. The first issue is concerned with late cancellation policies. The second issue is concerned with establishing a pattern or practice of no-shows. Late Cancellations “[The transit system] should reconsider its policy of suspending persons who do not cancel by 5:00 PM on the day before service and should ensure that its definition of a late cancellations is operationally equivalent to a no-show in terms of the negative impact on the service” (FTA October 1993). In a November 2002 review of ADA paratransit service provided by a transit system, FTA stated that a no-show pol- icy that counted cancellations made after 5 p.m. on the day before service in its determination of a pattern or practice of missed trips was not consistent with the regulations. The finding specifically stated that 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 poli- cies, 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’ vehi- cles or with limited ‘floater’ capacity, often rely on same-day cancellations to be able to operate reliably and on-time. [The transit system] should reconsider its policy of suspending per- sons who do not cancel by 5:00 PM the day before service and should ensure that its definition of a late cancellation is opera- tionally equivalent to a no-show in terms of its impact on the ser- vice (FTA October 2003). In a June 2004 letter, from FTA, this position was reiterated: The regulations permit service suspension only for customer missed trips and not for late cancellations such as described in [the paratransit system’s] policies. FTA recognizes late can- cellations that are the ‘functional equivalent’ of a missed trip, or customer no-show, in service suspension policies. FTA does not consider cancellations after 5:00 PM on the day before the service day the functional equivalent of a trip missed by a customer. While it is recognized that cancellations after 5:00 PM affect schedules that are created a day in advance, FTA does not agree that the slack time initially created by cancellations received well in advance of the actual pick-up time have the same effect on capacity and costs as riders not boarding after vehicles have already traveled to the pick-up location (missed trips). In fact, 6 many systems rely on a certain percent of cancellations to create the slack time in schedules needed to address same day service delivery issues, such as routes running late. This is particularly true in systems [such as this transit system] where floater vehi- cles are not used and same day service issues are largely handled through utilization of available slack time on runs. Much of the slack time initially created by cancellations is therefore eventu- ally used effectively. This may not be the case, though, if can- cellations are made close to the scheduled pick-up time (e.g., less than 1–2 hours before the scheduled pick-up time). As indicated in this correspondence, late cancellations can be considered a kind of missed trip as long as they are the “functional equivalent” of a no-show. According to FTA, cancellations made after 5 p.m. the day before ser- vice are not the functional equivalent of a no-show; how- ever, cancellations made only 1 to 2 h before the scheduled pick-up might be considered the functional equivalent of a no-show. Pattern or Practice of No-Shows “A pattern or practice involves intentional, repeated, or regular actions, not isolated, accidental, or singular incident” (FTA October 2003). In the same transit system review, FTA provided addi- tional guidance on what level of no-shows might be consid- ered a pattern or practice of abuse of the system. Considering only six no-shows or late cancellations in a six- month period to be excessive and an abuse of the service may unreasonably limit service to ADA eligible customers. Appen- dix D of 49 CFR Part 37 indicates that suspensions of eligibil- ity 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.’ [The transit system] should reconsider this policy and should also consider analyzing over- all frequency of riders’ use of the service as well as the num- ber of no-shows when determining whether there is a sufficient pattern or practice of no-shows to justify a suspension (FTA October 2003). In its March 2004, quarterly progress report, the transit system changed its no-show policy so that 10 violations within a 6-month period may result in a suspension of 2 weeks, and 15 violations within the same rolling 6-month period may result in a suspension of 3 weeks. In a December 2004, letter FTA stated that We remain concerned that [the transit system’s] revised policy could result in suspension of service for regular riders who, due to the frequency of their trips, amass 10 to 15 violations, but at the same time do not establish a pattern or practice of no-shows. To appropriately determine such a pattern or practice, we encourage you to consider the frequency of use by the rider. Automatic Cancellation of Return Trips “We find [the transit system’s] policy to cancel automatically a return trip if the rider was a ‘no-show’ for the first half of the trip not acceptable” (FTA February 2001).

