MetroAccess Community Engagement Summary
-
Upload
capital-metro -
Category
Documents
-
view
2.031 -
download
0
description
Transcript of MetroAccess Community Engagement Summary
August 2010
MetroAccess Policy ChangesCommunity Engagement Summary
Our Goal
Educate community about MetroAccess and challenges
Obtain input on realistic MetroAccess policy options
What We Did
What We Did
Policy options workshops (4)– Voting on policy options– Comments/concerns/suggestions
Social service agency forum
Online engagement– Webpage for proposed policy options– Contextual video for policy changes – Email feedback– Blog comments
Internal engagement (MetroAccess Operators)
MetroAccess Policy Changes Workshops
Winters Building
Conley-Guerrero Senior Center
Austin City Hall
ACC South Austin
How We Spread the Word
How We Spread the Word
Passenger notices on MetroAccess vehicles
MetroAccess call-out system
Email – MetroConnections newsletter– Partner organization newsletters
Letter to social service agencies
Surveys in MetroAccess breakroom
Who Participated
Who Participated
Policy Workshops 206 Attendees (190 participants)
Social Services Forum 27 Attendees
Email/Blog comments 17 Comments
Operator Surveys 43 Responses
Policy Workshops: Area of Residence
87% Response Rate
18%13%
20% 20% 21%
0% 1% 2% 4%
Centra
l Austi
n
Southe
ast A
ustin
Southw
est A
ustin
North
east
Austin
North
west A
ustin
Lean
derMan
or
Del Vall
eOthe
r
7%4%
43%
7% 7%
85%
MetroBus MetroExpress MetroRail MetroAccess MetroRideShare
I Don’t UseCapital Metro
Policy Workshops: Capital Metro Services Used
92% Response Rate
What We Heard
What We Heard: Overall
Strong preference for no change
Concern regarding details of policy implementation
Fear of losing eligibility/mistrust
General understanding of need to reduce costs
Willingness to pay more for premium services
Curb to Curb for All3%
Curb to Curb with Door to Door Option
97%
Policy Workshops: Service Standard (Level of Service)
36% Response Rate
Service Standard (Level of Service)
Comments– Notification of vehicle arrival– Waiting in elements– Customers need to be made aware of options
Suggestions– Charge a higher fare for door-to-door service
Policy Workshops: Paratransit Service Area
38% Response Rate
¾ Mile Service Area w/ transition
plan75%
¾ Mile Service Area
25%
Paratransit Service Area
Comments– Difficulty moving into the service area– Should serve all CMTA taxpayers– Notification of service area changes
Suggestions– Serve entire CMTA taxing district– Charge premium fare for service outside ¾ mile– Taxi vouchers for service outside ¾ mile – Partner with social service agencies for van service outside ¾
mile area
In-person Interview AND
functional assessment by 3rd party
46% In-person interview by
CMTA, Functional
Assessment by 3rd Party
30%
In-person interview AND
functional assesment by
CMTA25%
Policy Workshops: Eligibility for Paratransit Service
30% Response Rate
Eligibility for Paratransit Service
Comments– Loss of eligibility for MetroAccess service– Capacity of MetroBus service, especially for wheelchairs– Bias of CMTA and 3rd party contractor in determining eligibility– Individual and their personal doctor know their condition best
Suggestions– Keep current process, but revise application to provide more
information– Permanently disabled customers should not have to recertify
Eliminate Open
Returns3%
Medical Only w/
Est.8%
Medical & Travel
Return w/ Est.89%
Policy Workshops: Open Returns
38% Response Rate
Open Return Policy
Comments– Cannot estimate return time for medical, travel and jury duty– Safety of passengers waiting for return trip
Suggestions– Expand eligible trips to include church, public meetings and jury
duty– Use taxi vouchers to replace open returns– Charge higher fare for open returns
Transition to Smart
Card w/ $10 Share39%
New Program w/ no trip limit, but limit on number of vouchers
50%
Eliminate Voucher Program
11%
Policy Workshops: Taxi Voucher on Request
28% Response Rate
Taxi Vouchers on Request
Comments– Details of policy option implementation - e.g. Option 2 – hoarding
of vouchers– Should maintain vouchers for medical and grocery trips– Loss of convenience and regular driver– Fairness for wheelchair customers
Suggestions– Eliminate vouchers and expand open returns
8 - 5 (3 day
window)85%
8 - 5 (2 day
window)2%
8 - 5 (1 day
window)12%
Policy Workshops: Call Center Operations
30% Response Rate
Call Center Operations
Comments– 8 – 5 is not convenient for customers’ work hours– IVR is not functional– Hold times could be increased and customer service degraded
Suggestions– Incentive for using IVR or online form– Longer hours on some days
18%
9%
36%36%
Very Useful Useful Not VeryUseful
Not Useful atAll
Policy Workshops: Usefulness of Policy Workshops
51% Response Rate
Questions?