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?