7FTA also has provided guidance on scheduling and dis- patching procedures related to rider no-shows. In a letter of finding from February 2001, from FTA to a costumer, related to a complaint that a return ride was automatically canceled by the transit system after the rider was recorded as a no-show on the “going” portion of the roundtrip, the FTA stated: “We find [the transit agency’s] policy to cancel auto- matically a return trip if the rider was a ‘no-show’ for the first half of the trip not acceptable.” Then, in a follow-up letter in April 2001, from FTA to the same transit agency, FTA stated: “We ask that you take every step possible to ensure that an assumed ‘no-show’ is in fact an actual ‘no-show’ before canceling the return trip.” Other Related FTA Findings Additionally, several other recent ADA compliance reviews have cited issues relating to no-show/late cancellation poli- cies and practices. These letters included findings related to the frequency of use (i.e., establishing a pattern or practice of no-shows), duration of suspension, and late cancellations as the functional equivalent of no-shows. For example, in a December 2003 letter to a transit agency, FTA requested that the agency Please review your policy regarding late cancellations to ensure that only late cancellations that are the functional equivalent of a no-show are considered in your suspension policy and provide my office with your updated policy within 30 days. As for the suspension of service for no-shows/late cancella- tions, considering only three no-shows or six cancellations in a 30-day period to be excessive and an abuse of the service may unreasonably limit service to ADA-eligible customers.… [the transit agency] should reconsider this policy and should also con- sider analyzing overall frequency of riders’ use of the service, as well as the number of no-shows, when determining whether there is a sufficient pattern or practice of no-shows to justify a suspen- sion (FTA December 2003). In a later ADA paratransit compliance review of a tran- sit’s agency’s ADA paratransit system, FTA again expressed the need to consider the frequency with which riders use the service when determining whether a certain number of no-shows or late cancellations constitute a pattern or practice of abuse of the service. The finding specifically stated that A policy of considering only six missed trips in a calendar year to constitute a pattern or practice of abuse may unreasonably limit service to ADA eligible customers and does not appear to be con- sistent 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 fur- ther noted, ‘a pattern or practice involves intentional, repeated or regular actions, not isolated, accidental, or singular incident.’ For a person traveling regularly (e.g., 10 trips a week), this level of missed trips would constitute only about 1% of all scheduled rides. Missing only one out of every 100 trips scheduled does not seem to be a reasonable standard for defining a ‘pattern or prac- tice’ or abuse of the service (FTA April 2004). In response to this finding, the transit agency drafted a new policy based on a point system, which was submitted to FTA in a quarterly report. However, in a December 2004, let- ter to the transit agency, FTA provided a clarification of its request for corrective action: The proposed policy detailed in [the transit agency’s] July 15, 2004, letter proposes a first suspension (for three days) for eight (8) accumulated points in a 180-day period. The suspen- sion could therefore be triggered for a total of four no-shows, with two points given for each no-show. The prior policy, which FTA questioned, allowed for a suspension after six no- shows in a calendar year. The proposed policy seems to be only a marginal change. Under the proposed policy, a person traveling five days a week (10 one-way trips a week) could be suspended for no-showing only 1.5% of their scheduled trips. We still feel that this rate of no-shows does not constitutes a ‘pattern or practice’ as intended by the regulations. To appro- priately determine a ‘pattern or practice,’ we also would sug- gest that the new policy consider the frequency of use of the service by the rider. The proposed policy also escalates the period of suspension from three days (for 8 points, or 4 no-shows) to one year (for 21 points, or 11 no-shows). Section 37.125(h) of 49 CFR Part 37 allows for a suspension for ‘a reasonable period of time.’ Given the importance of paratransit service to an ADA paratransit eligi- ble person, a one-year suspension for missing 11 one-way trips (or perhaps only 5 round-trips out of a potential 130 round-trips, at 5 per week) in a six-month period does not seem to be reasonable. In another ADA paratransit compliance review final report, published in October 2004, FTA included findings related to no-shows and late cancellation policies and prac- tices. One finding noted that: While the current practice appears to be appropriate, the formal policy, which considers seven or more no-shows or late cancel- lations 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. . . . Seven no-shows or late cancellations in a six-month period, par- ticularly when considering a customer who uses the service fre- quently, may not rise to the level of a pattern or practice as intended by the regulations and described in the associated appendix (FTA October 2004). FTA also found that 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 poli- cies, 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’ vehi- cles or with limited ‘floater’ capacity, often rely on same-day cancellations to be able to operate reliably and on time. [The transit agency] should reconsider its policy of suspending per- sons who do not cancel by 5:00 PM the day before service and should ensure that its definition of a ‘late cancellation’ is opera- tionally equivalent to a no-show in terms of its impact on the ser- vice (FTA October 2004).

