Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

MetroAccess Community Engagement Summary


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

MetroAccess Community Engagement Summary

  1. 1. MetroAccess Policy Changes Community Engagement Summary August 2010
  2. 2. Our Goal Educate community about MetroAccess and challenges Obtain input on realistic MetroAccess policy options
  3. 3. What We Did
  4. 4. 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)
  5. 5. MetroAccess Policy Changes Workshops Winters Building Conley-Guerrero Senior Center Austin City Hall ACC South Austin
  6. 6. How We Spread the Word
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. Who Participated
  9. 9. Who Participated Policy Workshops 206 Attendees (190 participants) Social Services Forum 27 Attendees Email/Blog comments 17 Comments Operator Surveys 43 Responses
  10. 10. C en S tr ou al A th us ea tin S st ou A th us 18% w 87% Response Rate es tin N tA or th 13% us ea tin N st or th A us w tin es tA Policy Workshops: Area of Residence us tin Le an 20% 20% 21% de r M 0% an or D el 1% V al le O 2% th er 4%
  11. 11. Policy Workshops: Capital Metro Services Used 92% Response Rate 85% 43% 7% 7% 7% 4% MetroBus MetroExpress MetroRail MetroAccess M etro I Don’t Use RideShare Capital Metro
  12. 12. What We Heard
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Policy Workshops: Service Standard (Level of Service) 36% Response Rate Curb to Curb for All 3% Curb to Curb with Door to Door Option 97%
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. Policy Workshops: Paratransit Service Area 38% Response Rate ¾ Mile Service Area 25% ¾ Mile Service Area w/ transition plan 75%
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. Policy Workshops: Eligibility for Paratransit Service 30% Response Rate In-person interview AND functional In-person assesment by Interview AND CMTA functional 25% assessment by 3rd party 46% In-person interview by CMTA, Functional Assessment by 3rd Party 30%
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. Policy Workshops: Open Returns 38% Response Rate Eliminate Open Medical & Returns Travel 3% Return w/ Est. 89% Medical Only w/ Est. 8%
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Policy Workshops: Taxi Voucher on Request 28% Response Rate Eliminate Voucher Transition Program to Smart 11% Card w/ $10 Share 39% New Program w/ no trip limit, but limit on number of vouchers 50%
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Policy Workshops: Call Center Operations 30% Response Rate 8-5 (1 day window) 12% 8-5 (3 day 8-5 (2 day window) window) 85% 2%
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. Policy Workshops: Usefulness of Policy Workshops 51% Response Rate 36% 36% 18% 9% Very Useful Useful Not Very Not Useful at Useful All
  27. 27. Questions?