The most recent findings related to no-show/late cancel- lation policies were included in the final report for an ADA paratransit review, which was issued in January 2005. Two of FTA’s findings related to no-shows and late cancellations. One finding stated that: [The transit agency’s] policy of considering only three no-shows in a 90-day period to be excessive and an abuse of the service may unreasonably limit service to ADA eligible customers and does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the regula- tions. 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”.’… ‘A pattern or practice involves inten- tional, repeated or regular actions, not isolated, accidental, or singular incidents.’ Given that a rider who forgets that he or she has booked a trip could be assessed two no-shows for a single round-trip, three no-shows could be exceeded by forgetting to cancel only two round-trips. For a rider who travels regularly (say, 10 one-way trips a week), three missed trips in a 90-day period would be only two percent of the total trips made by that person. Missing only two out of every 100 trips scheduled does not seem to be a reasonable standard for defining a ‘pattern or practice’ or abuse of the service (FTA January 2005). In the January 2005, letter transmitting the final report, FTA further clarifies its position with respect to assessing no-shows: While FTA understands that passenger no-shows impose a cost on service, [the transit agency’s] current policy appears unduly severe for frequent riders. One way of addressing frequent rid- ers in [the] policy is to consider trip frequency as part of the pol- icy. And while a rider may appeal a service suspension and tran- sit agency staff may be cautious in applying the policy, this does not make the policy reasonable. Please identify what actions [the transit agency] plans to take to further review its policy of suspending service for three no- shows in a 90-day period. Another finding from the same final report relating to sus- pensions stated that [The transit agency’s] policy regarding suspensions does not appear to be a ‘reasonable sanction’ for abuses of the service. DOT ADA regulations allow service to be suspended for a pat- tern or practice of no-shows for a ‘reasonable period of time.’ The current [transit agency] policy could result in a suspension of eli- gibility for one year, a revocation of eligibility, and a requirement to reapply for eligibility for a rider who no-shows or late cancels 12 times over a one-year period (FTA January 2005). In this same letter, transmitting the final report to the tran- sit agency, FTA further clarifies its position with respect to the transit agency’s policy for suspending service: For a rider who takes 10 one-way trips per week, 12 no-shows or late cancels over a one-year period would represent a no- show/late cancel rate of less than three percent. The potential suspension of one year seems unduly severe for such a rider. As suggested in Finding A.9, one way of addressing frequent riders in [the transit agency’s] policy is to consider trip frequency as part of the policy. The fact that [the transit agency] has been lenient in enforcing this policy is not ‘evidence of the value and effectiveness of the new policy’ and does not make the policy reasonable. 8 Please identify what actions [the transit agency] plans to take to further review its policy of suspending eligibility for 12 no- shows or late cancels in a year. This comment is slightly different from the other reviews in that it points out FTA’s position that being lenient in enforcing the suspension policy does not make the policy reasonable. OTHER RESOURCES In addition to the regulatory review, a literature and resource review was conducted as part of this synthesis study including a targeted search of FTA, APTA, Commu- nity Transportation Association of America, and Trans- portation Research Information Service websites. There were few references specifically focusing on no-shows and late cancellations. Typically, the documenta- tion was found in discussions related to the 14-day advance reservation requirement originally included in the ADA reg- ulations. As originally written, the ADA regulations required that reservations be accepted up to 14 days in advance [49 CFR 37.121(b)(4)]. That requirement was dropped on May 21, 1996, allowing transit agencies—with public input—to change their advance reservation procedures. It was felt that by allowing customers to book 2 weeks in advance, they would either generate additional calls to cancel or reschedule a trip during that period or result in additional no-shows or same-day cancellations, because customers forgot they had booked a trip or plans changed at the last minute. The dis- cussion included in the Federal Register stated that The most common complaint about advance reservations was that they caused an unmanageable number of cancellations and no-shows. Twenty-one commenters suggested penalties for rid- ers who failed to show up for scheduled rides. Twelve other commenters suggested that this problem could be solved by requiring confirmation. Among these twelve comments were three different suggestions for when the confirmation should be made; there was also disagreement over whether the rider or the transit provider should be responsible for making the confirma- tion call (Federal Register 1996). Finally, the literature review identified a 1993 publication, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Eligibility Manual Final Report. The document, prepared for FTA, specifically addressed the issue of no-show and late cancellation policies. The report reiterated the requirements of 49 CFR 37.125(h), described in the previous section, and pointed out that It is important to note that ‘no-shows’ are different than cancel- lations and that the regulations do not specify that service can be suspended for a pattern or practice of cancellations. A major cause of cancellations is the advance notice required for use of paratransit services—a policy that does not exist for fixed-route service. Sanctions cannot be imposed on individuals whose schedules change frequently and who are therefore required to change or cancel their scheduled paratransit trips (EG&G Dyna- trend 1993).

9the manual suggests that a pattern or practice might be estab- lished if a rider had three times this average rate (or 12% no- shows). SUMMARY Much has been written about the topic of complying with the ADA paratransit regulations, particularly the debate over accommodating all eligible trip requests. Although this addi- tional guidance does not establish what frequency of no-shows might constitute a pattern or practice or what period of suspension might be considered “a reasonable period of time,” it does begin to frame the issues and indi- cates what types of policies FTA may not consider accept- able based on recent ADA regulatory interpretations. Another comment included in the report suggested an approach for establishing a pattern or practice of no-shows, which might be applicable to this discussion: 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 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 a three percent rate, even for frequent users of the service, would be defensible (EG&G Dynatrend 1993). This comment appears to be the first occurrence of a sug- gested formula for determining a pattern or practice of no-shows and appears to be consistent with recent FTA com- pliance review findings. Applying the example given to a system that has an average of 4% no-shows, the language in

Next: Chapter Three - Survey of Transit Agencies »
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!